A Father's Parental Obligations to Protect [Archive]

View Full Version : A Father's Parental Obligations to Protect

chris epic

20th April 2006, 03:31 PM

This is a 3 1/2 page arguement paper I wrote for my college english class on father's rights and abortion. Just giving you a heads up on the length of it before you decide to read on.

Abstract

Women have many more reproductive and parental rights termination options than men, contrary to the equal rights clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although over turning the Roe v Wade decision by the Supreme Court in 1973 would unconstitutionally limit a woman’s choice to determine her reproductive and parental destiny, a father’s genetic and parental stake in his prenatal child must not be overlooked. As a woman’s right over her body is legislated by her natural right of autonomy, a father’s natural obligation to protect his child from abortion should be legislated equally.

“No man can possibly know what life means, what the world means, what anything means, until he has a child and loves it. And then the whole universe changes and nothing will ever again seem exactly as it seemed before, (faithsite.com)”
- Lafcadio Hearn, (1850-1904)

When I was 19 years old, I was a legal adult and a reckless teenager. My impetuous lifestyle consequently yielded the impregnation of my then live-in girlfriend. Quick to action, she wanted an abortion. I asked her if she was sure and she began to cry. She expressed several hearted reasons why she could not have a child at this time. Understanding that I had no rightful bearing in the decision, I supported her. Together we went to every clinical appointment, including the procedure; I acquired half of the cost, and I made myself available to her personally and emotionally.

I hadn’t truly thought about the abortion until the following Father’s Day. At that moment I began to understand the capacity of my lack of “rightful bearing.” Something felt very wrong at the fact that I didn’t have the right; not to force my girlfriend to have a child against her will, but to protect my child from the abortion. I truly believed that at the moment of conception, I was a father and even if a “father” was only reserved for persons born, then I was at least the advocate for my biological creation, a human life, my progeny, my child. As a woman’s right over her body is legislated by her natural right of autonomy, a father’s natural obligation to protect his child from abortion should be legislated equally.

There is no law in the United States that affirms my plight for advocacy in the case for my prenatal child. There is not even a law that automatically or fairly secures the parental rights of an unmarried father in the event that a father wants to protect his child from an abortion (Leving 199). It is especially difficult for a father to establish paternity, given that he is unaware of his sexual partner’s pregnancy, unless the mother seeks financial support. In this case, a father can be court ordered to pay child support for the next 18 years (Lerman and Ooms114). In “Young Unwed Fathers,” Robert Lerman and Theodora Ooms state that 90% of the time, a father will have only a financial responsibility to the child, and not a custodial or emotional responsibility to the child as determined by the family court system. Jeffrey Leving, author of “Father’s Rights,” says that this is due, in part, to dated gender stereotyping that typically favors the mother over the father when sole custody is awarded. This is because, generally, the family court system perceives the mother as that child’s nurturing and emotional custodian, and the father exclusively as a financial custodian (Leving 42).

This gender stereotyping contributes to an attitude which assumes that fathers do not have an emotional stake in their children’s lives in an early prenatal stage, but rather they are only concerned with financial provision for their families; thus fathers are sought to fulfill this financial obligation for their children in the event of divorce or paternity establishment by a single mother. This is based on a gender role model that assigns emotional nurturing to the mother and financial nurturing to the father (Leving 37).

Leving displays a poll result demonstrating that American society contradicts this general family court presumption. Of the 11,000 survey participants, 88 percent of Americans felt that moms and dads should have equal child-rearing responsibilities, both emotionally and financially (39). Leving continues to explain that many fathers experience various degrees of “torture” and “devastation” when separated from their children (40). If the opinion of the average American doesn’t sufficiently contradict the court’s opinion, perhaps the words of a historical philosopher who has contributed to American ideology, will paint a vivid picture of true fatherhood. Jean-Jacques Rousseau says that “paternal love” is one of the “sweetest sentiments known to Man,” (Fiero). Understanding of the reality of a father’s emotional stake in his child’s life versus the court’s misconception will generate a turnaround in the one to nine ratio of paternal custody to maternal custody, and impact the more controversial issue at hand: that of a father’s right to protect his child from abortion.

Claiming that gender stereotyping has contributed to the detriment of fathers’ parental rights in the United States, the options of parental right termination and reproductive rights of women must be clarified. Men and women are naturally obligated to protect themselves and their children. This should be clearly understood, as this is conducive to the protection and reproduction of the human species. These natural obligations to protect ourselves and each other, along with the enculturation of our values that lend to morality, are, themselves, protected by legislating them into laws under the umbrella of the United States Constitution. This is simply restating the beginning of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men…are endowed… with certain unalienable Rights…among these are Life…That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted,” thus, when we say “protect” it is this very “Life” that is being protected.

In 1973, the Supreme Court decision of Roe v Wade protected a woman’s right to complete autonomy over her body (Goldman 34). That is to say, women have the right to make decisions in regard to their bodies, which includes the decision of continuing or terminating her pregnancy. Abortion is a hotly debated issue but it is not my contention to argue against abortion, or even a woman’s right to choose. I must respect the fact the many women believe that this is their natural right to choose their reproductive future.

Another option that unwed mothers have to terminate their parental rights without paternal consent is through adoption. According to an article published in the New York Times by Tamar Lewin, Jeremiah Clayton Jones, a 23 year old father of an 18 month old son he has never seen, has no legal right to bar his ex-fiancé from giving the child up for adoption. He lost this right because he failed to file his paternity with a putative father registry. Over thirty states have a similar registry which allows fathers to file paternity in a certain amount of time before or after the child’s birth (Lewin). Lewin says the deadlines range from 5 days to 30 days after birth, or when a petition to adoption has been filed. Jones discovered his ex-fiancé was pregnant three weeks before the child was born when he was contacted by a lawyer asking for paternal consent to adoption. Jones wanted that baby, but he didn’t find out about the paternal registry until it was past the deadline. Ultimately, Jones lost his parental rights due to a technicality. Across the country, Jones is a representative voice for many fathers who are fighting for their children.

To establish a case for fathers that could limit the legal action that has to take place to fight for their children, fathers should no longer be looked at as merely the bread winners in the hierarchy of the family infrastructure. The father’s emotional involvement is just as important, if not more, than financial provision. Leving cites social scientific studies that link the absence of a father to a “wide range of social nightmares and developmental deficiencies [including] increases in juvenile crime, drug and alcohol abuse, teenage pregnancy, promiscuity, truancy, and vandalism,” (47). My family left my father when I was eleven years old. The disintegration of my family was the disintegration of my life-stability. After experiencing many of the above “nightmares” and “deficiencies,” I attributed them to the absence of my father. I have yet to fully heal, emotionally, from the absence of my father. Having established the needed equity of mother and father involvement, and sharing of financial responsibilities, I am almost able to make a case for fathers’ rights. But first I need to explain the Supreme Court’s opinion of why fathers come second to mothers in parental decisions from abortion to adoption.

Leslie Friedman Goldstein, a professor of political science at the University of Delaware, traces the development of women’s rights and abortion through Supreme Court cases in her book “Contemporary Cases in Women’s Rights.” First, in the 1976 case Planned Parenthood v Danforth, the Court’s opinion states that “it is the woman who physically bears the child and who is the more directly and immediately affected by the pregnancy. [If both parents disagree, and one has to make the decision] as between the two, the balance weighs in [the mother’s] favor,” (20). Since it is well known biological and scientific knowledge that a fetus is fifty percent composed of the father’s DNA, the decision weighs in her favor because she is the one that experiences the physical effects of pregnancy and the painful process of birth. These effects and this process of pregnancy and birth are held within the nine month gestation period. However, in stark contrast, when a father who wishes to terminate his parental responsibilities before his child is born, exercising the same option that a woman has, he can still be found financially responsible for the child if the mother chooses to continue the pregnancy. Thus, a father does not have the legal reproductive or parental options a mother has.

I have a friend who pays child support to a daughter he lives a thousand miles away from, and whose mother prefers he not be involved with. My friend makes a thousand dollars a month after taxes. He is an average adult with average adult living expenses in addition to the $500 a month he has to pay for child support. The math is evident and the stress and frustration, without a doubt, could be equated to the emotional health detriment a woman can cite as a justification for abortion or adoption.

Goldstein accounts in the Roe v Wade case that abortions are justifiable at the cost of the maternal health, both physically and mentally (17). Stress contributes to both mental and physical health. David B. Posen, MD, wrote in a Canadian journal of medicine that “stress is the most common cause of ill health in our society, probably underlying as many as 70% of all visits to family doctors (Posen). Therefore, if stress can be used as an excuse for a legitimate abortion of an unwanted child and an undesirable 9 month pregnancy, then the stress fathers experience from the financial burden of supporting an unwanted child, and an undesirable 18 year period, cannot be ignored.

This brings to mind a recent case dubbed “Roe v Wade for Men.” Journalist Nancy Gibbs publishes an article in Time Magazine in March of 2006.She reports on this case being brought to U.S. district court by the National Center for Men (NCFM, an American men’s rights group), advocating a 25 year old Matt Dubay. He contends that his girlfriend assured him that she had a medical condition that prevented her from conceiving children. Not expecting that he would be a parent, he was more than a little surprised when he was court ordered to pay child support. The NCFM is using this case to bolster the quest for equating men’s reproductive and parental rights with those of women’s. Initially, if a woman can opt-out of her parental responsibilities, a man should be able to as well (Gibbs).

I absolutely, whole-heartedly, 100 percent disagree with this case in the event that a child will not be financially provided for. Although many biologists and physicians agree that a fetus is a human life; a human life is not a person. A person, defined by the Constitution in the Fourteenth Amendment, is “one born in the United States.” If a human is not born, it technically does not have the same rights and protections that persons do, if at all. The only case I know that does offer protection of a fetus is detailed by the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL). They state that if the mother has an intention to see the pregnancy to birth such as the Fetal Homicide Law. This law equates a miscarriage brought on by an automobile accident to vehicular homicide (NCSL). But, again, this is only in the interest of the mother primarily.

When a human is born and becomes a person, it is vested with rights and protections, including the right to be financially supported. I do not believe men should be able to financially opt-out of supporting their children. However, the principal underlying this court case is addressed by the young Matt Dubay from Nancy Gibb’s article.

