Men's reproductive rights and responsibilities revisited

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
This is a call to examine the current system of child support as it pertains to unmarried noncustodial fathers in the light of Roe v. Wade, which guarantees an American's (not specifically a woman's) right to privacy as regards the choice of parenthood. It is my view that this choice is denied men which is a blatant and surprisingly commonly accepted disregard of equal protection under the law. If you read Roe v. Wade, you will see that it avoids the discussion of "abortion" per se, instead focusing on the right to choose whether or not to be a parent in general terms, arguing that a person's income, likely prospects for future income, and even emotional readiness for parenthood shall not be infringed upon by the government. We have taken this so far in the case of women, that there has been "safe haven" laws that allow a woman to drop off her baby at a hospital or fire station with no questions asked and no repercussions. Contrast this to an "unready" unmarried man who often gets a lifetime of child support obligations, whether he can afford them or not, with penalties including suspension of driving and professional licenses, passports, as well as jail time. Clearly there are problems with the family court system and divorced men have genuine grievances as well, however this thread is intended to specifically address the inequity of the legal system as regards unmarried, noncustodial men who would "choose" not to become parents, and are denied this choice, even though it would seem to be legally guaranteed. A friendly, well-reasoned debate is intended, with intellectual honesty (as opposed to unconscious biases) paramount would be appreciated. Many thanks.




posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   
So you're saying that if a woman has an abortion she is opting out of parenthood, and saying that guys should have that same opt-out?
....wow i've never thought of that before personally but it seems reasonable.
An important stipulation tho would be the invention of some sort of legal document that is readily available, allowing him to opt out of responsibility no later than a woman can.

Also, since women can abort for whatever reason they wish, so should men be able to not take responsibility. I've seen abortion even in my own personal experience twice and both times the reasons were pure selfishness and fear, in so many words.

...this is a new angle for me op, i've never thought of how the two situations are the same, but they are.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Naw...

The whole system is set up to be a massive Eugenics program

I pay for three children, divorce is a for profit business, your socially conditioned to think of having children as a burden even though as logic dictates even via the ability to pay SS without children you will suffer in old age...

Nope, I want more kids, I love kids, I will fight and find ways to pay anyway and I will not be among those who's liniage is exterminated by the system no matter how hard they make it on me.

of myself and my five best friends growing up only one aside from closing or over the age of 40 has a child, ONE child from five men, my sister has not reproduced either...

I have 3 and intend to have several more

I am PLUS on the side of survival of what I am, forward population growth. Some of my friends who had it a bit easier often critique me and I just laugh... because Money is meaningless it can not be taken with you.... in fact as current trends show it will be taken from you one way or another anyway.

I will not shy away from having children and I will teach them to do the same as well and take full responsibility.

Because in the end by that method my children will be TPTB not controlled by them and the rest who allowed them to use finance and greed to thwart reproduction will simply be no more...

And to me, that will be success

when I am old I will not be broke and alone, I will live past this and see, 6 children and hopefully if they listen 36 grand children

And I will have riches and rewards in life in great ways and extend myself past this evil time and into eternity.

There is no success in life without reproduction and continuation of what you are and what you think and feel into multiple generations.





[edit on 7-9-2009 by mopusvindictus]



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mopusvindictus
 


I'll say first that I have never been divorced and have no personal horror story of divorce. But I watched my uncle go through it, and the entire thing is a huge joke.

How the hell did it get to a point where in 90% of the cases, the women gets to take half?

My uncle is pretty wealthy, he has worked hard through his entire life to get what he has, and his ex-wife, never worked one day that they were together (14 years). She lived the typical wealthy wife life, including many out of country vacations PER YEAR, plastic surgery, always had money to spend, and always got anything she wanted or needed.

So they get divorced, and what happens? After her zero contribution to the financial situation? Half. My uncle works his entire life to get what he has, and after 14 years with her, she is entitled to half though absolutely none of what she took, was earned by her.

Now where the story gets more outrageous for me, is that she divorced him while his business was doing well. Thus, she took a large chunk. But within a year, the business had tanked and he ended up having to pay off massive amounts of money, in the hundreds of thousands. So she was able to get out and take money, but when theres a loss, she has no financial liability.


Take this scenario for example, lets say theres a successful young man, and hes starting what he hopes to be a booming business. He meets a women and they get married.

Two scenarios could happen, one is that his business takes right off and he gets rich. This is a "WIN" for the useless wife, as she can now divorce him and take half of his blood sweat and tears.

But, there's also the second scenario, lets say his business tanks and hes now liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is another "WIN" becuase the women can just get divorced and face none of the financial liability.

How the hell is that "FAIR"?


