-
-
SLR Moderators: Senior Staff
Question: Do men have the right NOT to be fathers?
- Thread starter Raz
- Start date
Rhombus
Bluelighter
kittyinthedark said:
Absolutely. There's no other way to look at it as being anything other than the woman's decision. Which means that she must live with the consequences of that decision.
Beatlebot
Bluelight Crew
Whoah! Are you saying that men don't have any responsibilities at all?
No responsibilities means no rights. That's not a good road to go down.
What is all this crap about a man not having a decision? He does have a decision, when the process still concerns his body. He gets to make a decision then.
When it concerns the woman's body, it's her decision.
It doesn't get any fairer than that.
No responsibilities means no rights. That's not a good road to go down.
What is all this crap about a man not having a decision? He does have a decision, when the process still concerns his body. He gets to make a decision then.
When it concerns the woman's body, it's her decision.
It doesn't get any fairer than that.
up all night
Bluelight Crew
^ I agree with you, but at the same time women seem to get two chances to make that decision. Firstly when she has unprotected sex and secondly when she actually has to decide whether she keeps the baby or not. When do men get their second choice? It may be HER body but how is that the fault of the man? Why should men be disadvantaged just because they aren't the 'incubator?'
I do feel sorry for men who are caught in this position, but, in the long run, I think our current system is much better for society in general. If things were changed so men could absolve themselves of responsibility before the baby is born I think that there would be many children born into much more difficult circumstances and that's not good for anyone.
I do feel sorry for men who are caught in this position, but, in the long run, I think our current system is much better for society in general. If things were changed so men could absolve themselves of responsibility before the baby is born I think that there would be many children born into much more difficult circumstances and that's not good for anyone.
Rhombus
Bluelighter
Beatlebot said:
I'm not saying any such thing.
If you look at my original post you'll see that I say the man and woman have equal responsibility for avoiding pregnancy in the first place.
Once this has occured it's down to the woman to choose. "No responsibilities means no rights" cuts both ways. The man has no right to choose whether or not the woman keeps the baby, so it's not fair for him to be responsible for the consequences of a decision on which he has no say.
Beatlebot
Bluelight Crew
You keep saying that he has no say, that is wrong.
I didn't say it was fair, I said it's as fair as it gets. I don't see how making a child go without the support of two parents makes it any fairer.
UAN - Why should women have to bleed every month? Why should women have their bodies changed forever by childbirth? Why should a woman have to risk her life to procreate?
I didn't say it was fair, I said it's as fair as it gets. I don't see how making a child go without the support of two parents makes it any fairer.
ayjay
Bluelighter
I think there are 2 issues here. One is about when is a father not a father. If a baby is conceived with my sperm, I'm her/his father, whether I like it or not. The man in the quoted article is that girl's father. What that actually means is something to be worked out over time.
The second issue is - if a child is born, who's gonna pay? Personally, I think it is the responsibility of the state to provide for the health and well being of its citizens, regardless of their individual abilities to pay for said health. Clearly, that doesn't happen in the US, so you've got to screw the money out of someone...
In some ways, I think this case strikes at the heart of misogyny - men hate women because women hold the power of life and death between their legs. What a cock crinkler!!
The second issue is - if a child is born, who's gonna pay? Personally, I think it is the responsibility of the state to provide for the health and well being of its citizens, regardless of their individual abilities to pay for said health. Clearly, that doesn't happen in the US, so you've got to screw the money out of someone...
In some ways, I think this case strikes at the heart of misogyny - men hate women because women hold the power of life and death between their legs. What a cock crinkler!!
it's a tough situation, and it's hard to be fair to all involved.
personally, i think if a man does not want to be a father he shouldn't have to take any responsibility for the child or pay maintenance.
i am a single mother, and i chose (against the fathers wishes) to have my baby.
our relationship was pretty much over before i found out i was pregnant so i could've gotten away with telling him the baby wasn't his but i'm not that kind of person, he has the right to know.
after he told me he didn't want to be a father we discussed whether or not to put his name on the birth certificate. i explained if his name was on it he would have to pay maintenance. i felt that if he didn't want the child, he shouldn't have to pay, he disagreed. so we put his name on the certificate.
don't get me wrong, i'd never hide who he is from my daughter, no matter what the certificate said, it just would have been better for him financially.
while he has no roll in her life, other than the occasional birthday/christmas present and a chance encounter here and there, the maintenance still goes into my daughters bank account every fortnight.
