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

I honestly believe that there is a difference between natural animal law and the laws of men. This difference is important because we men on the whole are more naturally able to restrain our behaviors. In animalistic, kill-or-be-killed law, the female of the species in most (but not all) has the ultimate responsibility for the raising of young and the furtherance of the species. In men this isn't true nearly as often as in animals.

That being said, however, the laws of man are not nearly as perfect as the laws governing animals, primarily because in the animal kingdom there is no law save that of survival in the short term, so there are a LOT less laws to be poorly applied. In western society, at least, short term survival is virtually assured for men. We have therefore invented laws with the belief (albeit sometimes misguided) to create rules to assure that there is something more than survival to preoccupy our endeavors.

Take this one fundamental given away from us, however, and the rules we invent become effectively moot. In this pure anarchical construct, witnessed to some degree in places were there is no effective enforcement of the laws (i.e. Somalia) and you see very often the animalistic underpinnings of male and female behaviors. Women would not dare to "trick" a man into fatherhood, because there are no systems greater than familial bonds in place to ensure the safety of the woman and her offspring. Likewise, in these systems you see a greater number of men who take sex by force without regard to any well being of the mother or the offspring because they are not bound, legally or otherwise, to a family.

I believe in this world of men that men are inherently more powerful than women and will always be, hence the phrase "of men" in common usage where "of mankind" is probably more fair. Men are infinitely more capable, on the whole, of reaching further and deeper in thought and action than women because, I theorize, we are less subscribed to the familial unit and therefore more of our mental capacity can be singularly directed. This theory is evidenced by the relative freedom in the past two or three generations of women and yet the real boundary-pushers in any and all fields are almost always men. It truly is a man's world.

That also being said, men are bound by a set of rules greater than those set for women, and should be, in my opinion. Regardless of whether it is more fair or not to for a father to have the right to elect that a mother carry a child to term is irrelevant because it is the mother, and not the father, who is doing the actual carrying. After the pregnancy is over, anything in my opinion is fair game. The state should not be able to force upon the man unregulated financial support of a child anymore than the state should be able to force upon the woman the choice of whether to breastfeed or bottle the baby. If the woman is receiving financial support from the father of her child then it should be regulated, to protect against fraud. This doesn't happen currently, and I'm sure that everyone has at least some knowledge that a portion of "child" support isn't spent, directly or indirectly, on the child.

In my own personal life, I am a married father to a wonderful wife and a lovely daughter. Discipline for myself, my wife, and my daughter is of utmost importance to me because the imprint of what a "man" is is indelibly printed in my daughters mind through my actions, and will influence her in her mating decisions later in life. You read that correctly. I discipline my wife as well as my daughter. I as a man, in concordance with the power vested in me by God as a man and under His laws am the steward of life and the family. This entire argument on "father's rights" becomes moot under this idea. The laws of nations be damned. I would no sooner let my wife abscond with my daughter as I would my own life. By force, if necessary, I would ensure that there is no escape. You would see breaking news on CNN that I kidnapped my wife and daughter and am now suspected to be holding them somewhere beyond the reach of government authority, because God is the only authority and His will is my only charge. That is the contract that didn't need to be written or signed when my wife "spread her legs" and I chose to conceive this child. If more fathers would only stop behaving as insolent boys instead of men this would not be an issue. You plant your seed and it's your responsibility, not hers, not the state's.

Originally posted by Raist

What you have said here is exactly what BH, myself and other posters have been saying all along.

NO - - I gave a different answer for what I think should be Legal Action.

reply to post by joechip


Well, I believe women should be screened to be fit to be parents as well, it just isn't logistically possible.

The reason it would be a good thing for the father is because he may want the baby, but the woman may not want him to have the baby, and as I said, the woman may have a very good reason to not want him to be a part of the child's life.
Courts can rule fathers have no contact with their children already, same with mothers although they rarely do, so ruling that he is unfit to be a parent in a case where the woman says, look, I don't want him to be a parent of my child and this is why (drug abuse, physical/emotional/sexual abuse, outright crazyness)

The reasoning is actually pretty logical. Right now, a woman can and will give up her baby to the state or a private adoption agency with or without the father's permission. Once the baby is gone, the father has absolutely no right to see the child, they have been signed away to their new family. This method would give the father a CHANCE. You can't act like *some* chance is better than *no* chance. Right now the choice is nonexistant, and with this idea it would be there.
And no. He shouldn't have a child if he doesn't pass the methods used for screening other potential adoptive parents. And no, women shouldn't get to have their children either in that case, but they always do right now.

