• S E X
    L O V E +
    R E L A T I O N S H I P S


    ❤️ Welcome Guest! ❤️


    Posting Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • SLR Moderators: Senior Staff

Question: Do men have the right NOT to be fathers?

Men have rights not to become fathers insofar as they practice abstinence.

Woman have rights not to become mothers insofar as they practice abstinence.

In other situations, they are equally and patently responsible for whatever they create and choose not to abort.

If that doesn't happen, then both have responsibilities according to their incomes and liabilities and the decision of the court.

If you want the courts out of your bedroom, keep your dicks and vaginas out of situations in which they may become fertile.

It's really just that simple.
 
Yes but "They" don't choose not to abort. The woman chooses not to abort. That's the entire crux of the issue. Surely you can't have missed that?
 
Rhombus - interesting experiment! i think it'd take quite a while even after the invention for people's views to change, to both parents being entirely equal in childcare (as with the similar idea in Woman on the edge of time), because i think people, even maybe just subconsciously, tend to see children as being more tied to the mother (breastfeeding, mums stay at home to bring up the kids, males 'sowing their wild oats', females being more attached to children because they grew them internally etc etc), and it's quite hard to get around such ingrained thoughts.
In theory though, eventually that should make things more equal, but i think a lot of problems would still remain, in that you'd STILL have people refusing morally to exterminate the bundle of cells, and if the choice was entirely 50/50 there could be problems with what to do if both parents had totally opposing views..

It's very hard to be able to say anything in general when it's a subject that involves moral & religious beliefs, and a lot of one person's word against another's..
 
Rhombus said:
Yes but "They" don't choose not to abort. The woman chooses not to abort. That's the entire crux of the issue. Surely you can't have missed that?
Click to expand...

No, I didn't miss it. I just found it not worthy of response.

And the woman's right not to abort trumps the man's right to deny a prospective child rights, should it be born.

As I said before - if you want the courts out of your bedroom, then don't put yourself in positions in which it may need to be there.

My moral and religious beliefs have nothing to do with the fact that I am pro-choice. I am a pragmatist.
 
mariposa420 said:
Men have rights not to become fathers insofar as they practice abstinence.

Woman have rights not to become mothers insofar as they practice abstinence.

In other situations, they are equally and patently responsible for whatever they create and choose not to abort.
Click to expand...

I doubt most men realise the responsibility that comes with sex. Until now I didn't.

Unless I really love the person I'm with and am prepared to 'father' their children properly - with the self-sacrifice that goes along with it - I won't do them.

Lucky I have long fingers ;)
 
Last edited:
Have only read the first page (will read rest after i post) but all i want to say is that i see the dads POV if he doesn't want a baby and the responsibility of one. I see that it's a womans right to choose what she wants to do with the life growing inside her.

I do not however see or understand how once YOUR baby is born. Wether it was wanted or not can be ignored and not looked after. That to me is heartless, souless and insane.
 
/\ everyone's got relatives they can't stand, blood ties don't mean a whole lot.

Some people just don't LIKE babies, they can be pretty ugly, they shit & puke everywhere, they aren't any fun for years, they make godawful noises all night, they're expensive as hell, and as soon as you have one, everything in your life has to come second to this creature you never wanted anyway.
And do you think that such a person is going to bring up a baby particularly well?

I think it's selfish as fuck for a woman to demand that a guy has anything to do with it if he doesn't want to. Provided he NEVER lied, she was always in possession of all the facts - that he didn't want a baby or anything to do with one - then the choices for her are to either not have the baby, get the baby adopted, or bring up the baby WITHOUT him.
It's not perfect, but that's life, and frequently shit choices are all you're left with.
 
The posts in this thread are pretty misinformed. I only know the way this stuff works in the US, and that's all this thread should be about. You can't have an international discussion about a nation's legal system unless everyone agrees to discuss it in the right context.

First, you cannot sign a contract absolving you of child support responsibility. These have always been thrown out in court.

Second, there is now legal precedent for the sperm donor of an in-vitro fertilization to be forced to pay child support.

Third, someone else mentioned this but most people are ignoring it. Currently, women have dramatically more reproductive rights than men. They have two positions where they make a choice about reproducing.