personally, i think if a man does not want to be a father he shouldn't have to take any responsibility for the child or pay maintenance.
i am a single mother, and i chose (against the fathers wishes) to have my baby.
our relationship was pretty much over before i found out i was pregnant so i could've gotten away with telling him the baby wasn't his but i'm not that kind of person, he has the right to know.
after he told me he didn't want to be a father we discussed whether or not to put his name on the birth certificate. i explained if his name was on it he would have to pay maintenance. i felt that if he didn't want the child, he shouldn't have to pay, he disagreed. so we put his name on the certificate.
don't get me wrong, i'd never hide who he is from my daughter, no matter what the certificate said, it just would have been better for him financially.
while he has no roll in her life, other than the occasional birthday/christmas present and a chance encounter here and there, the maintenance still goes into my daughters bank account every fortnight.
Aishas Star
Bluelighter
This is the situation my partner is in. He was with a girl for so long, she stopped taking the pill and didnt tell him. 3 weeks later she tells him shes pregnant. And only 18 at the time he would have been 22.
Im pretty sure he made it clear that he didnt want children. But stayed with her anyway, bought a house. He came over to australia for an international DJ gig and he had one of his fiends tell him that she had cheated on him while he was here. He left her when he got home and she still demands that he pay for her everything, not just stuff for the kid but the TV and phone bills too.
It was her choice to cheat on him, not only once but i suspect many times. She wont let him see the child (not that he wants to) but still demands money.
I definitely agree that if a woman should want to bring up a child and a man does not, then it is her choice and she should pay the bills. If it was the other way round and men were the most common children providers of love and care then there is no way a woman would pay for their anything if she had nothing to do with the child/did not want to keep it.
*Edit* And he doesnt even know if its his child either
Of course i do think there is always 2 sides to a story i do believe that my partner is talling me the whole of what he thinks is the truth.. BUT THERE IS ALWAYS 2 SIDES TO A STORY!
Im pretty sure he made it clear that he didnt want children. But stayed with her anyway, bought a house. He came over to australia for an international DJ gig and he had one of his fiends tell him that she had cheated on him while he was here. He left her when he got home and she still demands that he pay for her everything, not just stuff for the kid but the TV and phone bills too.
It was her choice to cheat on him, not only once but i suspect many times. She wont let him see the child (not that he wants to) but still demands money.
I definitely agree that if a woman should want to bring up a child and a man does not, then it is her choice and she should pay the bills. If it was the other way round and men were the most common children providers of love and care then there is no way a woman would pay for their anything if she had nothing to do with the child/did not want to keep it.
*Edit* And he doesnt even know if its his child either
Of course i do think there is always 2 sides to a story i do believe that my partner is talling me the whole of what he thinks is the truth.. BUT THERE IS ALWAYS 2 SIDES TO A STORY!
up all night
Bluelight Crew
beatlebot: Are you comparing a period to having to pay child support ? That's awesome. :D Having your period does not change your entire life.
Make a pre-sex contract. I know that the law is there to "protect the rights of the child," which, roughly translated means "we don't want to pay for anyone's kids." The kids are just a shield used by society.
I strongly believe that there should be an option for both parties upon impregnation, especially if a contract was signed prior stating that both parties were entering into a sexual relationship with the full understanding that you have no interest in raising a child in any way, shape, or form. Say, have the full cash amount of an abortion AT HAND in front of a notary republic, justice of the peace, judge, magistrate, etc., and declare that you are willing to foot the entire price of the abortion. Along with that, you are willing to break off any and all relations now and say, for a five or ten year period of time (or even in perpetuity) with this person so that the same thing cannot happen again. Place the money in front of the judge, well away from the man's hands. This is where the choice comes in. If the woman accepts, then fine and dandy, they are of a single mind. The man was able to excercise a choice, and the woman was also. The money goes to an abortion, and we'll even say an extra thousand or two for post-abortive therapy.
However, if the woman decides that she wants the child, even after signing the pre-sex contract with full disclosure, then the man should have the money returned to him and he must sign a legal, binding document which states that he gives up any and all rights to this child, both real and implied (monetary, emotional, visitation, etc.) in perpetuity, if he does not want to pay child support and wants nothing to do with this vile entrapment. Even enforce a chemical sterilization upon him for a period of a few years, if necessary. He is then allowed to walk. He has upheld his end. The woman is still allowed to have her choice. She chose to keep the child, and so the man should not be able to deny that. However, she should not be able to imprison him and his checkbook just because she chose selfishness over common sense.
