Men's-rights activists seek right to decline fatherhood in event of unplanned pregnancy

reply to post by joechip


I can see your point. Just not sure how to get to it know what I mean. But I also believe as with anything there is going to have to be a compromise.

reply to post by mayertuck


My point could also be simplified (and expressed as a legal pun) as "two wrongs don't make a 'right'." I would just say compromise that respects both parties rights and basic liberty is more an agreement that recognizes each others legitimate interests, choice, (indeed, freedom OF choice) and only then attempts to assign the resulting roles and responsibilities. Because one flows from the other in a free society.

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
I am guilty of not thinking first as well. So perhaps I am speaking of conditions in an ideal world...

That's the whole thing with this discussion. The people who do not support the man's "opt out" are expecting perfection from the male (an ideal world), BUT they allow for imperfection in the female to correct an unwanted pregnancy (the morning after pill, abortion, safe haven and adoption). It's blatantly unfair and unequal that men don't have recourse when making the EXACT SAME MISTAKE that women make.

And there's NO WAY they are going to change their minds. They have the best of both worlds and don't give a flying flip about men in this situation. It's almost like they want to punish men for how they have been treated personally. These women who look down on men have all had personal experiences with men that have left them... resentful and vindictive. This thread is DRIPPING with it. Some of us who have been hurt by men are accountable and we work through it and get over it. Some don't.

Originally posted by joechip
reply to post by mayertuck

 

As my primary concern in this issue is the principle of personal liberty, which I believe to be a more fundamental right than equality, I could never support such a measure. ... Just let people determine their own destinies; both women and men.

I'm with joe on this one. Personal liberties are vital. And as it is now, people's (mostly men's) personal liberties are not being permitted under these circumstances. And seeing as how the woman is the one who decides everything, men must exercise their liberties by getting a male birth control pill, abstaining, or being a LOT more selective about who they sleep with.

If a safe temporary sterilization was an option for teens, that would probably help a lot, but it shouldn't be forced.

It would also help if sex wasn't such a taboo subject here in the US. If teens could feel free and open to talk with their parents about birth control and the effects of pregnancy, we might find that they would naturally be more careful to avoid it.

. If one has no reproductive rights, what burdens are imposed upon him can not be called responsibilities. And likewise, if one has reproductive rights, responsibilities follow, and are the natural result of their own choices.

Well-said!

Originally posted by 2weird2live2rare2die
men should have just as much of a say in an abortion as the women. it may be growing inside of the woman, but it is just as much the mans child. if a woman wants to abort her child and the father does not, then she should just have the baby and let the father take care of it. i don't see the problem with this concept...

Now THAT is just ridiculous. Obviously you do not know what pregnancy and birth entail. Up to thousands of dollars spent on new clothes to fit your growing body, pain during pregnancy, pain during childbirth, potential for medical issues to arise that never go away, not to mention pre-partum and post-partum depression, and all sorts of other mental + emotional things that happen to a woman pregnant or a new mom.


I definitely think all women should have to listen to their partner calmly and listen to his thoughts or opinions on what HE wants to happen, but this is almost the same as saying forcing women to have an abortion is perfectly ok. Neither forcing a woman to have or not have a child is acceptable.
Yes, unless it is some form of abuse that resulted in the child, then she should have to sit down with him (in front of medical professionals preferably, so no manipulation happens on either end) and discuss it. She should still be allowed to do whatever she wants though, as it is her body. It doesn't matter if the glob of cells inside is half-yours, it doesn't mean you can force her to go through hell for you, which is what the pregnancy and birth would be for someone who doesn't want it.

Also, keep in mind the fact that once a woman gives birth, it doesn't matter what she previously thought about wanting a child or not, a large quantity of women who put their babies for adoption pre-birth just up and change their mind when they see their child. So even if you convince her to have this baby and give it to you, she can change her mind at the last minute, and can and will fight you to the death for it, seeing as how she already knows you don't care at all about her, having forced her to go through something like that, quite possibly the most difficult thing any woman has to do, if it is done right which obviously with a court order, it will have to be done right by law, I am sure.

Pregnancy can be hard. Birth is certainly hard. And what about feeding the newborn? You can't very well force her to breastfeed, because the baby is out of her body by that point, and entirely your problem, not hers. I am not a ra-ra-ra-ing breastfeeding advocate who shames women for not doing it because they can't for whatever reason, but if you want this baby so fricken much, do you really want to risk it's health by not giving it the antibodies? Or would you rather wait a few months to have this baby, and have it with someone else who wants it too?
There is no denying that a child does well with 2 parents. Not that one isn't good enough, but how will you bond with this child if you are working to take care of it? Most companies do not have paternal leave, or at most maybe a month, if you're very lucky.
Otherwise, you will either have to take several months off work to take care of it, or you will have to put your newborn child into daycare, where it will stay for the majority of it's waking day, thereby bonding not with a parent, but with a daycare provider.