The majority of contraceptive methods are the female's responsibility. A reasonable person should not expect to be lied to about their sex partner's contraceptive use. As it stands, if a woman stops taking birth control, and lies about it, she suffers no consequences. Once a woman is pregnant, she has three choices. Keep the child, abortion, and adoption. The waiting lists for parents who want to adopt children are ridiculously long. The world we live in is ridiculously overpopulated. It's insanity to keep a child if the mother cannot support it herself and the father wants no part of the situation. The father and mother both had an initial choice to have unprotected sex, but now the mother has a second choice and the father is held hostage by this decision. I think it's reasonable to allow the father to demand she opt for abortion or adoption if she doesn't agree to absolving him of financial responsibility for a child he doesn't want.
 
Coolio said:
The posts in this thread are pretty misinformed. I only know the way this stuff works in the US, and that's all this thread should be about. You can't have an international discussion about a nation's legal system unless everyone agrees to discuss it in the right context.

First, you cannot sign a contract absolving you of child support responsibility. These have always been thrown out in court.

Second, there is now legal precedent for the sperm donor of an in-vitro fertilization to be forced to pay child support.

Third, someone else mentioned this but most people are ignoring it. Currently, women have dramatically more reproductive rights than men. They have two positions where they make a choice about reproducing.

The majority of contraceptive methods are the female's responsibility. A reasonable person should not expect to be lied to about their sex partner's contraceptive use. As it stands, if a woman stops taking birth control, and lies about it, she suffers no consequences. Once a woman is pregnant, she has three choices. Keep the child, abortion, and adoption. The waiting lists for parents who want to adopt children are ridiculously long. The world we live in is ridiculously overpopulated. It's insanity to keep a child if the mother cannot support it herself and the father wants no part of the situation. The father and mother both had an initial choice to have unprotected sex, but now the mother has a second choice and the father is held hostage by this decision.
Click to expand...

First of all - well put.

The bundle of cells or 'zygote' has about the same genetic material from the sperm as the egg - so technically the child is BOTH yours.

Coolio said:
I think it's reasonable to allow the father to demand she opt for abortion or adoption if she doesn't agree to absolving him of financial responsibility for a child he doesn't want.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's unreasonable either. The laws should be amended.

I think the woman should be legally obliged to tell the father that she's pregnant before the first 30 days of pregnancy have passed. If this doesn't happen, and the man does not want to father her children - he should have the option to be absolved of his financial responsability later on - as the woman is being deceptive by omission.

Then at this stage, before it develops any further, BOTH parents can decide on the destiny of the zygote.

The woman has the option to keep the child regardless of the fathers decision, but if she chooses to do so, it will be entireley at her expense. She will then have to demonstrate to the state that she is capable of doing do.

In extreme circumstances, she could be forced by the state to abort the zygote or adopt the child.

This discourages destitute women living off the welfare system by getting themselves pregnant a few times. It DOES happen.

It also encourages women to consider the future emotional and financial circumstances of the CHILD at an early stage.

Take it from me - as a boy it was VERY difficult growing up without the love and guideance of a natural father. I didn't see the lack of money at the time - you tend to accept circumstances as a child.

My parents split when I was about 2, because they were two very different people. Sadly love wasn't enough.

Although they both agree - one good thing came out of that marriage - ME!

Comments from single mothers would be appreciated.
 
Last edited:
I think most people are missing the point of the thread. What I am getting from it is that a woman has more choices than a man does in this situation. A woman can 1) choose to keep the baby 2) terminate the baby 3) put the baby up for adoption.
A man does not have any choices in this matter. 1) they cannot make a woman have the child 2) they cannot make the woman terminate the pregnancy 3) they cannot put the baby up for adoption without the womans consent
If both people take the risk and get pregnant the woman holds all cards so to speak. The man has no choice...even though they both made the mistake of having sex unprotected, the man is at the mercy of the woman. If the woman does not want a baby because it will effect her life personanly and financially in a negative way SHE can CHOOSE to not have the child...even if the man wants the child (as in my case...bitch...I hate her) If the man feels that way and the woman doesn't HE CAN"T CHOOSE to absolve himself. How is this even remotely fair.
I see many women on here saying basicaly if the man doesn't want the end result to keep it in his pants...well then the woman should keep her legs closed. Contracts and shit won't work and are a joke really.
It just pisses me off that women want it both ways. They want the support and money if they choose to keep it...but if they don't, they want to be able to kill the baby as suits their needs. I know it's the womans body, but the man only seems to matter if the child is born.
This thread is making me angry...so I think I am going to stay away for a bit.
 
I think thats fair. If the girl decides she wants a baby, full well knowing the guy doesnt want it then she should be prepared to take on full responsibility.
If you dont want to raise a baby by yourself then either dont have sex or be prepared to give it up.
I grew up without my dad and it affected me and my family a lot but to this day i would still not want him to have hung around or pay child support just cos my mum made him.. So then he can resent me even more than he already did. I couldnt think of anything worse.
Its a hard reality but its not fair that one person has the right to decide the fate of your babys life and your partners.
 
