Doesn't daddy get a say?

[RobinRobyn]

I think any woman that looks at getting pregnant as "slavery" shouldn't be having sex in the first place.

Let's not forget that women don't just wake up pregnant.

I take it you've never heard of roofies, then.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I think it's unlikely as well. The system is over-burdened and under-funded as it is. The money going in does not offset the expenses that the program creates even now, simply because there are more people who require benefits, more people who require more benefits, and increased cost of living have all taken their toll on a system that was fragile to begin with.



In the US, the benefits one would get from the state are far, far less than what a second income providing for the child would give, not all people qualify, and there are numerous factors that can increase or reduce the amount given. It is not a reliable income. And when you consider that there are literally millions of people in the US, married and unmarried, single parent or not, who do have child support or a second income coming in and they still require welfare to get by and it's barely enough, or still not enough, to support their family... To have the legal threat of removing support or get an abortion is a scary, scary thing that will certainly make a lot of women feel like they now have to get an abortion.

In our system now, lack of money is the number one reason for women to choose abortion. And that's with a requirement of child support.



Perhaps that's where we seperate on the issue. I want to see all rights protected, including that of any resulting children. I regard abortion as a required evil, but certainly one I'd like to see lessened as much as possible. And I'm concerned that the rights of women aren't violated in this proposal, removing from them the right to truly choose to be a parent or not without having to endure blackmail first.

In that case, if the system is not ready to give suitable support to single women should men be able to 'abort' their responsibility, I'd have to say that the best option for the moment would be to not give the man an option to 'abort' at all. After all, everyone knows the risks of having sex, and it's not difficult to not do it or at least use contraception (condoms for the man and the pill for the woman should leave barely any chance of conception).

It's an unequal system, with the man tied to the woman's decision, but it is by far the better option than just letting the man walk out when no suitable alternative funding exists. If suitable funding did exist, then we wouldn't have to worry about blackmail or the situation women could be left in.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Why? He chose to have sex, he knew the risks. Just because women are the ones who are pregnant and have the option to end the pregnancy before his obligations begin doesn't change the fact that he has a responsibility to the child, if it's born.

He has as much obligation to support the child as the mother does.

Why? He had a window already, it ended the moment he came. After that, he's no longer in control.

We could say the same about the woman (well, sightly reversed, but to the same point).

Sure, because she's the one who gets pregnant. He doesn't.

And you can say she has a responsibility to the child the moment she let a man impregnate her (of course, exception due to rape).

He does. His window just shuts right after sex.

And we can say that is where the mother choice closes as well.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I guess anyone can give up whatever rights they want to, so long as it's voluntary. Can't imagine a woman born after the 19th century doing it, though, but if she chooses, that's her right.

But when a woman gets married, she doesn't lose her rights as an individual, and hasn't since the 19th century or so.

You be surprised what some women will do because they were brought up that way.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I take it you've never heard of roofies, then.

Actually, someone tried to give me one, once.

But of course, you're smart enough to know that we're not talking about the exceptions here.

Women choose to have sex, just like you're saying the guys choose to have sex.

If women truly want reproductive freedoms, then they've got to have the whole package. They can't say "I want to be FREE!! but I can only do that with $300/week support payments from the sperm donor".

 

[allhart]

If my PEOPLE will turn from their evil ways. I will heal their land!

 

[RobinRobyn]

He has as much obligation to support the child as the mother does.

Exactly. His rights, though, are over the child, not the pregnant woman. He has no say, and no obligation, until the kid is born.

We could say the same about the woman (well, sightly reversed, but to the same point).

Not at all, since she is in control of the pregnancy. And that includes having the right to end it, if she wants to.

And you can say she has a responsibility to the child the moment she let a man impregnate her (of course, exception due to rape).

Of course she does. How she handles that responsiblity, though, is her business. And that includes having the right to end the pregnancy.

And we can say that is where the mother choice closes as well.

Except for the fact that it doesn't. Being the one who's pregnant, she has options that the man who impregnated her doesn't have.

 

[RobinRobyn]

You be surprised what some women will do because they were brought up that way.

Probably. But I'm still sure few women alive now, in this century, are unaware that they have their own rights, and that their husbands are not their owners.

 

[RobinRobyn]

Actually, someone tried to give me one, once.

But of course, you're smart enough to know that we're not talking about the exceptions here.

I wasn't aware we'd ruled them out.

Women choose to have sex, just like you're saying the guys choose to have sex.

True, most of the time.

I don't see how that affects the right for women to have an abortion, if they want. It isn't illegal.

If women truly want reproductive freedoms, then they've got to have the whole package. They can't say "I want to be FREE!! but I can only do that with $300/week support payments from the sperm donor".