Now don't get me wrong, if me and my wife both have jobs, we both work hard and both contribute (even if not equally), and she helps raise our kids. Obviously this is a fair situation for the women. But in my uncles case, his ex wife took more money than she could have made in 30 years of work. How is that fair? She made it in 14 years, and not only did she have to do NOTHING, she lived an amazing life.

Girls these days are being subliminally taught that it's ok to just marry for money and win a hefty divorce settlement. Forget about love, or family values, think about the money. ITS PATHETIC.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by king9072
 


Unfortunately, there are horror stories on both sides. For instance, I'll contrast your uncle's story with my mother's:


She lived the typical wealthy wife life, including many out of country vacations PER YEAR, plastic surgery, always had money to spend, and always got anything she wanted or needed.


My mother worked herself to the bone for my father and he left her after 25 years and disowned both my brother and me (my father and I later reconciled but my brother has nothing to do with him) so he could start over with his new 27 year old wife (who later left him). My father used my mother for everything he could take then...


Now where the story gets more outrageous for me, is that she divorced him while his business was doing well.


My father goes to his attorney and asks how he can divorce my mother but not pay anything. Worth millions at the time, my father's attorney advised him to go into debt. So he bloated up his businesses so much with expansions, remodeling of older locations, and the purchase of new locations that he went from millions in assets to millions in debt. Like magic, there was nothing for my mother to get after 25 years. Because my father was in partnership, she couldn't even get some of the restaurants to take over for herself. All she got was the house. A nice house, but still not worth half of millions she helped him earn.

Karma has kicked my father in the behind and my mother went on to remarry a wonderful man but the divorce was NASTY.

I bring the above up in contrast to your story as to why so many get half. In some cases, the wife is a complete user and worthless piece of flesh while in some cases it's the husband. So, it's 50/50.

reply to post by joechip
 


Interesting perspective. It doesn't seem fair that a woman can decide for the both of them that they will not have children if she seeks an abortion while the man cannot choose if he wants to be a parent.

Unfortunately, I see no work around on that one. The solution would either be to force the woman to have an abortion against her will because the father isn't ready for parenthood or for the father to run along and leave the woman with all of the responsibility because he's just not ready. Meanwhile, she's stuck with 100% of the financial and custodial responsibility.

All I can say is, if a man and a woman choose to play the game then they should be ready to face the consequences. I understand men's plight when, let's say they really want the child but the woman gets an abortion. That is so wrong, IMO. However, I don't see the other solutions as being any better.

If the woman, for some reason, agrees to relieve the man of all legal responsibility then they can work it out. But it's not right for the man to be able to just walk away.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Yeah seeing my parents go through divorce was almost the same. My dad got screwed out of the money on the house. My Dad and i worked hard for 3 years to finish the house and my mom gets to walk away with it for 30,000$ less then market value because her line of credit is #. She didnt have enough borrowing power to buy the house for value. So my dad not wanting all those years of work to go to waste sold it to her in the settlement. In the end my Dad will be much happier. She never accepted anything me or my Dad wanted to do. I remember he bought me a 200 dollar pellet gun for my 10th birthday and He made me hide it in the basement for years. She would have thought it a nedless expediture. But whats really needless The 5 purses she has in the closet that shell never use again? ITS A HUDGE DOUBLE STANDARD. Getting married is like going into buisness with someone. YOU HAVE TO TRUST THEM



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by joechip
this thread is intended to specifically address the inequity of the legal system as regards unmarried, noncustodial men who would "choose" not to become parents, and are denied this choice, even though it would seem to be legally guaranteed. A friendly, well-reasoned debate is intended, with intellectual honesty (as opposed to unconscious biases) paramount would be appreciated. Many thanks.


I thought this thread was about a woman's right to abortion being the same as a man's right not to pay child support, not another thread about the horrific state of divorce laws in north america.

Personally i've never looked at the situation and been like "hey, if women can choose to pay child support or not (by having the child or not), then men should be able to as well.
Been on this site for almost a year and never heard this angle so



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by heyo
 



Yes, I do think you get the basic gist of it. I did not intend for this thread to become horror stories of divorce (I specifically would not include divorce in the question at all as marriage is a contractual agreement and ensuing children ARE both parties responsibility however unfairly these things turn out in divorce court)
I would argue further that Roe v. Wade never directly deals with abortion but rather with the concept of parental "choice" --this may break down to mean abortion in some cases, adoption in some, and even legal abandonment in others....for the women. For the men, there is NO choice. Seems pretty clear and easy to remedy. A simple opt out option. Or opt in (if marriage is not desired but parenthood is.)
If I can just take a moment to make clear that I am in no way arguing that men should be able to legally force a woman to have a child or an abortion. I'm really only addressing his forced obligation to pay child support (or endure pretty draconian punishment) in light of established case law.
It is strange to me that people rarely even consider this dilemma (or view it as a dilemma). I view it as one of the most heinous and disturbing examples of inequality our society has ever come up with. (It is fairly new.) It was, I believe, a Clinton/Gingrich compromise delivering a "woman-friendly" welfare reform act. Only it's unconstitutional, folks. It criminalizes male reproduction. It ruins lives. It incentifies unwed pregnancy. And it is unfair on a very basic level. Thanks for the input.



posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 



Unfortunately, I see no work around on that one. The solution would either be to force the woman to have an abortion against her will because the father isn't ready for parenthood...