Albeit, the testing methods will have to change a bit, they are a bit outrageous now, they could be a bit more lenient for biological family, both in terms of financial and situational. Not in terms of mental stability though, that is really the most important part. The child can eat rice or pasta every day for dinner, as long as they know that they are safe in their own home, and their parent(s) will do anything to prevent them from being harmed. They can live in a home that is rented not owned (most kids do anyways) and still be the most well-adjusted kid in their class.


But I am firmly in the belief that parents SHOULD be tested, and trained.
Although I can obviously see that such a system would never work in the society we live in today, because it would be used to force people to implement The State's ideals and morals and rules, instead of giving parents the understanding of what is Good parenting (which I do not have a full explanation of because I have neither a child, nor a successful upbringing) and what is Bad parenting (pretty obvious. Anything that causes your child to be afraid of you, anything that causes them lasting damage in any form, anything that encourages them to be cruel or mean people, etc etc)
It could teach them how to discipline their children appropriately, as in, not making them feel worthless as so many parents today do without even knowing it, making sure that even when they are being punished for something, they know that you love them and are not just giving them a time out or whatever you are doing to "be mean"

But since that type of program cannot exist, the next best thing is to make sure that anyone taking a child from their biological mother is fit to do so. Because trust me, a law making testing biological mothers be tested for adequacy would NEVER go through, no matter how much some circumstances warrant it.


And yes. The rights to children will never be equal. Women put a lot more into a baby than men do, and they will always have the advantage. This is why they were practically worshiped in cave-man times. They bring life, and trust me, it is THEM bringing life, and not your sperm. She has to take care of it and deal with it in ways no man could ever understand fully (except that "man" with a uterus who had a baby, but he had a uterus so he was kindof a woman as well)
When a court is given a choice between 2 identically abled parents, they will pick the mother, because that is the way our genetics and therefore our society works. The mother is literally made to take care of this child, and the man is not. I am not saying he couldn't do just as good a job, or even better, but honestly in most cases, they simply cannot. At least, most cases that actually go to court over it. If the man is a great parent, the mother usually sees this and agrees to shared custody or at least generous visitation, unless she is a total b---wait I don't think I am allowed to swear here, so ummmm.... unless she is a total Meanie Pants. In which case she is probably not a good mother, because she is not taking the child's future into account.

reply to post by livefreeordieinnh

because God is the only authority and His will is my only charge. That is the contract that didn't need to be written or signed when my wife "spread her legs" and I chose to conceive this child. If more fathers would only stop behaving as insolent boys instead of men this would not be an issue. You plant your seed and it's your responsibility, not hers, not the state's.

If we all lived in the theocracy you describe as the condition under your roof, your point would be valid. Thankfully, we live in a Constitutional Republic, instead. Of note is the fact that the freedom to run your household as a place where "God is the only authority," is guaranteed under the Constitution (and none of the state's business unless God tells you to break to law) just as my freedom to consider women my equals and acknowledge them as having equal rights and the resultant responsibilities is they way I may raise my family. But neither of our attitudes, beliefs, or convictions affect the fact that the Constitution is the guide by which laws are deemed valid or invalid. The Constitution, not God.

reply to post by Annee


No your words were….

Originally posted by Annee
On a personal note - - - I would say no child should be kept if not wanted fully and the parent(s) do not have the means of support (both emotional and financially).

I she decides to keep it - - I think it should be her own responsibility.

Therefore - - in legal terms - - I can only look at the welfare and financial support of the child - - - who is completely innocent.

Which is what the rest of us have been saying.

Nevertheless, my personal opinion should be both parties should have to face the burden of the responsibilities of sex. That is my opinion and is not up to debate though because that would force both parties to face the burden of supporting the child even if raised by a government run home. This would mean no abortion and any child given for adoption or safe haven would have to be supported financially by both sides as well.


Women still have three options to get out of motherhood one of which means the pregnancy is ended all together. The woman can still put up for adoption or safe haven. They give no support to the child after that point. Men have no choice in the case the woman keeps the child.


I give you credit though for not stepping all over the men (as some have) by saying they have a choice in the sex or not as that is irrelevant because women do as well. The sex is the root cause of this subject but not the case of the matter. The matter is the child and where many stand that starts with the pregnancy. Women can end that without a choice of the man.

I understand you think they should discuss it and it would be civil for the woman to give birth if the man wishes. That though is not the case, none of our wishes there play into law. What is law is that women can opt out of motherhood in three ways without a man making a decision or even getting a say period.

What bothers most of us that are for this (at least those I agree with) is that men get no say in children until they get to a courtroom. In that, court room most of the time even if the mother is while not terrible but simply not as fit as the father gets custody. When they get custody, they rape the man financially and in many cases keep the father from their child or poison them against the father with vile drivel.