You're talking about two different issues here:

1. Reproductive freedom means she has the right to make her own decisions regarding her pregnancy. And that includes the right to have an abortion.

2. Child support. Fathers are obligated to help pay for the children they've fathered.

These are two separate issues. A father's rights do not include the right to tell his girlfriend, or even his wife, what she can and can't do with her own body. She isn't his child, he isn't her father. A father's rights, and obligations, begin at birth, not before.

If you think it's unfair that he doesn't have a say in whether or not she gets an abortion, you'll have to take that up with whoever decided that women get pregnant instead of men.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

That's just a cop out. Woman doesn't want child, she aborts it. Guy doesn't want child, woman takes him to court and cleans him out.

So women have no obligation to a child they're carrying, but men have an obligation to a child that they didn't carry.

What utter crap.

 

[RobinRobyn]

That's just a cop out. Woman doesn't want child, she aborts it. Guy doesn't want child, woman takes him to court and cleans him out.

Well, you're exaggerating of course, but that's about the way things are.

So women have no obligation to a child they're carrying,

Sure they do. How they handle that obligation, though, is their business. You can disagree with her decisions if you want, but that doesn't mean she has to listen to you.

but men have an obligation to a child that they didn't carry.

What utter crap.

I'm sorry you think it's "utter crap" that men have obligations to their children. But they do.

Though, I'm not sure why you think so because men can't get pregnant.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I wasn't aware we'd ruled them out.



True, most of the time.

I don't see how that affects the right for women to have an abortion, if they want. It isn't illegal.




You're talking about two different issues here:

1. Reproductive freedom means she has the right to make her own decisions regarding her pregnancy. And that includes the right to have an abortion.

2. Child support. Fathers are obligated to help pay for the children they've fathered.

These are two separate issues. A father's rights do not include the right to tell his girlfriend, or even his wife, what she can and can't do with her own body. She isn't his child, he isn't her father. A father's rights, and obligations, begin at birth, not before.

If you think it's unfair that he doesn't have a say in whether or not she gets an abortion, you'll have to take that up with whoever decided that women get pregnant instead of men.

The idea behind both are the same (or in this case, contradictory). The father can be jailed (aka, have the right to his body denied to a varying extent, if not fully) for not paying some fee that he never agreed to pay. If sex means the father agrees to pay for the child, then it means the mother agrees to carry the child.

And it only gets worse when you consider the corruption of that system (men being forced to pay for children they didn't father, where the mother was able to deny access for a DNA test to prove he was the father, and he never signed off as the father, and when he finally had a test to prove he was not, the court still required him to pay).

Child support, especially as we have it now, is a relic of a system where women were economically dependent upon men. That time has passed, or do you want it back?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Exactly. His rights, though, are over the child, not the pregnant woman. He has no say, and no obligation, until the kid is born.

Not to mention, even ignoring the whole "pregnant women, thus can get an abortion", even after the child is born, the mother can take the child to a drop off shelter and not have to worry about the child, if she feels she is too close to snapping from the stress. The father, on the other hand, cannot wipe his hands clean, he must pay child support until the woman chooses to give the child up.

Child support, is when considering potential jail time if you do not pay, a form of slavery. So is forcing the woman to carry the child. The fact that one is a worse form of slavery (biological vs. economic), does not negate that both are wrong. And if either makes an agreement to care for the child merely by having sex, then they both do.

 

[RobinRobyn]

The idea behind both are the same (or in this case, contradictory).

Actually, they're not.

The father can be jailed (aka, have the right to his body denied to a varying extent, if not fully) for not paying some fee that he never agreed to pay.

But he did. He fathered a child, and he knows that means he's obligated, by law, to support that child.

If sex means the father agrees to pay for the child, then it means the mother agrees to carry the child.

No, because there is a legal way to end the pregnancy if she wants.

And it only gets worse when you consider the corruption of that system (men being forced to pay for children they didn't father, where the mother was able to deny access for a DNA test to prove he was the father, and he never signed off as the father, and when he finally had a test to prove he was not, the court still required him to pay).

Now you're getting into legal issues beyond this discussion. I don't know the specifics of the case you're discussing, so I can't discuss them. If you have a problem with that particular case, hire a lawyer.

Child support, especially as we have it now, is a relic of a system where women were economically dependent upon men. That time has passed, or do you want it back?

Really? All women, everywhere, are now completely financially independent? Wow, I must have missed something by not getting the paper this morning!

 

[RobinRobyn]

Not to mention, even ignoring the whole "pregnant women, thus can get an abortion", even after the child is born, the mother can take the child to a drop off shelter and not have to worry about the child, if she feels she is too close to snapping from the stress.