Dubay says he doesn’t expect to see a victory. He tells the Associated Press, “What I expect to hear [from the court] is that the way things are is not really fair, but that's the way it is… Just to create awareness would be enough, to at least get a debate started.” Dubay and the National Center for Men hope to create awareness that men and women not only have unequal parental and reproductive rights, the differences in their rights are grossly uneven and evident through double standards. Although I am for the fundamental support of children born, and I support a woman’s legal right to choose, I believe that at the very least, amidst all the rights a man; a father lacks, I should be able to legally bar my sexual partner from having an abortion if I desire to protect my child. But any attempt to do so in the past has failed because of this statement that encompasses the general opinion of the Supreme Court in this matter. “It cannot be claimed that the father's interest in the fetus' welfare is equal to the mother's protected liberty...," (Gibbs). Her liberty to choose her parental destiny outweighs a father’s “interest” in a fetus. Her freedom to terminate her parental responsibilities overrides my freedom to protect my child. I cannot understand why; for if I were mandated by nature to protect my genetic destiny, I would sacrifice a lifetime of fatherhood over a brief and painful nine months of gestation.

The Supreme Court recognizes the preciousness of “potential personhood” and understands that the “State does have an…important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life...,” (Goldstein 18). However; they fail to recognize a father’s obligation to protect his unborn child. They believe a woman’s liberty is more important than a father’s interest in his unborn child. I don’t believe one outweighs the other. I know that both are equally important and should be equally legislated as such. A woman must maintain her right to determine her reproductive destiny if her unborn child is unwanted by both of its parents. But just as a father cannot force his sexual partner to abort their child, a mother should not have the right to do the same if the father desires to protect his unborn child, unless the continuation of pregnancy was a detriment to either the health and life of the mother, or the health and life of the child as originally intended by Roe v Wade.

Passion swells. Any attempt I make to articulate this issue in a logical, nonabrasive, invitational way seems to only slightly stray by wave of righteousness. The order of responsible rhetoric favors rigid objectivity when, in truth, there isn’t such an object that exists. I am inclined to maintain my possession of natural obligation I find refused by the State that undermines me. I believe that every human being deserves a right to life. I believe the mother’s right to life and liberty supersedes that life vulnerable and quick to death without the life support of the mother. But I believe a father’s State-demanded 18 year support of a child born should at least be equated, if not chronologically, then fundamentally to the healthy mother’s naturally demanded 9 month support of a healthy, unborn child. This being evident; a father and a mother must be recognized as equal participants in the decision over their parental destiny; the variable of favor being Life, whether that be the Life of the mother or the Life of the unborn child whom is advocated by the father with a desire to see that life grow, love, and be loved.

Having shared a personal story and introduced a general overview of parental rights and obligations, I have established a desire to bring attention to the gross inequity of legal parental rights between men and women, and the generalizations of gender stereotyping harmful to fathers today who are surrounded by the constant redefinition of these roles. The laws that lend themselves to women’s rights (in regard to parental and reproductive) have a basis in biology and fundamentality through the pursuit of liberty mandated by nature or “God” as written in the Declaration of Independence. A father, too, has the same fundamental, the same natural pursuits and should not be told otherwise by any person or State.

“Self-determination and freedom are the basis of human rights…Today, on Human Rights Day, we…recommit ourselves to fighting forward until our right to determine our reproductive destiny is understood as essential to human freedom,”

-Gloria Feldt, Former President of Planned Parenthood, 10 December 2004

Works Cited

Declaration of Independence. Preamble Clause. 1776.

Feldt, Gloria. “Reproductive Rights Are Human Rights.” Planned Parenthood. 10 Dec. 2004. Planned Parenthood. 23 March 2006 <www.plannedparenthood.org>.

Fiero, Gloria. “Rousseau’s Revolt Against Reason.” Discourse on the Origin of Inequality Among Men. Jean-Jacques Rousseau. 1755. 12 April 2006. <http://lilt.ilstu.edu/gmklass/foi/readings/rouss.htm>.

Gibbs, Nancy. “A Man’s Right to Choose.” Time. 15 March 2006. <www.time.com/time>.

Goldstein, Leslie Friedman. Contemporary Cases in Women's Rights. Madison: Wisconsin UP, 1994.

Lerman, Robert and Theodora Ooms. Young Unwed Fathers. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1993.

Leving, Jeffery. Fathers’ Rights. New York: Basic Books, 1986.

Lewin, Tamar. “Unwed Fathers Fight for Babies Placed for Adoption by Mothers.” New York Times 19 March 2006, late ed.: sec 1. p 1.

National Conference of State Legislatures. Fetal Homicide Law. June 2005. 14 April 2006. <http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm>.

Posen, David B. “Stress Management.” Internet Mental Health. April 1995. 14 April 2006. <http://www.mentalhealth.com>.

BlackCat

20th April 2006, 05:07 PM

That was an excellent paper, well thought-out, very logical and rational. About the content, I, too, have had such thoughts about a father's rights. I totally agree with your arguments, that a father needs to have more rights, and that the system is biased.

The only place where I disagree with you is the issue of forcing the woman to keep the child, even if she doesn't want to. Unfortunately, I think biology trumps you on this point. I think it is immoral to force a woman to carry a child she does not wish to.

An example for you to think of: what if the father is a rapist? Obviously, the mother gives up her right to the kid. Is the mother then responsible for child-support? I suppose it could be argued that the father would be admitting his guilt by accepting the child as his, but then who raises the kid if he is convicted and placed in prison? I suppose the 'rape condition' could be an "exception to the rule," but then what's to stop the woman from accusing any man of rape any time she wants an abortion and he doesn't? The exception will become abused.

BlackCat

Tmy

20th April 2006, 06:35 PM

I didnt read your whole post but i remember oyr discussions from before. I think you run into a problem when it comes to defining a "child". Mom doesnt abort a child, she aborts a non entity thats not considered a person.

By the way, I sort of work in the biz. I can give you some personal insight on how this sort of thing works in my state, if you like. (Mass.)

chris epic

20th April 2006, 07:46 PM

The only place where I disagree with you is the issue of forcing the woman to keep the child, even if she doesn't want to.

Thanks for your feed back. Well, that was pretty much the premise of my whole arguement- Given that a woman could be impregnated through inscest, rape, or that the continuation of the pregnancy would hurt or kill the mother or the fetus- these are understandible justifications for abortion. Outside of these criteria, for the sake of an unwanted, unplanned preganancy or contraceptive alternative- if the father wants the child, and is able (even though many unwed mothers aren't "able", he should be able to stop the abortion.

chris epic

20th April 2006, 07:47 PM

TragicMonkey

20th April 2006, 07:56 PM

I think the only solution to such a dilemma would be via technology: if we ever reach a point where a fetus, at any stage of development, can be removed from an unwilling mother and still develop heathily, then we will have no further need for abortion. The mother will not be forced to bear anything, the father can claim it if he wants, and if neither want it, it could be adopted. The biological practicalities that make it necessary to give the mother more rights than the father, and the mother power over the child, will have been conquered. No muss, no fuss, just teleporting a fetus into a robot, or an incubator, or another woman, or maybe a space woman by then.

BlackCat

20th April 2006, 10:40 PM

Yes, an artificial womb. I agree that many of the issues raised in this paper could be mititgated with such a device.

BlackCat

slingblade

21st April 2006, 12:39 AM

An excellent paper! I'm extremely impressed by the level of your prose as well as your cogent arguments and sound structure.

A work to be proud of, sir.

:D

chris epic

21st April 2006, 10:52 AM

An excellent paper! I'm extremely impressed by the level of your prose as well as your cogent arguments and sound structure.

A work to be proud of, sir.

:DWell thank you:)

Mephisto

22nd April 2006, 07:54 AM

Yes, an artificial womb. I agree that many of the issues raised in this paper could be mititgated with such a device.

BlackCat

I want to be called, Loretta. I want to have children.

You CAN'T have children! Where the fetus going to gestate? Are you going to keep it in a box?

Mark

22nd April 2006, 07:58 AM

I want to be called, Loretta. I want to have children.

You CAN'T have children! Where the fetus going to gestate? Are you going to keep it in a box?

Don't you oppress me.

TragicMonkey

22nd April 2006, 08:39 AM

Get your body off of my laws!

Mephisto

22nd April 2006, 08:47 AM

Mephisto

22nd April 2006, 08:48 AM

An excellent paper! I'm extremely impressed by the level of your prose as well as your cogent arguments and sound structure.

A work to be proud of, sir.

:D

Ditto! You should know that neither Slingblade nor I pass out prose praise very often.

Q-Source

22nd April 2006, 10:37 AM

chris epic,

You raised a very important issue. I believe that fathers and men have little parental rights. I don´t know why in the 21th century nothing has been done to balance the rights over children.

However, regarding protecting an unborn child when it is still gestating inside a woman seems rather impossible. I think that as society we should look for some other alternatives to give men the possibility to have children with less dependency on women.

For example, I donated several eggs to a clinic. They asked me if I was happy to donate them to gay couples. I said, yes. This gives them the chance look for a surrogate mother who can carry the embryos in her womb (in this way they can avoid the emotional link to the baby).
So, my opinion is that we should look for different ways to give men the opportunity to have children without depending so much on women. Yes, I know that they still need eggs and a womb, but this can be done legally thru a clinic and without any further problems.

slingblade

22nd April 2006, 03:28 PM

Q-source, you make good points, but I think Chris is talking more about trying to "fix" the emotional damage some men experience when their embryo is aborted against their will. Should or shouldn't there be something the father could do?

But he's posed, as others have said, an interesting question:

My partner is pregnant, and I'm the father. She doesn't want the baby (or "potential baby," for the terminally precise), but I do. Granting for argument's sake that women do have the right to control their own bodies, what are the father's rights in this, if any, and are they as fair as possible?

Consider that even if she agreed to have the baby so you could take custody, she still might not have the baby anyway. Her body might abort it naturally. I'm sure Chris_Epic isn't saying that you then get to sue her for "losing your child," because it isn't a child, yet, and miscarriages usually can't be stopped, and usually happen for good reasons.