There are men who would love to have children, who get a woman pregnant but the woman ends the pregnancy instead of giving a possibly great father a chance. In this instance, many start a tainted view of women from that man. There are cases where an unfit mother gets custody and has numerous men in the child’s life placing the kid in even greater danger of abuse.


What we are trying to say is the man is at the hands of the woman’s choices after conception. The woman on the other hand holds all the cards after the conception. This deck is terribly unbalanced.

I do not want men to brush off fatherhood. I would be very disappointed in my own son if ever he did that. However, his choice is not mine and his responsibilities are not mine he is a different person than I am. I would though like him to have all the same choices a woman does when it comes to the life of his future children.

Raist

reply to post by joechip


I will submit to you that in your household the way you wish to address women is your business, not mine. You can choose to go your own way because we do not live in a theocracy, otherwise the law wouldn't give you the freedom to choose. That is the Amer-centric view and I don't necessarily believe that it's wrong.

What I'd like to suggest, however, is that these laws that we live under enshrined in our "Constitutional Republic" are not laws that are laid down by the constitution itself. We hold these truths to be self evident not because they are written on a declaration but because they areself evident. The reason the Constitution is a subtractive document (that is, one that tells us what the government can't do rather than what it can) is that these rights are not given to us by the constitution. They're given to us by the fact that we're not animals.

I'll put it this way. I live in a province of a sort of quasi-republic with a malleable constitution that is itself part of a bloc of quasi-republican states that represent a larger, more monolithic culture that we describe as "western." It largely was created by European powers displacing and/or blending with native populations who themselves de-colonized two to three centuries ago. The larger "western" society stands apart from the "eastern" society which is made up of parts of the Ottoman, Byzantine, Roman, Egyptian, and then Euphrates Valley type cultures from which all of these cultures sprang. The "eastern" society isn't really eastern at all because it in itself doesn't encompass the whole eastern world as the western society doesn't encompass the whole world west of Asia.

These societies themselves are on a strangely perfect ball of liquid water circling a sun of just the right caliber in an endless ocean of other suns and worlds and galaxies and universes. We can't possibly know all there is to know about everything, so we look to what we do know. And that is that men are generally greater on every measurable scale that has anything to do with shaping this world we live in. As such this could be considered a natural law. To discount that men have a far, far greater impact on shaping the world and society at large then women would be folly. All of these empires which over time codified the human laws that eventually gave rise to the U.S. Constitution have been borne on the blood and sweat of the men born from the wombs of the women they left behind to conquer and shape nature.

All I'm saying is that natural, God given law grants men power that far exceeds that of women. And just like rocketry, power without control, without responsibility, is wasted. It's as if the power did not exist in the first place. As a man, the male of this awesome species that is man, you have a duty to shape this power into something useful. You naturally have all of the power that must be regulated into existence for women to be anything near equal. And as these aforementioned empires have risen and fallen the laws of these empires can't be considered perpetual. But I know of laws that can be.

Edit-- "on a personal note. Because of the power and resultant responsibilities enshrined in men, it is greatly important that you don't plant your seed in land that isn't fallow. This means that you don't knock up a washed out psuedo-prostitute who is apt to hold your baby in one hand and some other dude's junk in the other"

reply to post by Raist


If you can't understand the difference between Personal Opinion - - - and what I believe should be Legal in the Courts.

That really isn't my problem.

Well, I believe women should be screened to be fit to be parents as well, it just isn't logistically possible. The reason it would be a good thing for the father is because he may want the baby, but the woman may not want him to have the baby, and as I said, the woman may have a very good reason to not want him to be a part of the child's life.

reply to post by BiohazardsBack


This is what we've come to, unfortunately. That otherwise reasonable people believe it would be a good thing if we were all screened before being allowed to parent our children. But that since it would be "logistically" impossible for the women, let's just screen the men. I'm completely flabbergasted, to be honest. I really don't know what to say. When the people start asking for tyranny, the police state has truly arrived.
Please, please, value your freedom! The government's job is NOT to determine who is fit to be parents. Don't you see that this is all wrong, this way of thinking? The presumption should always be that we are capable of running our own lives, including our families. Including our choices. What you're describing is a nightmare world. Or Communist North Korea maybe. Not America.

reply to post by livefreeordieinnh


While I appreciate the earlier part of your post that demonstrates basic knowledge of the limits of government, and correctly asserts the Constitution as a subtractive document, I disagree, firstly, that its authority is based on a historical "self-evidence," ie., a cultural relevance, or geographic norms. In other words, an Amer-centric viewpoint. I believe the principles are broader and quite simple.
And secondly I take issue with this:

All I'm saying is that natural, God given law grants men power that far exceeds that of women. And just like rocketry, power without control, without responsibility, is wasted. It's as if the power did not exist in the first place. As a man, the male of this awesome species that is man, you have a duty to shape this power into something useful. You naturally have all of the power that must be regulated into existence for women to be anything near equal.