True, up to a point.

The father, on the other hand, cannot wipe his hands clean, he must pay child support until the woman chooses to give the child up.

True, he can't give up the child if he doesn't have custody. But the reality is, many fathers do find ways to avoid their financial obligations.

Child support, is when considering potential jail time if you do not pay, a form of slavery.

Not really, since sex was a voluntary act. Temporary indentured servitude perhaps, but not slavery.

So is forcing the woman to carry the child. The fact that one is a worse form of slavery (biological vs. economic), does not negate that both are wrong. And if either makes an agreement to care for the child merely by having sex, then they both do.

Except that the woman has legal options during pregnancy that the man does not have.

You may disagree with those options, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Except that the woman has legal options during pregnancy that the man does not have.

You may disagree with those options, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Which is kinda the whole point of this thread, or maybe you missed it.

We already KNOW guys get the short end of the stick. What we're talking about is WHY the playing field is lopsided and if there's any fixes to it.

We really don't need someone to just keep telling us the system - we've got that down pretty well.

FTR - I do not believe that simply being pregnant gives a woman any special rights over her fetus, just like being a sperm donor doesn't give a father any special rights over his fetus. (and let's be honest, it is his fetus as much as it is hers...)

 

[Yusuf Evans]

At no time, during pregnancy and after pregnancy, is the man's opinion counted. Fathers of children, are looked down upon in the eyes of the law and women right's groups. If a woman divorces a man and children are involved, the man is always going to pay for it, just because he's a man. The woman could be the worst woman in the world, having had numerous extra-marital affairs and leaving her kids in the care of strangers while her husband was away on business or deployed, but society will 99% of the time back her and say she's more fit to raise the kids and slam the father.

If a woman kills her newborns, something must've snapped and she should be locked up in a mental institution; if a man does it, people are crying for the death penalty and/or life imprisonment. Women have excuses if they abuse their children; men are seen as scum.

 

[SithDoughnut]

At no time, during pregnancy and after pregnancy, is the man's opinion counted. Fathers of children, are looked down upon in the eyes of the law and women right's groups. If a woman divorces a man and children are involved, the man is always going to pay for it, just because he's a man. The woman could be the worst woman in the world, having had numerous extra-marital affairs and leaving her kids in the care of strangers while her husband was away on business or deployed, but society will 99% of the time back her and say she's more fit to raise the kids and slam the father.

If a woman kills her newborns, something must've snapped and she should be locked up in a mental institution; if a man does it, people are crying for the death penalty and/or life imprisonment. Women have excuses if they abuse their children; men are seen as scum.

I'd like to see where you're getting all this from, because from what I see from the papers around here is that if children are harmed, the blame goes straight to the mother.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I'd like to see where you're getting all this from, because from what I see from the papers around here is that if children are harmed, the blame goes straight to the mother.

but there's usually some underlying excuse, like PPD or depression. Look at Susan Yates. The blame is usually placed on the mother BECAUSE of PPD or depression.

What Eazy E said is true. Although courts are starting to fall away from the "mother knows best" policy, most of them still find for the mother. One of my good friends is currently fighting for custody of his two girls. He has mountains of evidence that she drinks heavily and has driven under the influence with the girls. His oldest, who is 9, took pictures of her mother passed out in the bathtub. You'd think it would be a slam dunk for him to get custody, right? Nope...they've been battling for three years and each time she is awarded full custody and he gets only nominal visitation. The "maternal bond" is too strong.

Fathers simply are devalued. Single women adopt children all the time. Single men are automatically under suspicion if they want to adopt, and in most foreign adoptions, single men cannot adopt period, or they cannot adopt young children.

So much for "equal" rights, eh?

 

[SithDoughnut]

but there's usually some underlying excuse, like PPD or depression. Look at Susan Yates. The blame is usually placed on the mother BECAUSE of PPD or depression.

What Eazy E said is true. Although courts are starting to fall away from the "mother knows best" policy, most of them still find for the mother. One of my good friends is currently fighting for custody of his two girls. He has mountains of evidence that she drinks heavily and has driven under the influence with the girls. His oldest, who is 9, took pictures of her mother passed out in the bathtub. You'd think it would be a slam dunk for him to get custody, right? Nope...they've been battling for three years and each time she is awarded full custody and he gets only nominal visitation. The "maternal bond" is too strong.

Fathers simply are devalued. Single women adopt children all the time. Single men are automatically under suspicion if they want to adopt, and in most foreign adoptions, single men cannot adopt period, or they cannot adopt young children.

So much for "equal" rights, eh?

In that case, I'd say your legal system needs some major adjustments... I understand men not having any say on abortion, that makes sense, but not being able to adopt?