If she wants the baby, and I don't, I can't force an abortion, and am held at least financially responsible for the child I didn't want, for 18-20 years.

But if I want it and she doesn't, tough cookies.

Chris is asking if this is fair, and I fully believe the question(s) ought to be asked. I admit, though, that I still don't clearly know yet how I feel about it.

Q-Source

22nd April 2006, 04:09 PM

Q-source, you make good points, but I think Chris is talking more about trying to "fix" the emotional damage some men experience when their embryo is aborted against their will. Should or shouldn't there be something the father could do?

I think that a woman´s right to decide over her body is most important than a man´s right to "protect" an unborn child. Unfortunately, in this situation you have to choose one of them. I know that it is unfair that man´s opinion is not strictly taken in consideration, but it would even worse (and terrible) to force a woman to abort or give birth to a child.

My partner is pregnant, and I'm the father. She doesn't want the baby (or "potential baby," for the terminally precise), but I do. Granting for argument's sake that women do have the right to control their own bodies, what are the father's rights in this, if any, and are they as fair as possible?

It is up to your girlfriend decide whether or not your opinion matters. No, it is not fair that a man does not have the right to protect the unborn child, but this is the best possible scenario. Why?, because if women´s right to decide over their bodies is taken away, then it would mean that raped and abused women could be forced to have a child against their will.

If she wants the baby, and I don't, I can't force an abortion, and am held at least financially responsible for the child I didn't want, for 18-20 years.

But if I want it and she doesn't, tough cookies.

Yes, this situation is also unfair from men´s point of view. But in this case, it seems that it can be avoided if men take responsability over reproduction issues. At least, you can prevent this. The problem is when you do want to have the child.

Whoracle

22nd April 2006, 04:12 PM

So you're for a woman's right to chose just not when you don't like the choice? How do you say abortions are ok as long as the father agrees? Doesn't it stop being the right to chose when someone can veto the decision? It's more like the right to chose for the father. Because it's his decision. If he wants the child tough cookies, if not then she can have an abortion. That's not allowing the woman the right to chose that's giving the right to the father.

Reminds me of that Metallica song that goes "You can do it your own way, as long as it's done just how I say"

kittynh

22nd April 2006, 08:32 PM

well, the man did have a choice when he didn't practice good birth control and use a darn condom.

He seems to have not to have made the choice to impregnate the woman. Or if he has, as in lying and saying "sure I've had a vasectomy!" then he is certainly not worthy of fathering a child!

And what if the woman is smoking? Can he force her to stop smoking, drinking, whatever that he feels might cause the child to abort? I know one man that insisted his wife stop horseback riding, even though it upped the odds only a bit (they soon divorced). Even things like stress can cause an abortion. bodies to it all the time. Can the woman be put in jail for being too stressed (this actually happened to a young teen my daughter knows, and Oprah Winfrey claims it is why she aborted her child - mother nature knows when a baby is not wanted sometimes).

On the other hand, can a man FORCE a woman to have an abortion if he really WANTS to NOT have a baby? A lot of men say they should have this right. They are very angry that they have to pay child support for a slip up. It can have a very adverse effect on their lives! For 18 years they are stuck with payments and emotional black mail in many cases.

Let's also remember the old motive, revenge! Yeah, you HAVE to keep the baby. heheheheheheh!!!

Kerberos

23rd April 2006, 12:16 AM

well, the man did have a choice when he didn't practice good birth control and use a darn condom.
So did the woman, so this argument might as well be employed if you opposed abortion altogether or only supported it if both parents agreeds.

He seems to have not to have made the choice to impregnate the woman. Or if he has, as in lying and saying "sure I've had a vasectomy!" then he is certainly not worthy of fathering a child!
That sentence doesn't make gramatical sense, what are you saying?

And what if the woman is smoking? Can he force her to stop smoking, drinking, whatever that he feels might cause the child to abort? I know one man that insisted his wife stop horseback riding, even though it upped the odds only a bit (they soon divorced). Even things like stress can cause an abortion. bodies to it all the time. Can the woman be put in jail for being too stressed (this actually happened to a young teen my daughter knows, and Oprah Winfrey claims it is why she aborted her child - mother nature knows when a baby is not wanted sometimes).
Those are a bunch of rather silly questions. They apply every bit as much today after the interval where abortion is allowed, as they would do under any other possible scheme other than free abortion up until the child is born.

On the other hand, can a man FORCE a woman to have an abortion if he really WANTS to NOT have a baby? A lot of men say they should have this right. They are very angry that they have to pay child support for a slip up. It can have a very adverse effect on their lives! For 18 years they are stuck with payments and emotional black mail in many cases.

Let's also remember the old motive, revenge! Yeah, you HAVE to keep the baby. heheheheheheh!!!
As others have pointed out, the nature of the question means that no possible fair solution exists. As for "the lot of men" who thinks they should have the right to dictate an abortion to get out of paying child support that's clearly ridicilous since if that's the issue it's far less invasive, to say that a man in that situation could waive his parental rights and obligations.

Q-Source

23rd April 2006, 09:53 AM

Mike B.

23rd April 2006, 10:42 AM

It is up to your girlfriend decide whether or not your opinion matters. No, it is not fair that a man does not have the right to protect the unborn child, but this is the best possible scenario. Why?, because if women´s right to decide over their bodies is taken away, then it would mean that raped and abused women could be forced to have a child against their will.

Agreed
I think this is very well said.

Amapola

23rd April 2006, 10:53 AM

meg

24th April 2006, 05:58 AM

Mephisto

24th April 2006, 06:14 AM

Actually, I would welcome a shift in society where more men DID take responsibility for their child more seriously. Most women are given a choice: a family, or a career. Now all those women who drop out of otherwise promising careers to have children, clearly have a father to the child, but the men traditionally just do not have to make this same choice. I would like to see it where BOTH partners take responsibility, even if it means they BOTH have to give up on careers. Kids might get taken more seriously then, and raised with even more love and care. Yes...... I know this will never happen. But I can dream.

Funny, but this is a situation that both my wife and I faced back when our young teen was quite a bit younger. I currently have a job that I can do at home (I'm an artist) so there is always at least one parent around. I think you're absolutely right in saying that it would be better (especially for kids) to have the input from BOTH parents equally. It's true that most fathers aren't allowed the same chances at being a parent that mothers are, and it would be nice to see that change, however, I feel that most Dads would squander "maternity leave" on ESPN instead of caring for a child.

Abbyas

24th April 2006, 10:22 AM

if the father wants the child, and is able (even though many unwed mothers aren't "able", he should be able to stop the abortion.

What if she doesn't want to be pregnant?

I'm with the other posters who have said the same thing. Until we can create an artificial womb, I'm in control of my own.

Abbyas

24th April 2006, 11:31 AM

However, in stark contrast, when a father who wishes to terminate his parental responsibilities before his child is born, exercising the same option that a woman has, he can still be found financially responsible for the child if the mother chooses to continue the pregnancy. Thus, a father does not have the legal reproductive or parental options a mother has.

I agree here. One hundred percent. I know it was discussed elsewhere, but why is it that a woman can terminate her parental rights and responsibilities by adopting the child out, but a man cannot?

I also agree one hundred percent with the sh-t end of the stick that father's get when it comes to custody rights.

However, I don't think the solution is to try to grant men the same physical abilities as women in controlling a fetus (if you want to talk sh-t end of the stick look at hiv contraction of heterosexual women vs. heterosexual men.) but instead I think we need to grant men the same civil rights as women.

Kerberos

24th April 2006, 12:24 PM

I agree here. One hundred percent. I know it was discussed elsewhere, but why is it that a woman can terminate her parental rights and responsibilities by adopting the child out, but a man cannot?
That's only if the father isn't elegible for shared custody or something right?

EagleEye

24th April 2006, 04:37 PM

I fell victim to a woman who used me as a sperm bank. It was a case of her wanting a kid, needing a sperm donor for it, so she could raise the child with her half sister who couldn't have kids...

My thinking is, if a woman wants to keep the baby but the father doesn't, the father should be able to opt out of financial responsibility. If the woman has 100% of the choice regarding keeping the baby or not, the father should also be able to choose. It really isn't a choice of "being pregnant and giving birth" or not... it's a choice of becoming a parent to a child, or not becoming a parent to a child. If the woman wants to keep the child, fine, let her... but if the father doesn't, he can't force her to have an abortion... so the next best thing is to let her know that "if you decide to go on with this pregnancy, you will be raising this child on your own without any help from me."

BlackCat

24th April 2006, 07:13 PM

I fell victim to a woman who used me as a sperm bank. It was a case of her wanting a kid, needing a sperm donor for it, so she could raise the child with her half sister who couldn't have kids...
Let me get this straight. It sounds like she wanted a kid, so she slept with you in order to get pregnant, but didn't bother to tell you she was trying to get pregnant?

No offense, maybe you were young and stupid, but ever heard of personal responsibility? This directly ties in to the OP. There's other things men can do to prevent pregnancies other than abortions. If you can't support a child, maybe you shouldn't have unprotected sex?

(Reading that over, it sounds a little harsh. Please don't take it that way. I'm just a little ... outraged. Sorry.)

BlackCat

EagleEye

24th April 2006, 08:22 PM

Let me get this straight. It sounds like she wanted a kid, so she slept with you in order to get pregnant, but didn't bother to tell you she was trying to get pregnant?

No offense, maybe you were young and stupid, but ever heard of personal responsibility? This directly ties in to the OP. There's other things men can do to prevent pregnancies other than abortions. If you can't support a child, maybe you shouldn't have unprotected sex?

(Reading that over, it sounds a little harsh. Please don't take it that way. I'm just a little ... outraged. Sorry.)

BlackCat

We both wanted kids... but she entered in to the relationship knowing it was all a ruse to get pregnant and that she would dump me as soon as she did. I was in it thinking we were going to get married (we were engaged). As soon as she found out she was pregnant, she gave me back the ring and said "I never want to see you again."

Then when the kid was born, suddenly I'm being summoned to court to pay child support... she didn't want me in his life, and had 100% of the decisionmaking power, and I still had to "take responsibility" and pay child support... and I have not seen the kid (now almost 7 years old) since he was 4 months old...