If you want a kid so bad, adopt one. Single men can adopt babies the same way women and couples can. Or, better yet, you can adopt a kid who is already a couple of years old and has almost no chance of otherwise getting a healthy normal life at home. And those kids? Getting one doesn't force someone to suffer for you for up to 9 months. No. Taking one of those children helps EVERYONE.

If you think it is selfish for a woman to abort instead of giving it to the father who wants it, how can you not see that purposely creating another life when there are millions who need your help, and are miserable without it, is selfish?
People astonish me sometimes.

In before "BUT ITS MY GENETICSSSS"
We are not cave people. Your genetics won't play any part in ensuring you and your child will get along once they are older, nor will it make them love you more, nor you love them more. It won't make the milestones any less special and touching, and trust me, in 99% of cases, your genetics aren't so important as to require passing them on. Do you have an IQ of 200? Maybe you should pass your genes on. Do you work a desk job, or something even less than that? Probably not worth it to the world.
Just pick one that looks like you, and pretend it is entirely yours.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Which of a MANS Personal LIBERTY is denied by his free and willing choice to deposit sperm in a woman's womb?

And thus follows, since he took advantage of his Personal Liberty, where is the problem? How does he not have Personal Liberty anymore?

NO ONE should have any say in a woman's choice but the woman. Sure she can listen to advice from others, including the man involved, but that is also her choice. She shouldn't be forced to listen to anyone, nor should anyone be able to force her to have a child OR have an abortion.

I don't think most here are at all interested in changing or interfering in women's options. Some of us want to give men additional options as regards opting out of fatherhood when an unwanted pregnancy occurs. And some are clearly giddy with the fact that men have no option in this situation.

Someone said that some women "can't have an abortion". That's of course, not true. A woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy would have a choice. Either have it and care for it on her own, or have an abortion, adopt it out, or turn it over to a safe haven. Some of those choices might not be pleasant to her, but the choice is still there. It doesn't mean she doesn't have a choice. That's a cop out. It's like saying, "I have no choice but to slap him across the face because he insulted me" or some crap. Just because you don't like the options doesn't mean you don't have a choice.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Which of a MANS Personal LIBERTY is denied by his free and willing choice to deposit sperm in a woman's womb?

His reproductive right to choose whether or not he wants to be a father. The same one women have to choose whether or not to be a mother. What's so difficult here?

Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.

Source

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Which of a MANS Personal LIBERTY is denied by his free and willing choice to deposit sperm in a woman's womb?

And thus follows, since he took advantage of his Personal Liberty, where is the problem? How does he not have Personal Liberty anymore?

I've gotta go with you. "Black & White Equal" starts and stops with the decision to deposit sperm. Everything after that is in the gray area.

Man does have Choice. Choice of partner - choice of time - choice of condemn. By depositing his sperm he has made the choice of responsibility of his actions. Period!

Man says he has to have sex - - that's his nature. So woman has to be responsible for Man's Nature? Is that Equal?

I just can't "find" Equal - - - after the fact. I only see gray area after the fact. Gray areas require negotiations between participants. But NO - - no hardline Black & White Equal - - - once the gray area is entered.

******************** please insert woman in place of man where appropriate - - - for those who need to.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Which of a MANS Personal LIBERTY is denied by his free and willing choice to deposit sperm in a woman's womb?

His reproductive right to choose whether or not he wants to be a father. The same one women have to choose whether or not to be a mother. What's so difficult here?

Good morning Benevolent Heretic - - in case anyone missed it - - we are "board friends" and usually agree.

But I just Can Not go with after the fact on this. Reproductive Rights are at time of conception for those involved.

There have been many women forced to have an abortion by the man. It is not always her choice.

If a woman chooses an abortion - - there is no need the man even needs to know. Which is probably the majority of cases.

However - - - if she opts to have the child against the wishes of the sperm donor - - - It then becomes about the child - - and only about the child's rights. The responsibility of that child belongs to both who created it.

Man then needs to step up to the plate and provide for that child.

I do not agree there should be an Opt Out of financial responsibility. You can not however force anyone to be a parent.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Some women cannot have an abortion, it is a fact. Unless you are talking dangerous home abortions. Some "women" including minors, whose state laws require a parent sign a waiver, or some states that simply do not have an abortion clinic within hours of where she lives, those are also the states where you are forced by the law to "Wait" overnight after they explain it to you before you can actually have the abortion. The cost of this is just out of range for some women.
Technically they probably could, but they would either have to borrow money, or go into debt to do it, and sometimes even that isn't an option if you are 17 years old, no drivers license, strict parents, and nobody to drive you there, and obviously no credit card so you cannot spend money which you do not have, and you don't have money because you don't work because you work hard in school and have no time to do so.