No forced abortions necessary. Woman chooses whatever she wishes. Pays for it. Has the primary choice and therefore the primary responsibility (after all it is HER body) But she makes these choices based on both her desire and ability to have and raise a child.


...or for the father to run along and leave the woman with all of the responsibility because he's just not ready.


The "man" not "father" (we won't call him father in my scenario) would only be doing what women do every day (and are usually viewed as sympathetic, even heroic figures) and not attempting to raise a child when they aren't ready. Roe v. Wade specifically ensures this right with almost exact language.
If she gives up the child for adoption, she is a hero. Okay, but is he a selfish jerk if he does the same? (He currently has no right to) --which leads to:



If the woman, for some reason, agrees to relieve the man of all legal responsibility then they can work it out. But it's not right for the man to be able to just walk away.


Why on earth should his rights be subject to her whims? This makes no sense. This is the very disconnect I'm talking about. Please elaborate why the prima facia (spelling) assumption is that the "man" has no right to parental choice. This is the main point here so, please think it through and respond. Many thanks.


[edit on 8-9-2009 by joechip]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by king9072
 


It really isn't a big deal...

Half?

I gave her everything

and some of this has been hard but on a humanistic level, money and poop are basically the same thing. Literally

Even this month I got nailed again for more and for a bit I was mad... you know it can be an annoyance, a real annoyance, when the spite and the whole "out to get you" thing comes up

But in the end when people play those games to you, you become strong in ways you can never have imagined before and then you are a better person.

I would never regret having children and I want more and this time who I am is better than before and I will meet someone special and it was a favor, because if money was a reason to do this, in the end you are better off with the chance to find real Love

Money, Money you can make again

Children are forever



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by heyo
 


The rules regarding child support are unfair, the punishments if your having a tough time scary...

But you can't not pay regardless... in the end only your children suffer.

You have to remove your feelings and listen to the taunts if they are there and just.... be happy you don't have to listen to that nonsense night and day anymore...

and remember it's about your kids not her or him in some cases



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


A shame Ashley that you had to get caught in the middle of selfishness.

As I said above, a person needs to put aside the govt and the laws and the spouse and think of the children, sadly many adults be they successful or not do not have that capacity.

I think the law stinks... My ex plays those games...

And I just worry about the kids, I wont stoop to that kind of behavior.

Everything goes out the window where kids are involved, money is nothing without love and you might never get lucky in romantic Love, but a good parent always will have their children.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by mopusvindictus
 


Thanks for your input, but remember, this post is not about divorced fathers, or really fathers at all, but about unmarried men who would for whatever reason, choose not to become parents at all. Just like women do everyday. That doesn't seem to be considered in your responses as a possibility. Not that that is uncommon. I know a man who has spent months at a time in jail for getting behind on his child support for kids who live far away that he's met once. He still feels parental
responsibility and guilt. Which is of course reinforced by the aforementioned laws. I contend that this is an unfair situation. It's in his head now. It seems normal to him, but it is nonetheless a situation he wouldn't have chosen. That is the crux of the argument, not spite or bitterness toward the women involved, or how great kids are (i agree) but rather CHOICE. I know it may be difficult to get one's head around, but unmarried men should have the same choice to be a parent or not to be a parent that women have. That is the argument.
You do not have to agree, of course, but please tell me why you don't if you don't. Thanks.
edit for grammar
edit for further clarification
[edit on 8-9-2009 by joechip]

[edit on 8-9-2009 by joechip]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Men can petition the court to allow them to sign away their parental rights.

Harm None
Peace



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


You don't much have a choice...

The child is either yours or it is not yours.

And you do have every right if you pay to be in the child's life if you request it.

But choice, it leaves you the instant the sperm enters her, it's not your choice, your never going to get the right to make a woman have an abortion.

Like I said up top the payment harshness is eugenics, they don't care about you, they don't want you to reproduce or even have sex if you wont pay for the child.

I don't agree with it, I don't think it's right, women do use the system against you, I live with it right now.

It's unconstitutional, it's Slavery in the end forcing someone to work and pay...

But it's also a fight you can't win...

EXCEPT for ONE WAY

BE A DAD

The more time you spend, the more you pay at first at least and the cooler you are the more time you get with a child.

They also DEDUCT expenses for days the children are with you.