And before you go off on me for not trying to be a part of his life... I moved to the small town where she was living, and was barred from entering her home. I moved there knowing full well it would hamper my career (as a computer professional) to move to a small agricultural town with very little tech needs. I did everything I could, and I was ruthlessly pushed away. They didn't want me in the child's life at all, and I had (and still have) no legal recourse. See, she gets free legal help from the state, but I have to pay for my own and I can't afford it because I'm paying $300 in child support. So she gets my money, gets free legal help... I lose money, and have to pay for my own lawyer...

I don't even know where she lives, or what the living conditions are for my own child. And I don't have the right to know, as far as the state is concerned.

It took me about 2 years of fighting before I had to simply give up for my own mental well-being. I was tearing myself apart banging my head against this particular wall, and I realized it was destroying me from the inside out. It wasn't until I gave up, and "let her win", that I was able to move on with my life. Now this child is nothing more to me than a $300 per month bill that I have to pay. It would be nice to be able to say "She has been obstructive in my inclusion in this child's life, and has done so for no good reason. If she doesn't want me involved, then I shouldn't have to be involved financially as well."

I showed my desire and willingness to be this child's father, and she, simply because she doesn't like me (not because I did anything bad to her), and because she has this insane desire to be a single mom like her dearly departed mother who raised her on her own as well, is determined to keep me out of her life no matter what it takes.

I told her when she dumped me that I wished I could force her to have an abortion... she just laughed in my face and quoted "My body, my right to choose." She knew I was trapped... bitch...

Q-Source

25th April 2006, 12:03 PM

I fell victim to a woman who used me as a sperm bank. It was a case of her wanting a kid, needing a sperm donor for it, so she could raise the child with her half sister who couldn't have kids...

You met an evil woman, a woman who wanted your sperm and your money.
But in general, I think that bringing up a child to this world should be a decision of two people (unless you use a fertility clinic).

I find it despicable that some women use a child as a means to get money and hurt other people. This is what has to change. I agree that women have the right to use their bodies as they want. However once the child is born, he/she is not longer her possesion. The child does not belong to her and this is something that society and the law are not clear about.

Tmy

25th April 2006, 03:14 PM

You met an evil woman, a woman who wanted your sperm and your money.
But in general, I think that bringing up a child to this world should be a decision of two people (unless you use a fertility clinic).

I find it despicable that some women use a child as a means to get money and hurt other people. This is what has to change. I agree that women have the right to use their bodies as they want. However once the child is born, he/she is not longer her possesion. The child does not belong to her and this is something that society and the law are not clear about.

But can you possibly punish mother WITHOUT hurting the child?

chris epic

25th April 2006, 03:29 PM

So you're for a woman's right to chose just not when you don't like the choice? In my paper I stated that many people believed that choices concerning children should be equally agreed upon by parents just as financial and emotional responsibilities should be shared by both parents. Again, as I said in the paper, albeit that if a woman is impregnated by rape or incest, or if the woman's continuation of the pregancy would be a severe and inoperable detriment to her health or life or the baby'e health or life, then an abortion is justifiable and if you study Roe v Wade these were the original criteria for justifiable abortion. And in the case of incest or rape, the perpetrator violating the woman's reproductive choice at the least, then the "father" has automatically terminated his parental rights. But as for the case of "alternative contraception" not attributed to any of the previous "criteria" a father, in this case, should have the right to protect his child.

And, again, I am for a woman's right to choose parental termination even though a man doesn't have the choice to terminate his parental rights (unless the baby is given up for adoption)

But I really don't know why I have to restate things I already stated in my original paper- unless something needs to be clarified, in that case- ask away. Thanks for your feedback.

Q-Source

25th April 2006, 03:31 PM

But can you possibly punish mother WITHOUT hurting the child?

A mother who takes away her child´s right to have a father is already causing enough trouble to the child -not now but in the future.

chris epic

25th April 2006, 03:39 PM

well, the man did have a choice when he didn't practice good birth control and use a darn condom. It takes two to tango (I love that saying) Women have just as much responsibility to take contraceptive precautions as men do before having sex. I wouldn't say "he should have though of that before" I would say THEY should have thought of that before, right?

And what if the woman is smoking? Can he force her to stop smoking, drinking, whatever that he feels might cause the child to abort? good question, what do you think? Should we all be forced to ride bikes because driving cars forces us to consume carbon monoxide?

[quote]On the other hand, can a man FORCE a woman to have an abortion if he really WANTS to NOT have a baby? A lot of men say they should have this right. They are very angry that they have to pay child support for a slip up. It can have a very adverse effect on their lives! For 18 years they are stuck with payments and emotional black mail in many cases.[quote] this is addressed in my paper.

chris epic

25th April 2006, 03:42 PM

As for "the lot of men" who thinks they should have the right to dictate an abortion to get out of paying child support that's clearly ridicilous since if that's the issue it's far less invasive, to say that a man in that situation could waive his parental rights and obligations.I hope we aren't straying over to the question "should father's have the ability to terminate their parental rights?" The question at hand is broadly "should fathers be able to protect their prenatal children from abortion if abortion is sought as merely a contraceptive alternative.

chris epic

25th April 2006, 03:47 PM

The thread is not about abortion. It is about a more complicated issue such as when a man wants to keep the baby and a woman doesn´t.
Nature has granted women the gift of giving birth, but there is a high price attached to it. Men do not have to go thru painful and uncomfortable biological chances every month, during 30 years of their lives!!! So, women deserve the right to decide what to do with their bodies.

From my paper Goldstein accounts in the Roe v Wade case that abortions are justifiable at the cost of the maternal health, both physically and mentally (17). Stress contributes to both mental and physical health. David B. Posen, MD, wrote in a Canadian journal of medicine that “stress is the most common cause of ill health in our society, probably underlying as many as 70% of all visits to family doctors (Posen). Therefore, if stress can be used as an excuse for a legitimate abortion of an unwanted child and an undesirable 9 month pregnancy, then the stress fathers experience from the financial burden of supporting an unwanted child, and an undesirable 18 year period, cannot be ignored. " I believe this is as close as a father can come to experiencing mental and physical ailments due to stress from being forced to pay child support for a child he either doesn't want or rarely sees.

Huntster

25th April 2006, 04:06 PM

Excellent paper, Mr. Epic.

I always thought that the present abortion "laws" are hypocritical in that, if the father wants an abortion and the mother does not, the father is still obligated to provide (at the minimum) financial support for the child until he/she is 18 years of age. Further, there are few places on Earth a man can hide from this obligation.

Conversely, if the mother wants an abortion and the father does not, he has no rights whatsoever. His child dies.

That isn't just, and it won't last forever.

chris epic

25th April 2006, 04:47 PM

Hi Chris,
That's a pretty good paper. I think that you've missed on a few things, though.

You argue that it's the father's obligation to support the child financially, however, I do not see you arguing that its a father's obligation to provide emotional or practical support to the child. Does that mean that you feel that a father should be able to stop a woman from aborting a child, but then be obligated to only provide financial support?

Thanks meg. The story of my friend came AFTER this from my paper
In “Young Unwed Fathers,” Robert Lerman and Theodora Ooms state that 90% of the time, a father will have only a financial responsibility to the child, and not a custodial or emotional responsibility to the child as determined by the family court system. Jeffrey Leving, author of “Father’s Rights,” says that this is due, in part, to dated gender stereotyping that typically favors the mother over the father when sole custody is awarded. This is because, generally, the family court system perceives the mother as that child’s nurturing and emotional custodian, and the father exclusively as a financial custodian (Leving 42).

This gender stereotyping contributes to an attitude which assumes that fathers do not have an emotional stake in their children’s lives in an early prenatal stage, but rather they are only concerned with financial provision for their families; thus fathers are sought to fulfill this financial obligation for their children in the event of divorce or paternity establishment by a single mother. This is based on a gender role model that assigns emotional nurturing to the mother and financial nurturing to the father (Leving 37).

Leving displays a poll result demonstrating that American society contradicts this general family court presumption. Of the 11,000 survey participants, 88 percent of Americans felt that moms and dads should have equal child-rearing responsibilities, both emotionally and financially (39). which is contrary to your interpretation. My friend's story was to illustrate the frustrations of a father not allowed by either the court or the mother to be an emotional provider to his child as well as financial- and the stress created by having to support himself and his child, which he doesn't get to see, and how that can have similar mental effects on men as continuing a pregnancy can have on women. [/quote]

Let's look at your friend's situation. You seem to argue that it's unreasonable for him to have to bear a $500/month child support payment. According to the baby cost calculator at http://www.babycenter.com/costofchild/ , it costs a single parent in the midwest (least expensive place) about $212,292 to raise a child from birth to adulthood, not counting college. $500 x 216 months comes out to approximately $108,000. Your friend is paying very close to 1/2. How is this grossly unfair? Your friend allegedly makes around $6/hr. Close to minimum wage. Assuming that the mother makes approximately the same amount, again, how is this unfair? The mother here is raising a child with 1/2 of the financial support, and absolutely no emotional or practial support of the father. Is the father's emotional and financial stress really equal here? Show me how.

It is unfair that he is paying close to half for the financial needs of the baby but paying ZERO for the paternal-emotional contribution to the child whereas the mother get's to do both. Meg, I think you're agreeing with me here. As far as minimum wage is concerned, that's our government's fault.

Again, you're arguing that the stress the father feels from paying for a kid should be equal to the stress a mother that chooses an abortion feels,

no, its as close as I can get to relating the stress a father feels for being forced to support a child, to the "stress" a woman can feel from a 9 month gestation period.

and somehow this is supposed to prove that a father should be able to STOP a woman from getting an abortion?

No, its supposed to prove that, contrary to popular belief, men can be emotionally and physically effected by pregnancy and children just as women can, though not in the same exact way, but relatively.

It sounds more like you're arguing that a man should be able to force a woman to get an abortionnot if she wants the baby- just like a woman shouldn't force a man to not be a father if she doesn't want the baby

Whether a mother "prefers he not be involved with" a child or not is pretty much irrelevent.

tell that to thousands of men who can prove to you that they are experiencing the opposite.