There are situations where people cannot get abortions *safely*.

reply to post by Annee


The way I understand it, this is the men's equivalent to putting up a baby for adoption or having an abortion. A woman can get herself pregnant and then subsequently go out and have an abortion, baby gone, problem solved. For most women, this is a hard decision, and for a select few (I have a friend who works in an abortion clinic and has seen the same girl come in every couple of months because she claims "condoms are too gross") it is easy.
This is the men's equivalent of "an abortion". They say, hey, no, I don't want this and if you won't respect my decision not to want anything to do with this child, why should I have to?
Same as most women would say, hey, you have no right to tell me I have to have this baby, I am going to abort/put it up for adoption and there is nothing you can say or do about it.

I see how it could be unfairly used, but I think maybe if it is on a system of How Often It Happens, then it would work. If it is your first time, and it is ruled that the conception was either accidental, or pre-planned by the woman who told the man she was for whatever reason unable to have a child this way (BC pill, infertile, IUD, etc) then the woman shouldn't be able to make him pay for it. If he fully thought this would not result in pregnancy.
Because regardless of what you have heard, birth control pills make it so you cannot get pregnant UNLESS the woman messes up, misses a pill, takes it too late, etc. When taken properly, women do not get pregnant. Flat out. It is always due to human error when it happens while on hormonal birth control.

Whereas, if the man is a repeat offender, in that this has happened more than once, and women can show that it was his "fault" they conceived (expired faulty condom, pretending to put on a condom but not actually doing it, etc) then obviously there should be stipulations for that. He should still have to take responsibility if it is because of something he did. And no, sticking his penis into a vagina doesn't make it his fault. It makes it BOTH of their faults.

It would be very difficult to make this a fair law, which is probably why it isn't in place. There would have to be different clauses for people who hadn't used any birth control, either openly or secretly, obviously. But in a case where someone is clearly "at fault" for doing something to try to conceive without the other person's knowledge, they should be the one held responsible.


And besides, just because men are "forced" to be responsible by law, doesn't mean they are. My dad owes 17 years of back child support, but claims he has no money to help pay for my further education, even when he owns a house AND a speedboat. And 2 cars. Laws like this will just put an end to the numerous cases of manipulation that go through the courts. Because nobody can act like a woman lying about her current ability to conceive in order to milk child support out of a man *isn't* wrong.

And honestly? In my single-parent-raised mind, it would be much better to know for sure that yes, he didn't want anything to do with you, and no, he isn't a good guy. I grew up emotionally distraught not knowing who was telling the truth and who was the one I should trust. I still feel that way most days. It would have been better for me emotionally to realize that one parent picked me and chose me and WANTED me, and the other did not, rather than both sides claiming opposite things. Imagine how much easier it would be if there was never the concept of "dad". If he had just had the ability to say, no, I cannot/do not want to deal with this, and that would be the end of it. He would be fully gone and there would be no questioning it. There would be no more parents trying to convince their child the other parent is the awful one, either overtly or covertly. There would just be facts.

reply to post by BiohazardsBack
=
What adults do or don't do is their business - - their problem - - their responsibility.

Once a child is involved - - - it becomes 100% about the child. Period!

The creators (both) are responsible for that child. Period!

It is inconsequential who made what decision at this point.

Originally posted by Annee
But I just Can Not go with after the fact on this. Reproductive Rights are at time of conception for those involved.

Women can choose after the fact of conception whether or not to become a parent.

There have been many women forced to have an abortion by the man. It is not always her choice.

Can you give me an example? I cannot imagine one. A Dr. simply wouldn't give an abortion to a woman who is being dragged into his office against her will.

However - - - if she opts to have the child against the wishes of the sperm donor - - -

Sperm Donors are not required to financially support the children their sperm create.

I do not agree there should be an Opt Out of financial responsibility.

I understand that you don't agree with me on this.

Originally posted by BiohazardsBack
Some "women" including minors, whose state laws require a parent sign a waiver, or some states that simply do not have an abortion clinic within hours of where she lives, those are also the states where you are forced by the law to "Wait" overnight after they explain it to you before you can actually have the abortion. The cost of this is just out of range for some women.

The lack of a parent's signature is the PARENT choosing. The minor has the choice to tell the parents or not. If the parents keep the minor from aborting, that is the PARENT'S choice. But a woman can drive hours to an abortion clinic. If she CHOOSES not to drive to them, she's made her choice. If she has to wait overnight, that doesn't take away the abortion option, She can STILL have an abortion.

In my scenario, the man (sperm donor) would pay for the abortion, plus something for suffering. Say $2000 total.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Annee
But I just Can Not go with after the fact on this. Reproductive Rights are at time of conception for those involved.