The only power that man "naturally" has in excess of women is a brute, physical strength, and even that is not always the case. You are interjecting your religious beliefs here, and justifying them with a somewhat skewed take on history. Conquest, empire and female subjugation are hardly the basis for God-given law. A woman's equality is, just like her freedom, a self-evident truth in my view. It does not derive from a man, except in your religious beliefs, which I believe are often ancient vehicles of male-centric justification. In another example, a similar argument has been made in the past for the justification of the slavery of Africans, or the inferiority of Native Americans. It essentially boils down to "might makes right" with a little religion on top.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I defintly understand, but like you said some people wont listen to reason. Guess I am trying to think of a compromise that can "lead' to recognition of those rights. A

reply to post by Annee


You simply said the child should have financial support. They can get that without a father many do every day.


Just as many, also get financial support without a mother.


If the mother can opt out of motherhood in three ways the father should get an opt out as well.


If you cannot understand what you wrote in your own post, it is not my fault.

Why must you be so crass when answering a post? I was not crass with you in any way.

Added: As some have said this was proposed, had it passed it would have been legal as well. We are discussing possible legislations and their implications, so opinion can be discussed as well.


Raist

Originally posted by joechip
reply to post by livefreeordieinnh

 

I disagree, firstly, that its authority is based on a historical "self-evidence," ie., a cultural relevance, or geographic norms.

I disagree with the assertion that the underpinnings of the idea of personal liberty that is the United States are not based on cultural relevance or geographic norms, and ultimately, self-evidence. Just off the top of my head are a few links below which further my claim.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

The only power that man "naturally" has in excess of women is a brute, physical strength,

Just from googling "difference in male and female brains" yields results like this

www.cbsnews.com...

Where a researcher states that mens brains are 2% larger overall and have 6 1/2 times as much gray matter as womens'. It also says that women have as much as 10 times as much white matter as men. Gray matter is for information processing, white matter is for connecting information. It's like women have 10 terabyte hard drives connected to pentium II's, while men have a 64GB SSD connected to Quad Xeons. There really are innate differences in men and womens' brains. The researcher (a woman) is quick to point out that this doesn't mean that one sex is "smarter" than the other. Smarter would be too ambiguous to quantify. What wouldn't be too ambiguous to quantify would be the relative superiority men have in working with spatial concepts and raw numbers (or more correctly, abstract reasoning of value denominated figures). I'd say that this, in brevity, equals power. A man's wife might remember better than he how he solved a problem, or more likely, the circumstances surrounding the man at the time.

Any man in a car with a woman who asks the question, "do you remember the address of this place" is playing out the age-old routine of these differences. Men of old (of reknown lol) had to answer questions like "how many throwing spears will I need to fashion to bring down enough game to feed this family protein this season" while women had to remember where each little berry or tuber root plant grew to supplement this protein. No way did men remember where some little bush grew next to an indistinguishable landmark just as women had no idea how many spears it would take to fell a mammoth (although they might derive the answer by remembering how many spears it took the last year, they generally aren't going to equate 1 spear=%damage). You can see this in your daily life right now. Without looking around or anything, point north. Ask a woman which way is north or how far New York is from Washington D.C. Ask a man to remember what color your blouse was on your first date. Hell, ask a man what he ate for dinner two nights ago. We're just different, and to me, those differences equal relative power. Not storage, not capability, just power.


So to recap, I've cited references to support the claim that men are more powerful physically and mentally than women and as such have a responsibility that women don't. Not in all cases, but most. I've also cited references that our rights were not brought into existence with the Constitution, nor is it the final arbiter of law, as the Constitution itself is a summation of many ideas that date back to civilization itself. The logical leap you should be attacking, in my opinion, is that civilization and the laws thereof derive ultimately from a higher order, God if you will, and not that the Constitution's authority doesn't derive from earlier legal concepts, which it clearly does.

reply to post by livefreeordieinnh


I hate to break this to you, but no where in that study do they give any of the information REQUIRED to decide which sex is smarter (or mentally more powerful). The study simply states that there is noticeable differences, that unfortuantely do fit into certain stereotypes.

The reason we can't figure out whom is smarter is because we still lack all the required info.