Unless she can show that interaction with the father is somehow endangering the child, a mother cannot legally just declare that a father not be involved with his child.

as I state in my paper, 90% of the time, sole custody is awarded to the mother. Do you think that that says that 90% of fathers in custody disputes are endangering to their children? Absolutely not. Refer to my paper for the reason: gender stereo typing.

I would like to know more about this particular case, because I think there's more going on here than just "the mother lives far away and doesn't want him involved". Out of curiousity, why hasn't he moved closer to his child?

both the mother and the father had drug problems. He left his home to get away from that environment and has since built a life elseware. My point was that no matter what kind of father, no matter wheather the father is a good father or a bad father, or an adequate father, the courts favor the mother 90% of the time, statistically. regardless of the financial or emotional well being of the mother.

You write about how the stress of a pregnancy has been considered justification for a woman to get an abortion. You then say "stress" in general is the leading cause of ill health. However then, you just equate the financial stress a man may feel at supporting an unwanted child to that,

I was demonstrating how psychological stress manifests itself physically. Many women have told me I don't have a right because I don't have to go through the physical and emotional pains of pregnancy and I was saying that I may not have to go through the physcial and emotional pains of pregnancy but I do have to go through the physical and emotional pains of providing for my child for 18-20 years, and how that fact is over looked. Thus, I have equal but different emotional and physical attributes of child rearing that women do: just like woman and men are equally human, but physically different.

I read that on Father's day you felt bad, and that's how this all started, but, Chris, I have to admit, I'm not reading anything in your paper about real fathers' rights or obligations. Where's all the stuff about how you and all father's should be trying harder to maintain the child in your own homes? Where's all the stuff about what is for the good of the child? Where's all the stuff about equal time with the child? Where's all the stuff about your rights to be there when the child is emotionally down, or cleaning up the puke when he's sick, or for parent/teacher conferences, or to help with his/her homework, or to pay for his outrageous car insurance, or take pictures on prom night, or cry and burst with pride at his graduation, or to take him back in when he's 25 and out of a job?

Well, first of all, my professor restricted us to a 5 to 7 page paper and I already exceeded that by two pages. Secondly, do I really have to be that specific or does, in the given length restriction of my paper, the following

...Americans felt that moms and dads should have equal child-rearing responsibilities, both emotionally and financially...

...Jones discovered his ex-fiancé was pregnant three weeks before the child was born when he was contacted by a lawyer asking for paternal consent to adoption. Jones wanted that baby, but he didn’t find out about the paternal registry until it was past the deadline. Ultimately, Jones lost his parental rights due to a technicality. Across the country, Jones is a representative voice for many fathers who are fighting for their children...

...The father’s emotional involvement is just as important, if not more, than financial provision. Leving cites social scientific studies that link the absence of a father to a “wide range of social nightmares and developmental deficiencies [including] increases in juvenile crime, drug and alcohol abuse, teenage pregnancy, promiscuity, truancy, and vandalism,” (47). My family left my father when I was eleven years old. The disintegration of my family was the disintegration of my life-stability. After experiencing many of the above “nightmares” and “deficiencies,” I attributed them to the absence of my father. I have yet to fully heal, emotionally, from the absence of my father. Having established the needed equity of mother and father involvement, and sharing of financial responsibilities...

...a father and a mother must be recognized as equal participants in the decision over their parental destiny; the variable of favor being Life, whether that be the Life of the mother or the Life of the unborn child whom is advocated by the father with a desire to see that life grow, love, and be loved...suffice?

What I saw in your paper was a plea that a man should have the right to tell a woman that she can't have an abortion, so that he then can pay half of what it takes to raise the kid for 18 yrs

not half- I never said half- I insinuated ALL. If a woman wants to terminate her parental rights through abortion but a father bars her from that so he can take care of the child, then she should be able to retain her desire to terminate her parental rights after the child is born.

, and you did not discuss the father's further responsibility for sharing the raising of the child.

why would the father want to share a child with a woman that wanted to terminate her parental rights- it wouldn't be fair to her or the child. If the father wants to stop the mother from getting an abortion, he should be able and willing to fully support that child to the best of his ability.

The paper you write about what men can do to make their childrens' lives better is the paper you will right about "fathers' rights". This paper is not about equality for fathers. This paper seems to argue more for the rights of a man to force a woman to get an abortion than it does for the rights of a man to fulfill his parental obligations.

then you allowed the words "force a woman to have a child" to prohibit you from really reading and fully understanding the breadth of the heart of the issue at hand. I don't understand how or why I was able to refute your concerns or arguements againsts my paper WITH my paper? The paper you're talking about is called "A Child's Right to be Equally Loved and Supported by both a Mother and a Father" which I will write next semester.

Chris

chris epic

25th April 2006, 04:51 PM

There's other things men can do to prevent pregnancies other than abortions. If you can't support a child, maybe you shouldn't have unprotected sex? That wasn't harsh, you're right. But everytime I've heard that, its usually from a woman and they usually forget to direct that statement to women as well as men.

meg

25th April 2006, 06:44 PM

The paper you're talking about is called "A Child's Right to be Equally Loved and Supported by both a Mother and a Father" which I will write next semester.

I look forward to reading that one, too. :) Thanks Chris.

Whoracle

25th April 2006, 09:51 PM

slingblade

26th April 2006, 09:54 AM

Maybe I'm wrong but I could have sworn you said that men should be able to force women to not have an abortion if they wish to keep the child. In fact I thought that was basically what your paper was about. So unless I'm wrong about this assumption my point still stands. You are only for a woman's right to chose after the father has made his choice. That's not really a right to chose.

Maybe you're just building strawmen, rather than going to the trouble to examine what Chris actually said?

He doesn't strike me as some crude jerk who believes he has the right to use force to get his way. He seems, rather, to be thoughtful person who began with a legitimate question. He then did a good deal of thinking and research on his own, both to try to phrase his question intelligently, and try to answer it: "Two people conceive a child. Should only one of those people have the right to decide its fate?"

It's somewhat the same shoe women were wearing once, and it was once just as hard to answer. "What, you mean let them just get rid of it if they want?"

"Well, yeah," the reply came. "Their bodies: their right to decide. Women should have ultimate control over their bodies, including over the bodies engendered within them."

Chris is simply asking, and trying to answer, the reasonable question: "But isn't it my baby, too? What if I want the child? Am I allowed no say in this, at all?"

Truth is, men and women have different functions in creating life, and so men and women should probably have different rights regarding reproduction. (I qualify that with "probably," only because I'm not 100% convinced, yet. Good skepticism tries not to lock things in stone, IMO.)

And no, that's not always fair. But life isn't fair, and we can't always legislate fairness, even when we try. In some situations in life, there's just no way to make it fair. I think Chris_Epic did a good job with a very difficult question. And I think his heart is in the right place: he's not advocating forcing women to have children they don't want, as much as he is simply asking "isn't that my child, too?" Frankly, I find his attitude a refreshing change from the "Maury Povitch, that ain't MY baby, and she's a whore!" attitude I see far more often among young men.

Also stop writing like this is still your paper, it's annoying and doesn't make you look any smarter.

Ad hom, non-sequitur, and just being a bully.
How about you stop writing as if telling people how you think they should write in their own threads constitutes an actual argument or has any place in an adult discussion? It's annoying and shows you'll resort to bullying when you can't muster a cogent response.

BlackCat

26th April 2006, 10:56 AM

That wasn't harsh, you're right. But everytime I've heard that, its usually from a woman and they usually forget to direct that statement to women as well as men.
I agree. Though, in that post, I was talking specifically to a man, and didn't feel the need to press the point that women are responsible for their bodies, too. Personal responsibility is universal and applies to everyone.

BlackCat

chris epic

26th April 2006, 02:50 PM

Whoracle

26th April 2006, 04:10 PM

Jesus Harold Christ this is like pulling teeth. I wasn't talking about rapists forcing the woman to keep the child. I was talking about what happens when the pregnancy results from consensual sex. You claim to be for a woman's right to chose. However you also believe the father should be able to force the woman to not have an abortion if he wants the child.

Now my simple question is, how can it be a woman's right to chose when the father gets first choice? The woman is only allowed to have an abortion in your world if the father signs off on it assuming the sex was consensual. That doesn't sound like much of a choice to me. Now will you stop delaying and just respond already. I read the damn paper and it doesn't answer what I am asking.

I've asked this question of pro-lifers and now I will ask it of you. If the woman starts to smoke/drink/use drugs during the pregnancy, is that considered child abuse (assuming the father has decided he wants the baby and is prohibiting the woman from getting an abortion)?

chris epic

26th April 2006, 05:57 PM

Jesus Harold Christ this is like pulling teeth :D my thoughts EXACTLY!
I wasn't talking about rapists forcing the woman to keep the child. niether was I, I said NO ONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO STOP A WOMAN FROM HAVING AN ABORTION IF THE PREGNANCY RESULTED FROM RAPE, INCEST; OR IF CONTINUING THE PREGNANCY (from your average, run-of-the-mill copulation- WOULD HARM OR KILL THE WOMAN OR THE CHILD- what part of that are you failing to understand, lady?

You claim to be for a woman's right to chose. However you also believe the father should be able to force the woman to not have an abortion if he wants the child. only if the abortion can be determined as an alternative form of contraception- for the FOURTH TIME

how can it be a woman's right to choose when the father gets first choice? dependant upon the GIVEN circumstances, sometimes the mother will get first choice, and sometimes the father will get first choice

The woman is only allowed to have an abortion in your world if the father signs off on it assuming the sex was consensual.she is allowed to have an abortion in the circumstance of rape, incest; or if the continuation of the pregnancy would hurt or kill the mother or the child.

You see, its a checks and balance system, with given circumstances, the girls win in some cases and the boys win in other cases. You could also look at it as a Roe v Wade grass roots proposal as far as the criteria for justifiable abortion is concerned.

That doesn't sound like much of a choice to me.

OF coarse not because you're used to the choices you do have and don't like the idea of those choices being regulated or limited in order to give me choices that, currently, I do not have but should.