Women can choose after the fact of conception whether or not to become a parent.

There have been many women forced to have an abortion by the man. It is not always her choice.

Can you give me an example? I cannot imagine one. A Dr. simply wouldn't give an abortion to a woman who is being dragged into his office against her will.

However - - - if she opts to have the child against the wishes of the sperm donor - - -

Sperm Donors are not required to financially support the children their sperm create.

I do not agree there should be an Opt Out of financial responsibility.

I understand that you don't agree with me on this.

Many women (still) are subservient to men - - - and will go through with an abortion because the man demands it. That kind of force.

Absolutely I consider the sperm donor financially responsible for the child he/she created (unless legal donor papers were in place).

I have a 16 year old grandson. Would I want his life burdened with an unplanned child? NO - - but would I expect him to be responsible? Damn Straight!

You Play - You Pay! The Child is innocent of the actions adults took. The Child will not go without support.

Originally posted by Annee
Many women (still) are subservient to men - - - and will go through with an abortion because the man demands it. That kind of force.

She still chooses to do it. She chooses to be subservient and chooses to stay with a man who would "demand" she have an abortion. She has all kinds of choices in this scenario.

I'm talking about legal options here. She has the legal option to get an abortion. Morality is another issue altogether.

reply to post by Annee


how in this country in recent times has a woman ever been held down and had her baby aborted against her will name me one case where it wasent because SHE CAVED and made the CHOICE to let the procedure happening

and on a side note in relation to the forced procedures option i have the following question:so i read about this case a while ago and it took me a while to find it but a judge in texas said a woman as a condition of her probation isnt allowed to have any more children for ten years how is that legal? and if it stood what are the ramifications of bolth male and female reproductive options if a judge can say no babie for you! just like that(and i know there were extenuateing circumstaces but still i dont see how this is legal)

newsbusters.org...

the case stateing a child has neither a right nor a need for two parrents kinda opens up some doors with this one heres a snippet from article U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who ruled last week that a voter-approved amendment to California's constitution that limited marriage to the union of one man and one woman violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, based that ruling in part on his finding that a child does not need and has no right to a mother.

Nor, he found, does a child have a need or a right to a father.

"Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted," the judge wrote in finding of fact No. 71 in his opinion

"and with this from the bottom The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied by Walker would require states to grant a marriage license to same-sex couples and would-be parents, while implicitly annihilating the notion that each American child has an equal right to a mother and a father."

does this not constitutionally open the door to the option for a father to deny his child support as acording to this a child has no right to have a father or mother or the support they bring am i reading this correctly?
and this one is less relevent as its from the UK but relvent to the point at hand www.dailymail.co.uk... so just figured id add some more links to the discssion

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Which of a MANS Personal LIBERTY is denied by his free and willing choice to deposit sperm in a woman's womb?

His reproductive right to choose whether or not he wants to be a father. The same one women have to choose whether or not to be a mother. What's so difficult here?

Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.

Source

And these rights guarantee that he will be able to make his decisions free of discrimination coersion and violence.

Which are criminal acts, and the man in the OP exercised his reproductive rights according to the right you posted, thus how is he being denied this right?

reply to post by KilrathiLG


This is probably based upon court decisions limiting a prisoners constitutional rights, including the right to privacy, which is what the right to reproductive freedom is based upon.

Prisoners do not have the right to expect privacy in a prison setting. Court decisions have established that prison officials can properly monitor and record prisoners' conversations, provided that the prisoner and the visitor are warned that this will be done. Prison officials cannot intrude upon conversations that are legally afforded confidentiality, such as those between the prisoner and the prisoner's attorney or spouse. In Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 104 S. Ct. 3194, 82 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1984), the Supreme Court declared that prisoners do not have a Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures of their property because the Fourth Amendment is inapplicable to them.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...'+Rights

Not that I agree with this, as her probation wouldn't literally be a "prison setting." Do you have a link?

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Some women say they want equal rights, that is a lie.

They want what men had in the past and present,
and they want their own special consideration that
will not be given to men.

I know I need to keep it in my pants so I do that,
for more reasons than just pregnancy.

But again, my point is equal rights in this matter do not exist,
and as mnemeth said it is not going to change any time soon.

If a man wants sex without a chance of a child he should
go get snipped and even that is not 100%.

If a man wants to not go under the knife then use condoms,
spermicidal jell and perhaps get her to agree to the morning after
pill before you have sex.

Triple down on the protection and pretty good odds of no pregnancy.

This is an issue that ppl like hotbakedtater will continue to
defend their side of the aisle no matter what logic is offered.

71 pages of this thread so far, good grief...

Divide and conquer is working overtime on this one.

reply to post by Ex_MislTech


I have not seen any logic to rebut, why would I not defend and reassert my position? That is how debate works.