Last edited:
I would not say that men have a right to not be fathers, as that frames the principle is a stupid way. Rather, women should not have a right to enjoin men in some silly lifestyle/moral decision that they have made. Similarly, no man should possess the right to force his own silly lifestyle/moral choice upon a woman.

Of course, this will be different where one party has induced the other to make an assumption of future support. Thus if a man assures a woman that he will support her and their baby throughout the pregnancy and beyond, and on that basis the woman becomes pregnant, he should not be permitted to then resile from and falsify the assumption at a later point.

The law sees differently, though.
 
Beatlebot said:
So what you guys are saying, is that men should be able to control women's bodies?
Click to expand...

No. The idea is to give the father some choice in his future life path if the mother wants to have the baby but has separated from the father in the early stages of pregnancy.

More often than not, there will be mutual agreement and the messy legal wrangling won't occur.

Why should society or the father be forced to pay for something they ultimately had no choice in?

I'm sure a system can be developed that is fair on both parents, society and the unborn.

Building on what mugen raised, if the parents split after the decision was made in the zygote stage, each parent's future role has already been decided:

* The man is legally bound to pay child support if he agrees to become a parent in the early stages of pregnancy.

* The flipside is: if he decides to have no support role in the early stages - he has no custody or visitation rights if the child is born. The father is legally 'deceased' in relation to the child - so the mother has sole authority on all aspects of the child's life.

The latter may sound like the easy way out - but having no part in your child's life sounds painful - a pain that lasts years - and is due to the man's OWN decision.
 
Last edited:
it's totally the womans choice...tis her body and life that has to go through everything..since when did money equate to the cost of growing up...sure the government makes a finacial bottom line decision on what you owe (and sorry that I am not in America but this applies to countries so long as they have diplomatic agreements with us so I figure it must go the other way round or they wouldn't have bothered). When will it become obvious that if you want to stick your dick in someone and make sweet love you had better do it as safely as possible and if that doesn't work then welcome to the world of making whoopee or just don't bloody go there in the first place!? Both male and female, if you have sex you might get pregnant..you might even get a really nasty disease, so take care.....surely as a site about harm minimisation there could be more about what to do if you don't want to get pregnant or have babies...8)
the saying "you do the crime you do the time" keeps ringing in my head here...unless of course you have no diplomatic agreements with the country in question then go ahead and impregnate as much as you can cause aint no one gonna chase you!
8)
 
stephaniesomewhere said:
When will it become obvious that if you want to stick your dick in someone and make sweet love you had better do it as safely as possible and if that doesn't work then welcome to the world of making whoopee or just don't bloody go there in the first place!?
8)
Click to expand...

Exactly what bugs me about what people are saying. A woman can open her legs for who ever and she gets the choice to kill the unborn if SHE wants to...no matter what. Even if the man WANTS the baby. But flip it around and the man is an axxhole for not wanting it.

I stuck my dick in a woman...she got pregnant...I wanted the baby more than anything in this world. She had an abortion. Where were my rights to be a father? I had none. But reverse it and she wanted it and I didn't...well I would be the poster boy for Evil-Woman-Hating-Axxholes.
 
Women can lie, get pregnant or even impregnate themselves, curse, wear tatoos, drive jeeps, date other women, and then throw us away like a dirty tampon. Then they can go to court and force us to give them money for most of our lives. Men have no rights. Men are unneeded except for money. Things would be a little more fair if there was a male birth control pill... Why hasnt' somebody invented that yet?
 
Last edited:
socko said:
Women can lie, get pregnant or even impregnate themselves, curse, wear tatoos, drive jeeps, date other women, and then throw us away like a dirty tampon. Then they can go to court and force us to give them money for most of our lives. Men have no rights. Things would be a little more fair if there was a male birth control pill... Why hasnt' somebody invented that yet?
Click to expand...

And men can do all those things too, though I've never heard of anyone (male or female) impregnating themselves.

A male birth control pill is in the works, but it's doubtful most women would give up control of their fertility to anyone other than themselves. As much as I love and trust my partner, it's MY body, my right whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, and if I do, then I expect a fair and equitable distribution of responsibility. It's not as if I would want him to pay MY share of support - I work full-time and would be more than capable of paying proportionately to my child's care and support.

I refuse to be legislated or railroaded into letting anyone but me and my doctor make decisions about my body or my fertility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top