It doesn't sound much like a choice to you, maybe even after I clarified what I needed to, because you believe you should have as many choices and options as possible and I shouldn't have any. But I'm saying that that isn't right and things should be a little different than they are.

If the woman starts to smoke/drink/use drugs during the pregnanc is that considered child abuse (assuming the father has decided he wants the baby and is prohibiting the woman from getting an abortion)?

I assume you are attempting to get me to throw myself into a pool of people you easily disent to. But I will answer your question. Given that, as of right now, the government defines child abuse as abuse against a person, and given that a person is someone born, under these definitions it would be incorrect to call that child abuse. However, given that a fetus is a life form, and given that there are medical warnings that say smoking, drinking, and using drugs while pregnant could damage that life form, then I will have to agree with the medical population- what's you're point and what the hell does this have to do with father's rights specifically?

Whoracle

26th April 2006, 07:07 PM

Look we can stop talking about rape and incest and danger to the mother because we can all agree that abortions are wonderful in that case.

However if you think that the fetus is not a person entitled to rights, how does the father have any claim to a fetus? Your position is all over the place. The father has rights sometimes, and not others.

The point about the child abuse is, don't you think this could generate some conflict of interest? You think these women are going to be happy about being forced to carry a child they don't want? What's to stop them from drinking and smoking and handing the father a baby with fetal alchohol syndrome or a crack baby or some other such retarded or deformed baby?

kittynh

26th April 2006, 07:27 PM

It's this way in Florida already right? Doesn't a woman have to place an ad in a newspaper if she wishes to have an abortion, and doesn't know who the father is?

That gives the "father" even if he was some drunken date she picked up, the right to object, and then no abortion.

It's either abortion or adoption, I'm not sure which.

EagleEye

26th April 2006, 09:40 PM

Whoracle:

It's not about who has first choice. This is a simple binary solution set using the "or" logic gate... something you see in programming quite often.

Look at it this way... 1 = TRUE and 0 = FALSE

In column 1 we have the woman's desire to become a parent, and in the 2nd we have the man's desire to become a parent. Third column is if the baby is kept.

1 OR 1 = 1
1 OR 0 = 1
0 OR 1 = 1
0 OR 0 = 0

See how simple that is?

It's not about who gets FIRST choice. Both choices are, for all intents and purposes, simultaneous.

The big sticking point currently are the 2 middle cases. If the man does not want to become a parent, it's not a matter of forcing the mother to have an abortion... no one can force that in any way shape or form... the problem is, the way things are now, the mother has it 100% in her power to force the man to become a parent to a child. The man has no way to choose NOT to become a parent. In those middle two instances, one person doesn't want to become a parent. The way the law should be is to allow either party to OPT OUT of being a parent in any financial or custodial sense... to terminate their parental rights.

In case #3, we have the woman not wanting to become a parent, but the man does. In this case, it would need to be UNLAWFUL for the woman to abort her pregnancy, because that child is not 100% hers to decide what to do with it.

Currently, if you kill a pregnant woman, you can be charged with double homicide. I'd like to see it where if a woman terminates a pregnancy against the wishes of the other genetic donor to that fetus, the woman could be charged with manslaughter... or at the very least, destruction of property.

If the woman wants to become a parent, and the man doesn't... the man should be able to waive all of his rights as a father... this means no child support, no custody, etc. This decision would have to be made prior to the 20th week of pregnancy (halfway through, with time still available for an abortion to happen should the father's decision impact the woman's decision to continue the pregnancy.)

For my own part, I'd love to see something like this be made retroactive, where if you can prove that you didn't want the child prior to that 20 week point, you can sever all ties and terminate your parental rights... but that's wishful thinking on my part.

Whoracle

26th April 2006, 10:10 PM

Yeah I would like something like that too. However this scenario of forcing women to not have abortions is just trying to have two wrongs make a right. Some guys will be forced into fatherhood against their wishes, so the response is to... force women to have babies against their wishes. Seems like a rather childish (no pun intended) way to solve the problem.

chris epic

26th April 2006, 11:03 PM

if you think that the fetus is not a person entitled to rights, how does the father have any claim to a fetus?
Our constitution is not the infallable word of nature, its a fancy and articulate penumbra of fallable men and women. Just because the constitution says I don't have a right to protect my unborn child doesn't counter the fact that I have a biological responsibility and a parental obligation to do so. You remember when there was a time that this same constitution didn't give women any rights, either? Did that make it okay? No, so women had to challenge the constitution and after a passionate and arduous fight, they won. And even still, does that mean that our culture has fully embraced the appreciation of the equality women have acquired? Not according to ever present gender stereotyping and issues like the "glass ceiling" that still exist. But right now as we speak; culture is ahead of the government in some areas, whereas the government is ahead of culture in others- so its pretty messy out there, but far be it from me to let that stiffle my desire for awareness and change to manifest.

Your position is all over the place. The father has rights sometimes, and not others.[/quote]

isn't that wonderful: a complex line of thought contrary to linear simplicity. Why do you think the bill of rights expanded and amendments are challenged in the Supreme Court. Life is a penumbra and the complexities of it allow our law to be challenged whenever we feel there is a discrepancy or a need for clarification or even a need to change, correct, balance, or abolish anything that should be.

For example, the 14th amendment says persons born in the united states have rights, not the unborn- that's why the constitution doesn't protect the unborn from abortions...however, there is a Fetal Homicide Law which DOES give an unborn child the right to life by holding someone responsible for vehicular homicide if the mother comes out of a car wreck okay but she miscarriages- checks and balances- no rights usually, but some times, in some cases.

You think these women are going to be happy about being forced to carry a child they don't want?
I'm not going to go around kicking women in the stomach that are pregnant with a kid I might not want to take care of but will be forced to support financially and I'm certainly not happy with the current situation that bars me from protecting a life form that is just as much made from me as it is made from mom, but again, I'm not gonna booze it up, smoke it up, or crack it up because I can't get what I want. Besides, there are plenty of terrible parents and reckless mothers out there that don't have the excuse of injustice to attribute to their behavior.

What's to stop them from drinking and smoking and handing the father a baby with fetal alchohol syndrome or a crack baby or some other such retarded or deformed baby?What's to stop anybody from doing anything bad? Sounds like a slippery slop to me and far from the issue at hand.

Whoracle

27th April 2006, 02:15 AM

I was just reading your laughable paper again. In it, you admit that the fetus is only 50% the fathers. So please tell me how he gets 100% of the power over something that is 50% his? Before you go answering this by not answering it like the skilled politician you seem to be, I'm talking about the instances in which you Chris Epic, supreme authority on biological rights, have deemed in your omniscience that the father gets to make said choice. You have failed to give me a solid reason why the woman's rights in all of this go completely out of the window even though the fetus is also half hers with that old expression possession is 9/10ths of the law. Women aren't baby factories.

You really should just trade your sanity for consistency and become entirely pro-life. This whole abortions are ok but only sometimes is pretty wishy-washy. Either the fetus has rights or it doesn't. Not sometimes. Not on days with a n in them. Not when you are feeling bad that back when you were such a bad-ass (:roll eyes) you had an ex that had an abortion. You can either freely toss it in the trash or you can't. You can't tell me otherwise and maintain any sort of consistency with the argument.

Abbyas

27th April 2006, 09:53 AM

A father should have the right to stop his sexual partner from aborting his unborn child if that abortion was merely an alternative to contraception which MANY abortions are

I understand where you are coming from here. But I don't see how this is not forcing someone to continue to be pregnant if they do not want to be.
There is no where else in our moral or legal code where that is acceptable.

I understand your frustration. Again, I think the solution is to give father's more parental rights on the civil side, not the physiological side.

Abbyas

27th April 2006, 09:58 AM

and I'm certainly not happy with the current situation that bars me from protecting a life form that is just as much made from me as it is made from mom, but again,

Please forgive me if this has been addressed already, and I mean to be absolutely respectful here.

The problem is, that your genes make up 50% of the fetus, but the woman is responsible up 100% of the growth of the fetus. The father does have issues with an upcoming baby (anxiety and, in a small percentage, empathy pains) but he does not go through nearly the amount of change and pain and risk that a woman does. This is why ultimately the choice is up to her.

Q-Source

27th April 2006, 10:21 AM

I agree with Whoracle, you should openly say that you are pro-life. In this way, your paper kind of make sense.

There is absolutely no justification (besides rape) to force a woman to abort or have a child AGAINST HER WILL. Not one. You said that a man could stop her to abort if this is used as an alternative to contraception. This is just silly because this is almost the main reason why many women abort. It might be morally wrong from your point of view, but again women have the right to do with their bodies what they want. It is the only thing they truly posses.

Let´s say that in your scenario, by law, men have the right to force a woman to have their child. How would you force a woman to go thru pregnancy?, would you lock her in a room?, would you use force to feed her?, would you watch her 24hrs to prevent her from causing any harm to her and the unborn child?, how would this work?.

We can´t go against nature. The only solution is to prevent this kind of situations by using contraception or by having a relatioship with someone you really know.

chris epic

27th April 2006, 12:17 PM

I was just reading your laughable paper again. In it, you admit that the fetus is only 50% the fathers. So please tell me how he gets 100% of the power over something that is 50% his? I absolutely cannot believe you. I'm almost speechless, almost. Can you tell me when I said the father gets 100% rights to his unborn child? Can you tell me? I never said it, I never implied it, please stop making a fool of yourself because up until now I was really enjoying our "debate"

Here's another simple mathmatical way to look at it, simpler than the one EagleEye demontrated which you clearly understood and even =said "yeah, I'd like something like that too" Take the number ONE HUNDRED : 100 . What do you get when you seperate that into to TWO EQUAL PIECES? 50! Good job.

Before you go answering this by not answering it like the skilled politician you seem to be, Actually, a freshman at a 2 year community college

I'm talking about the instances in which you Chris Epic, supreme authority on biological rights, have deemed in your omniscience that the father gets to make said choice.

Didn't say that- said choices, plural, for both sexes.