And that's the key. No one should be permitted to enslave another person just because of selfish desires. If a man rapes a woman with the deliberate intent of impregnating her, then the deal obviously doesn't stand. He should not force upon her a child she would not want just to lay a claim over her. She should be given the option of the abortion or adoption or child support. But at that point, it is a criminal proceeding, not civil, and so goes beyond the concept originally discussed here.
Slavery is a vile thing. Bending another to one's desires without any freedom of choice or action. The condition of being subject to a specified influence. These people who decide they have to have these children without any forethought as to how they will raise them save for the enslavement of the other party involved.
A child should never be used as a weapon. This world is moving faster and faster to "he who whines loudest gets the most," and that's not how it should be. It should be a matter of stand upon your own feet. A matter of choice and responsibility. You cannot say "it takes two to tango, so pony up the cash, buster," when the man has no choice in the matter other than "keep it in your pants." When one side has all of the choices, that's inequality at its worst. Equality is one thing I believe in. Not slavery. Choice.
I strongly believe that there should be an option for both parties upon impregnation, especially if a contract was signed prior stating that both parties were entering into a sexual relationship with the full understanding that you have no interest in raising a child in any way, shape, or form. Say, have the full cash amount of an abortion AT HAND in front of a notary republic, justice of the peace, judge, magistrate, etc., and declare that you are willing to foot the entire price of the abortion. Along with that, you are willing to break off any and all relations now and say, for a five or ten year period of time (or even in perpetuity) with this person so that the same thing cannot happen again. Place the money in front of the judge, well away from the man's hands. This is where the choice comes in. If the woman accepts, then fine and dandy, they are of a single mind. The man was able to excercise a choice, and the woman was also. The money goes to an abortion, and we'll even say an extra thousand or two for post-abortive therapy.
However, if the woman decides that she wants the child, even after signing the pre-sex contract with full disclosure, then the man should have the money returned to him and he must sign a legal, binding document which states that he gives up any and all rights to this child, both real and implied (monetary, emotional, visitation, etc.) in perpetuity, if he does not want to pay child support and wants nothing to do with this vile entrapment. Even enforce a chemical sterilization upon him for a period of a few years, if necessary. He is then allowed to walk. He has upheld his end. The woman is still allowed to have her choice. She chose to keep the child, and so the man should not be able to deny that. However, she should not be able to imprison him and his checkbook just because she chose selfishness over common sense.
And that's the key. No one should be permitted to enslave another person just because of selfish desires. If a man rapes a woman with the deliberate intent of impregnating her, then the deal obviously doesn't stand. He should not force upon her a child she would not want just to lay a claim over her. She should be given the option of the abortion or adoption or child support. But at that point, it is a criminal proceeding, not civil, and so goes beyond the concept originally discussed here.
Slavery is a vile thing. Bending another to one's desires without any freedom of choice or action. The condition of being subject to a specified influence. These people who decide they have to have these children without any forethought as to how they will raise them save for the enslavement of the other party involved.
A child should never be used as a weapon. This world is moving faster and faster to "he who whines loudest gets the most," and that's not how it should be. It should be a matter of stand upon your own feet. A matter of choice and responsibility. You cannot say "it takes two to tango, so pony up the cash, buster," when the man has no choice in the matter other than "keep it in your pants." When one side has all of the choices, that's inequality at its worst. Equality is one thing I believe in. Not slavery. Choice.
Rhombus
Bluelighter
I'd rather bleed every month than lose $475 every month, and I'm pretty sure a lot of guys would feel the same way.
As Ayjay says, the state should be responsible for looking after its citizens. Every time I get medical treatment for free I'm glad I live in the (relatively!) social paradise of the UK, where we don't leave our poorest and disadvantaged citizens to fend for themselves.
As Ayjay says, the state should be responsible for looking after its citizens. Every time I get medical treatment for free I'm glad I live in the (relatively!) social paradise of the UK, where we don't leave our poorest and disadvantaged citizens to fend for themselves.
QuestionEverything
Bluelight Crew
This is like saying that just because one party is the one that wants the divorce the other shouldn't have to pay alimony. Yes, there is another life involved, but basically, same argument, just because one person doesn't want it, they shouldn't pay.