So what it really comes down to is: The better a Dad you are, the less you pay inevitably your going to pay nothing when you get half custody or next to nothing...

You mention a guy doing time... for not paying.

I don't feel allot of sympathy... He has a Child he is far away, this is why he pays so much

The Law isn't the reason you can't get out of having a child you don't want, the woman you chose to sleep with is.

If more men at that point did the LAST thing those women actually want them to do, which is step up and act like fathers, this wouldn't be an issue...

I'm not just gong off on how great being a Father actually is... it's also your prime line of defense. If a woman is going to decide to have a child with you, and you didn't want to.... then make her DEAL with you being a Father, pursue it, demand your time, deduct that cash and let her not win...

This goes on, BECAUSE women get what they want and they want children and money... Demand to be a Dad and they get less of both and have to have you around forever too, it's miserable for them and better for the kids to have 2 parents.

It's doing what's right, it's taking responsibility and it completely thwarts the type of women who do this for money and frankly they don't deserve to be women if this is WHY they have children.

Your friend needs to... pick his but up, move a few miles away from mom and DEMAND to be a Father...

and if it's too late now then he messed up

Like I said... being a dad is great.

It's also the option that sets you free... a lifetime of running from what? what fear of being a Father is there? Why deny your children...

It's not a debate, we never have CHOICE it's not our body the choice ends the minute you pull out your tool

But you do have a choice to be a Father once it happens and if you are your not going to get eaten financially, not for long at least...

My ex knows every trick in the book and never thwarted me.

In time she wont get anything and she never got rid of me either...

You might not be able to fight the system the way you want, but you can still fight the system and win.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by amazed
 



Men can petition the court to allow them to sign away their parental rights.


I don't know where you got that. They can not. This is simply not true. As far as I know, besides the woman dropping her child support claim (which doesn't matter as regards welfare repayment) the only other way these responsibilities can be abrogated is if the woman marries AND the husband adopts the child. Believe me, I've looked into it.

[edit on 8-9-2009 by joechip]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by mopusvindictus
 


I will only reply to say, please, I'm glad you're happy with your situation. Your contention that although motherhood is a choice, fatherhood is a presumption and there's nothing to be done about it is not productive or really on topic. I shouldn't have to reiterate this again, but this thread is about male reproductive choice, if you feel there is no such thing, how can anyone argue with you, especially since you refuse to justify such a claim with reason. Just an a priori assertion that it is so and that is that. Perhaps, since you also mentioned forced abortions (which I specifically said was not under consideration at all) you should go back and carefully read the original post. If you then have anything worthwhile to contribute, please do. Otherwise, please stop. Thanks.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:51 AM
link   
a guy should be allowed to opt out of parenthood but he should have to do it within the first month of hearing the girl is pregnant, to give her plenty of scope for making an informed decision.

that being said, can't a guy just deny that he is the father and refuse a paternity test?



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


No, if you refuse a paternity test when ordered, it is considered contempt of court. Also, if you "fail" it, you pay for it. As far as the first month of pregnancy being the cutoff for male choice--it hardly constitutes equal protection. A woman can legally abandon a child up to 30 days after its birth. Adoption, I'm not sure about, but certainly past the first month of pregnancy. As far as the woman being able to make an informed decision, it seems to me that the fact that she is unmarried and pregnant, should be ample information for a decision. Not that I believe that unmarried pregnancy is always a bad thing, but the marriage contract seems to be the perfect fit for deciding to start a family together. If you don't have one, it is probably fair to say its irresponsible to assume your child has a father.
I hope that don't sound too harsh. I merely mean to assert that there is already a time-tested social construct in place to insure that children have parents. There's a good reason for it. No child support enforcement system can take its place, and if this system incentifies (and it does) unwed pregnancy, everyone suffers, society suffers. If I was more conspiracy minded (LOL) I would think the whole system was a deliberate NWO plot to destroy the basic building block of society, the family. Now, look at me, I've gone off-topic.
Apologies.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by joechip
As far as the first month of pregnancy being the cutoff for male choice--it hardly constitutes equal protection. A woman can legally abandon a child up to 30 days after its birth....... As far as the woman being able to make an informed decision, it seems to me that the fact that she is unmarried and pregnant, should be ample information for a decision.


so you think that a mans opinion or wishes are not a factor that the woman should consider when making a decision about weather or not to have children?


If you don't have one, it is probably fair to say its irresponsible to assume your child has a father.


it is probably irresponsible to have sex, what's your point? protection of the child should not require a contract.


I would think the whole system was a deliberate NWO plot to destroy the basic building block of society, the family.


the basic building block of society is the individual, "the family" requires mutual respect and love among individuals, not a particular arrangement of husband and wife with their biological children.

the idea of "family values" is an NWO plot to offset the idea of individual identity and responsibility to drive us toward collectivism and deferred responcibility.






top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join