You have failed to give me a solid reason why the woman's rights in all of this go completely out of the window

You have failed to give me a solid reason why I don't have any rights to my unborn child to begin with

even though the fetus is also half hers with that old expression possession is 9/10ths of the law. Women aren't baby factories. Again, I think you have me confused with a christian right, pro lifer, anti abortionist, which I have illustrated again and again and again and again and again that I'm not. You defending abortion as if its 1972 and Roe v Wade hasn't happened yet, and in doing so you're using the same arguements I am to establish equal or close to equal rights to my unborn child, a duplication of apart of MY body, in turn you are agreeing with me.

You really should just trade your sanity for consistency and become entirely pro-life. This whole abortions are ok but only sometimes is pretty wishy-washy. Either the fetus has rights or it doesn't. Not sometimes. Tell that to the people who pushed the Fetus Homicide Law. You know, now I'm REALLY getting tired of repeating myself, anybody else getting tired of seeing me repeat myself? You'd think, all this being in a forum, that all you'd have to do Whoracle is reread some of the previous posts that are fixed to the internet.

Not on days with a n in them. Not when you are feeling bad that back when you were such a bad-ass (:roll eyes) you had an ex that had an abortion. You can either freely toss it in the trash or you can't. You can't tell me otherwise and maintain any sort of consistency with the argument.That was a very compelling conclusion to your attack. Anything intelligent you want to contribute or are you just going to keep blathering all over yourself?

chris epic

27th April 2006, 12:23 PM

I understand where you are coming from here. But I don't see how this is not forcing someone to continue to be pregnant if they do not want to be. aside from the obvious physical, spatial, and chronological differences, what is the difference between forcing a woman to be pregnant for 9 months and forcing a man to be a father, at least for 18 years?

There is no where else in our moral or legal code where that is acceptable. Not for a woman, but for a man

I think the solution is to give father's more parental rights on the civil side, not the physiological side.could you ellaborate and explain please: why, how, etc... :)

Abbyas

27th April 2006, 12:26 PM

You have failed to give me a solid reason why I don't have any rights to my unborn child to begin with

Maybe you can look at it this way. You have 50% rights to the unborn child. You have a say in who raises it, how it is raised. And I agree, men should have more rights along those lines. However, I have 100% rights to my uterus and how it is used, so, fetus-wise, I see pregnancy more 75%-25%, women to men.

Of course that's saying that the fetus is equal to my body, which I don't really think it is.

Does that my stance clearer?

chris epic

27th April 2006, 12:27 PM

Please forgive me if this has been addressed already, and I mean to be absolutely respectful here.

The problem is, that your genes make up 50% of the fetus, but the woman is responsible up 100% of the growth of the fetus. The father does have issues with an upcoming baby (anxiety and, in a small percentage, empathy pains) but he does not go through nearly the amount of change and pain and risk that a woman does. This is why ultimately the choice is up to her. No, its cool- you're asking for clarification not a restatement of something you missed previously- Though obviously physiologically different, there are similar or prominent changes, pains, and risks that a father experiences when forced to financially support a child against his choice or when he is prohobited from contributing to his child's life in any other way than financial. In this comparison, a father can be very simpathetic to women and hope that that simpathy is reciprocated.

chris epic

27th April 2006, 12:33 PM

Maybe you can look at it this way. You have 50% rights to the unborn child. You have a say in who raises it, how it is raised. And I agree, men should have more rights along those lines. However, I have 100% rights to my uterus and how it is used, so, fetus-wise, I see pregnancy more 75%-25%, women to men.

Of course that's saying that the fetus is equal to my body, which I don't really think it is.

Does that my stance clearer? I totally see what your saying. But aside from you not being very confident in your illustration, I disagree with you only for the reason that there are other contributions to the whole formula outside of physiology. Believe me, if it was just a matter of physiology, there probably wouldn't be an issue, right? - btw, I hope it doesn't sound like I'm being condescending-

Abbyas

27th April 2006, 12:38 PM

aside from the obvious physical, spatial, and chronological differences, what is the difference between forcing a woman to be pregnant for 9 months and forcing a man to be a father, at least for 18 years

This argument makes sense. Forcing a man to work for something he did not want for a period of 18 years definitely places undo hardship (and for those in manual labor, undo physical hardship) on a person. I would still want men in the middle of a divorce who raised a child until the divorce to pay child support, just as I would expect a homosexual partner who raised a child until a break up to pay child support. However, in the case of a baby from, say, a one night stand, I think that a man should be able to avoid child support by terminating his parental rights, essentially like giving up the child for adoption to the mother.

I think that is the solution versus going the other way and forcing a women to go through an unwanted pregnancy.

Not for a woman, but for a man

Name one instance where a man is forced to throw up for someone else.

I think the solution is to give father's more parental rights on the civil side, not the physiological side.

I think it's unfair that a woman can give up her parental responisbility (i.e. adoption) but a man cannot. And when it comes to custodial rights, men are guilty until proven innocent. That needs to be fixed.

Abbyas

27th April 2006, 12:42 PM

I disagree with you only for the reason that there are other contributions to the whole formula outside of physiology. Believe me, if it was just a matter of physiology, there probably wouldn't be an issue, right? - btw, I hope it doesn't sound like I'm being condescending

Well, the reason I was not confident, is because I think it's more along the lines of 85%/15%, but that's because I think of the fetus as not a "real" person, and that's another discussion entirely.

But in the development of fetus to baby, what other issues are there? What physically or legally (not talking emotional support here) does the father have to do?

Also, no condescention taken at all. I appreciate your looking at my thoughts.

chris epic

27th April 2006, 12:48 PM

Name one instance where a man is forced to throw up for someone else.
You said "But I don't see how this is not forcing someone to continue to be pregnant if they do not want to be.
There is no where else in our moral or legal code where that is acceptable." And I said "not for women, but for men: I was making a comparison again as far as a man being forced to be a father.

I appreciate that you are able to see the inequities and the wrongs that exist in the current system. Yes, some people think that a father should be able to waive their paternal rights when a child is born they didn't want- but the reason why this won't work is because that child is now protected by the constitution and has a right to be atleast financially supported, and not buy the government or the tax payers, but by the people responsible for bringing it into the world. However, going my route, I believe the penumbra of the constitution supports my plea for equity.

Abbyas

27th April 2006, 12:51 PM

right to be atleast financially supported, and not buy the government or the tax payers, but by the people responsible for bringing it into the world

I can't agree with this. Or else, giving up a child for adoption at birth would be illegal.

chris epic

27th April 2006, 01:15 PM

but that's because I think of the fetus as not a "real" person, and that's another discussion entirely. no, that's a very valid part of the discussion. You're absolutely right, a fetus is not a real person as defined by the government, because it hasn't been born yet- but it is still a human life

But in the development of fetus to baby, what other issues are there? What physically or legally (not talking emotional support here) does the father have to do?well lammaze classes, duh! Just kidding. The father doesn't have to do anything in that first 9 months of life- but I'm looking a the the bigger picture, given that the fetus is a human life, a baby is a human life, and a person is a human life. I'm looking at that period of time from conception to adulthood, -.9 to 18 years- that's 225 months. Of those months, a father could be at least financially responsible for 216 of those months, that's 96%- or if he raises the child by himself, he is still responsible for 96% of the child's life. A mother is responsible for 104% of the child's life. If both parents equally share in the emotional and financial responsibilities of the child then the father is responsible for his 48% share in the child's life and the mother has a responsibility for the other 52%- so I can't logically see why that extra 2% of life the mother is responsible for can justify a bar against a father's interest in protecting his child within that small period of time. Albeit that that first 9 months is very important, but in the big picture, every minute of life that child experiences from conception to edult hood is just as important as the next.

Also, no condescention taken at all. I appreciate your looking at my thoughts.[/QUOTE]

chris epic

27th April 2006, 01:16 PM

I can't agree with this. Or else, giving up a child for adoption at birth would be illegal. Let me rephrase that.
Either by the people responsible for bringing it into the world, or the people willing to take on that responsibility- ie adoptive parents

chris epic

27th April 2006, 01:30 PM

I agree with Whoracle, you should openly say that you are pro-life. If I was a pro-lifer then I wouldn't be able to support abortion at all.

There is absolutely no justification (besides rape) to force a woman to abort or have a child AGAINST HER WILL. What do you mean besides rape?

You said that a man could stop her to abort if this is used as an alternative to contraception. This is just silly because this is almost the main reason why many women abort.I know, terrible isn't it. However, there is no reason for a woman to even tell her sexual pertner she's pregnant if it was a one night stand or they break up shortly after conception. The amount of contraceptive abortions that would be prevented by a father would, I'm assuming, be a very small amount

It might be morally wrong from your point of view, but again women have the right to do with their bodies what they want. It is the only thing they truly posses. I don't think its morals here, I'm biologically obligated to protect my unborn child.

How would you force a woman to go thru pregnancy?, would you lock her in a room?, would you use force to feed her?, would you watch her 24hrs to prevent her from causing any harm to her and the unborn child?, how would this work?. I don't like the sound of that. But how do you force a man to be a father? Tell him "Don't worry, I can't get pregnant" Have his wages garnished? Force him to sacrifice his freedom? He can always leave the country if he doesn't want to be a father. I'd like YOU to tell me why a man be forced to be a father but a woman can't?

We can´t go against nature. The only solution is to prevent this kind of situations by using contraception or by having a relatioship with someone you really know. I absolutely agree with you there.

Abbyas

27th April 2006, 01:33 PM

If both parents equally share in the emotional and financial responsibilities of the child then the father is responsible for his 48% share in the child's life and the mother has a responsibility for the other 52%- so I can't logically see why that extra 2% of life the mother is responsible for can justify a bar against a father's interest in protecting his child within that small period of time.

Interesting point, but in the physical realm, I think we can blow that 2% up a little more. Yes a man is responsible for those 18 years, but at no point is he required to, say, give up a kidney for the child. Many, if not most, dads would in a heartbeat, but it is not legally required. Of course, once the kid is out, we can split that 50/50. Thanks to bottle formula, the biological mother is not needed, but between conception and that ephereal time when the fetus can live outside the mother, she is needed 100%. The father isn't even required to pay for doctor visits.

Also, I think we have to divorce civil responsibility from physical responsibility for the father's sake as well. In the case of contentious custodial arrangements, the child goes to which ever parent delivers the most care. The fact that she carried the child does not matter if the father is currently the primary care giver. And if parental duties are split down the middle, I don't think the child should be given to the mom just because of pregnancy.