I totally disagree with that way of thinking. Pregnancy is a risk of having sex, if you don't want the consequences (stds, pregnancy, relationship complications) then you have the choice to not participate. Just my opinion.
[edit: Just like you have the choice to have a prenup, you have the chioce to wear a condom or not have sex if you're that set on not wanting a child.]
I totally disagree with that way of thinking. Pregnancy is a risk of having sex, if you don't want the consequences (stds, pregnancy, relationship complications) then you have the choice to not participate. Just my opinion.
[edit: Just like you have the choice to have a prenup, you have the chioce to wear a condom or not have sex if you're that set on not wanting a child.]
QuestionEverything
Bluelight Crew
posner said:
If you're an American citizen you pay it anyway for the welfare system.
So are all the people saying that he should pay, and that's that, the child's life trumps any and all of his rights ... are you also saying that you're anti-abortion? I mean, if the child's life trumps all of his rights, then they should also trump her rights to get an abortion, right?
The argument for the mother's total right to abort a pregnancy and the argument for the father's total obligation to support the results of it are inconsistent. If a woman schemes (or even follows through by accident) to use a deceived sex partner as an unknowing sperm donor, clearly it defines the point where the idea of holding both parents responsible for the resulting pregnancy breaks down. The mother has used the father as a substitute turkey baster, and his legally enforceable obligations should be the same as a turkey baster. Women have a right to choose to be single mothers. The decision to conceive a child against the express wishes of a non-spousal sex partner should be regarded as that choice.
But that's their choice. If they choose to do so, then let them. But their choice should be a personal one and not contingent upon forcing someone else to pay for their choice, unlike the current "strategy."
The argument for the mother's total right to abort a pregnancy and the argument for the father's total obligation to support the results of it are inconsistent. If a woman schemes (or even follows through by accident) to use a deceived sex partner as an unknowing sperm donor, clearly it defines the point where the idea of holding both parents responsible for the resulting pregnancy breaks down. The mother has used the father as a substitute turkey baster, and his legally enforceable obligations should be the same as a turkey baster. Women have a right to choose to be single mothers. The decision to conceive a child against the express wishes of a non-spousal sex partner should be regarded as that choice.
But that's their choice. If they choose to do so, then let them. But their choice should be a personal one and not contingent upon forcing someone else to pay for their choice, unlike the current "strategy."
QuestionEverything
Bluelight Crew
Baron,
The man has the choice not to allow himself to be 'schemed' by wearing a condom or not participating in unprotected sex of any kind if he truly does not want to be a father.
If and when he doesn't exercise those rights, he's put himself in the position to possibly have an unwanted child.
The man has the choice not to allow himself to be 'schemed' by wearing a condom or not participating in unprotected sex of any kind if he truly does not want to be a father.
If and when he doesn't exercise those rights, he's put himself in the position to possibly have an unwanted child.
So are you saying that children are a penalty for having sex that is justly deserved? Even if contraception fails? Yes, some men have super-sperm on the day that the new condom breaks, and the linesman at Merck (or whomever makes BC pills) fell asleep for that one moment. But hey, since two people chose to engage in sex, that (unwanted [by at least one partner]) child is a penalty that must and will be enforced.
It still doesn't answer my question, though. If the child's life trumps all of the man's wishes, then it should trump all of the woman's, as well. There's a fairly glaring white elephant in the room that it doesn't seem like anyone's talking about.
If one is pro-choice (that's the key word here, choice), then there's no reason not to extend that choice to both parties. The problem is that the choice is being removed from one person, and if a child does result, there's generally no thought other than "Well, I can't afford it, so I'll go after this person who doesn't want it for money." That's not a personal choice. That's a choice which immediately comes down upon someone else. Subsidizing one person's own inability to see the entire road and be able to walk it themselves.
It still doesn't answer my question, though. If the child's life trumps all of the man's wishes, then it should trump all of the woman's, as well. There's a fairly glaring white elephant in the room that it doesn't seem like anyone's talking about.
If one is pro-choice (that's the key word here, choice), then there's no reason not to extend that choice to both parties. The problem is that the choice is being removed from one person, and if a child does result, there's generally no thought other than "Well, I can't afford it, so I'll go after this person who doesn't want it for money." That's not a personal choice. That's a choice which immediately comes down upon someone else. Subsidizing one person's own inability to see the entire road and be able to walk it themselves.