For example, I say my computer is faster/better than yours because I have a 2600 ghz 2 core processor and you have a 2400 ghz 2 core processor. I have 4 gb of ram, you have 6 gb of ram.

Now in this example there is NO way of determining which computer is faster because we lack required information pertaining to speed, ie: bus speed, hd capacity and buffer speeds, ram latency etc.

reply to post by livefreeordieinnh


For someone to claim that one gender is smarter or more powerful than the other is a sign of gross insecurity. And not AT ALL what this thread is about.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by livefreeordieinnh

 

For someone to claim that one gender is smarter or more powerful than the other is a sign of gross insecurity. And not AT ALL what this thread is about.

One of yours and others who hold your opinion is precisely that-

That the female has all the Power in this OP scenerio!

So are you admitting your stance is insecure?

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by Annee

 

You simply said the child should have financial support. They can get that without a father many do every day.


Just as many, also get financial support without a mother.


If the mother can opt out of motherhood in three ways the father should get an opt out as well.


If you cannot understand what you wrote in your own post, it is not my fault.

Why must you be so crass when answering a post? I was not crass with you in any way.

Added: As some have said this was proposed, had it passed it would have been legal as well. We are discussing possible legislations and their implications, so opinion can be discussed as well.

There is no mistaking or misinterpretations of my posts. They are succinct - to the point.

I know exactly what I wrote.

It is you who is trying to make it fit what you want it to.

reply to post by Annee


Let me explain it another way then. Since you are not understanding what I am saying.

in legal terms - - I can only look at the welfare and financial support of the child - - - who is completely innocent

There is not thinking of that when the mother has opts out of motherhood. There is no guarantee for any of that when the mother uses one of the three ways to opt out of motherhood.

With abortion (when used for the use of ridding of an unwanted child only) there is no thought of the child’s welfare. The child is gone.

When the mother uses adoption, there is no guarantee the child will be supported financially or that their welfare will be safe.

When a mother uses safe haven, there is no guarantee the child will be supported financially or that their welfare will be safe.

The woman is not doing anything to give the child support after she gives up her right to motherhood. Why can the father not have that same option?


In most of the cases I have seen, the woman gets government help and gets a live in boyfriend/s to get them extra money. If the woman marries, the father still must pay the support as well. I have seen just as many women play the system as I have “deadbeat” dads.

The woman holds all the keys to this and the father gets nothing. If the mother decides to move, guess what the father still pays the same amount and most usually loses some of their visitation time.

Raist

Originally posted by Hefficide
Men already have reproductive rights.

They have the right to keep their pants zipped if they can't step up to the plate.
They also have the right to get the snot kicked out of them by other guys if they fail to exercise their first right.

edit on 9/16/10 by Hefficide because: missed a few words in all the excitement

It takes two to tango, buddy. There are countless cases of pregnancies which were unintentional at conception (with both parties obviously consenting to the act, often using birth control and in most cases between two people involved in a committed relationship who do not want a child at the time). Once a woman becomes impregnated, hormones and instincts may kick in to change her feelings about whether or not she wants to give birth to and/or raise a child. It is not fair that a man should have no rights to opt out of the obligations of fatherhood (even if these are merely financial) if a woman's decision to do the same is protected by the courts. It seems this would be a Constitutional issue, since citizens are supposed to have equal protection regardless of gender.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
So are you admitting your stance is insecure?

No. I'm speaking about overall power of the genders, not in a specific scenario.

I disagree with the assertion that the underpinnings of the idea of personal liberty that is the United States are not based on cultural relevance or geographic norms, and ultimately, self-evidence. Just off the top of my head are a few links below which further my claim.

reply to post by livefreeordieinnh


I'll try to keep this brief, as this discussion is wandering a bit off-topic. My argument is that the idea of personal liberty is based more on theories of government, than upon historical events or geographic norms, most notably:
en.wikipedia.org...

As such, our application of this idea is (or ought to be) whole, and not dependent upon norms, or historical prejudice. My examples concerning Africans and Native Americans went unanswered, and prove my point.

But to the topic at hand, clearly the argument your trying to make is that, as unequal citizens, women are afforded fewer rights and resultant responsibilities, indeed share a similar position to children in your view, and this, as I pointed out already, may be the understanding in your household, but not the rest of the country, and not in the law. Though the ERA failed by a mouse's whisker, the principles therein are taken as a given in countless examples of law, most notably and recently The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Anti-discrimination laws don't even make sense unless you presuppose equality.
www.articlesbase.com...

I do feel that your views of women's status as similar to that of children inform the mindset of the unequal male reproduction laws, and are a holdover from a time when those views were widespread. But people really haven't thought it through, so it's not generally recognized as such.