And I know this point has been brought up, but i don't understand if the father has rights to the care of the fetus (as in aborted or not aborted) why would he not have legal rights to other aspects of care, i.e. eating broccoli, drinking orange juice, prenatal vitamins, no football?

Whoracle

27th April 2006, 01:33 PM

This is getting ridiculous. Every one of your replies you dance around everything. Read my paper, I already said that, that's not what I'm talking about while not giving me a solid answer to anything.

You didn't give me a real answer to how someone with 50% of the fetus and 0% of the uterus gets to make 100% of the choice in the instances you feel he gets to make the choice. Don't even dare try and tell me that's not you believe because it is. If the father can force the woman to not have an abortion he has made 100% of the choice. The best justification for this I have seen is that since men are hosed when it comes to fathers rights we're should have two wrongs make a right and screw over some women in the process.

I can see why you are in the 13th grade and not in a real school. I've already laid out for you why your claim to the fetus carries less wait than the woman's. Not my fault you chose to ignore it. Hey I agree with you on one point, men are hosed when it comes to fathers rights. However your solution isn't a very good one and is yet again, inflicting a second wrong in order to make things right.

Abbyas

27th April 2006, 01:38 PM

Either by the people responsible for bringing it into the world, or the people willing to take on that responsibility- ie adoptive parents

Right, but that was in response to my saying that a father of a fetus or newborn should be able to terminate his legal rights to the child. You told me it was unconstitutional. I'm saying it isn't.

Abbyas

27th April 2006, 01:40 PM

I can see why you are in the 13th grade and not in a real school.

Way to fight for womens rights. I'm sure this will convince a whole bunch of people to agree with us. These people vote, remember?

Abbyas

27th April 2006, 01:44 PM

Not sure if I caught this in your paper, but a discussion question: what if there is a man and a woman in early pregnancy. He wants the child, she doesn't want to carry it to term. How would you give him more choice in the matter? An arbiter? Monetary compensation after the abortion?

chris epic

27th April 2006, 03:26 PM

Interesting point, but in the physical realm, I think we can blow that 2% up a little more. Yes a man is responsible for those 18 years, but at no point is he required to, say, give up a kidney for the child.We can't compare apples and oranges by the way they look, feel, or taste; but we can compare apples and oranges by the fact that they are both fruit, they both provide taste, they both feel a certain way, and they both look a certain way- this is exactly what I'm trying to do.

Also, I think we have to divorce civil responsibility from physical responsibility We can't do that. Civil responsibility is the culural and sometimes legislated manifestation of both physical and moral responsibility; like laws against murder, or littering, or vandalism.

In the case of contentious custodial arrangements, the child goes to which ever parent delivers the most care. that's not true. Because the family court system typically favors the mother's immediate emotional care to the father's distant financial care, 90% of custody disputes end in favor of the mother. I don't think its fair to assume that 90% of the fathers out there are bad fathers or deliver less care than mothers.

if the father has rights to the care of the fetus (as in aborted or not aborted) rights to the care in the form of "protection" not fetal developement through supply of nutrition. And the right to the care in the form of "having an interest in".

chris epic

27th April 2006, 03:41 PM

You didn't give me a real answer to how someone with 50% of the fetus and 0% of the uterus gets to make 100% of the choice in the instances you feel he gets to make the choice. Uterus or not, 50% is a big stake in something life a living unborn child. If someone with 50% for the fetus and the uterus gets to make 100% of the choice in some instances and the father gets to make 100% of the choice in other instances, then there is an attempt at progress toward equity and balance unfolding. If you disagree, which you do, then I don't see why you're waisting your intelligence on a 13th grader.

Don't even dare try and tell me that's not you believe because it is.
Dare I say it, its not what I believe- you give my arguement to any pro-lifer and they'll lynch me quicker than you did. My proposal gives room for exceptions, neither the laws today nor the effort of pro-lifers to reverse Roe v Wade give ANY room for exceptions.

I can see why you are in the 13th grade and not in a real school. *yawn*

I've already laid out for you why your claim to the fetus carries less wait than the woman's. Not my fault you chose to ignore it. Hey I agree with you on one point, men are hosed when it comes to fathers rights. However your solution isn't a very good one and is yet again, inflicting a second wrong in order to make things right.[/QUOTE]what's the second wrong? Are you saying something is wrong with the way things are right now? Am I that far out of line to explore that fact and search for ways to correct the wrongness? Why does that offend you so much? I'm only contributing to a discussion and an issue that lacks awareness and all you can do is berate me. I would appreciate it if we could further our discussion with civility- other wise, you and I can agree to disagree I can can continue my discussion with others on this thread that don't even have to be asked to be civil.

chris epic

27th April 2006, 03:50 PM

what if there is a man and a woman in early pregnancy. He wants the child, she doesn't want to carry it to term. How would you give him more choice in the matter? An arbiter? Monetary compensation after the abortion? You mean how would he be able to stop her from getting an abortion? He wouldn't. If there could be arbitration that wouldn't exceed the first trimester, then maybe the situation could be examined. But if a woman wants to get an abortion as an alternative to contraception and knows that if her sexual partner wants the child then she will be stopped from doing so, who's to stop her from concieling the fact that she's pregnant. IF its a one night stand, they probably wont run into eachother again, he'll never know. Thats definately an advantage that women have.

And a father suing a woman for aborting his child- thats not going to bring the child back, it wouldn't make any sense to me personally, but some people are callice enough to sew in situations like that. Then again, you can look at in the way that father can be sued for child support, can't you? Very good questions.

Whoracle

27th April 2006, 04:23 PM

Again the problem with your scenario is that the father gets to make his choice first. So no this isn't giving one side 100% sometimes and the other 100% the others. This is giving one side 100% first and then giving the other side the table scraps. The woman only gets to decide after the father has decided whether or not he wants the woman to keep the baby. That's not equality.

The two wrongs is you are making up for the men being screwed by screwing over some of the women. I don't find this to be a productive solution to the whole "mens rights" problem. In the end we are talking about children here, and I see this only as only being divisive between the parents. The women being forced to not have abortions are not going to be happy about it.

Not to be crass but this doesn't matter anyway. Your situation will never happen. It will always come down to a pro-life issue. Either abortions are find and dandy all of the time (at least in the first trimester) or they aren't in the eyes of most people.

Abbyas

27th April 2006, 05:47 PM

But if a woman wants to get an abortion as an alternative to contraception...

Ah, here's the issue. There already is an out for that one - adoption. But women don't have abortions simply as an alternative to contraception. They have them because they don't want to be pregnant. No survey results that I have seen list that as an option.

Your solution doesn't solve the problem for those who do not want to be pregnant.

Q-Source

27th April 2006, 05:55 PM

chris epic,

I think most of us agree that Biology and Law favour women when it comes to decide whether ot not to have or abort a child. Your paper discusses how unequal is the way society treats women and men in this respect. We all agree with you. But the solution that you gave is a moot point and you should not expect agreement and sympathy from everybody. Especially from women and pro-choice campaigners.
I believe yours is not the only or the best solution to this unequal treatment that men get. I also believe that there are better ways to solve this problem:

1. Men who do not want to father a child, and therefore be forced to pay child support, MUST use contraception method 100% of the time.

2. Men who do want to have a child should be able to adopt or use a surrogate mother through fertility clinics.
.

3. Legislation about fathers´ right has to change in order to give them more access to their children and more decisions over their lives.

There must be other ways to improve men´s right to have children, the situation as it is today cannot be solved by forcing women to give birth. In fact, this will never be viable, so what is the point of wasting time in discussing something so radical as this?.

chris epic

28th April 2006, 08:57 AM

chris epic,
But the solution that you gave is a moot point I agree with you, but everything that's been called to question derived from mootness.

and you should not expect agreement and sympathy from everybody. Especially from women and pro-choice campaigners.I don't expect it, I would appreciate it, but I don't expect or demand it. And regardless of whether or not women and pro-choicers have agreed with me, many of them at my school that I've talked about this to have either supported my challenge or have told me "I never thought about it like that before" and that was my primary goal: to raise awareness because awareness is a catalyst for change and my "radical proposal" creates that awareness by raising an eyebrow which is something your strategies fail to do. I'm not putting them or you down, but those strategies don't combat my issue of believing that I should have a right to protect my child from abortion. I wasn't pleaing for general fatherhood, I was pleaing for my unborn child.

I believe yours is not the only or the best solution to this unequal treatment that men get I never claimed that it was, did I?

1. Men who do not want to father a child, and therefore be forced to pay child support, MUST use contraception method 100% of the time. I agree

2. Men who do want to have a child should be able to adopt or use a surrogate mother through fertility clinics. agreed

3. Legislation about fathers´ right has to change in order to give them more access to their children and more decisions over their lives. whole-heartedly agree.

There must be other ways to improve men´s right to have children, the situation as it is today cannot be solved by forcing women to give birth. In fact, this will never be viable, so what is the point of wasting time in discussing something so radical as this?.Anything that's ever been challenged wouldn't have been if people surrendered to "what is the point in wasting time discussing something so radical as this."

Thank you for your non-agreesive rebuttle, I appreciate your respect and anyone else's on this issue.

chris epic

28th April 2006, 01:50 PM

But women don't have abortions simply as an alternative to contraception. They have them because they don't want to be pregnant.That's what contraception is used for, aside from unwanted STD's, contraception is used because sexual partners don't want to be pregnant

chris epic

28th April 2006, 02:15 PM

The women being forced to not have abortions are not going to be happy about it. Well yeah...

Not to be crass but this doesn't matter anyway. Your situation will never happen. It will always come down to a pro-life issue. Either abortions are find and dandy all of the time (at least in the first trimester) or they aren't in the eyes of most people.You just contradicted yourself right there- you recognized a state by state regulation of abortion by providing an exception to the rule
You are using an either-or fallacy and you're not even using it right. In either-or fallacies there are not exceptions. Things just aren't that linear, Whoracle. Take murder (no I'm not comparing abortion to murder here) You can't tell me that murdering a person is either always bad or always good, because if that was the case, it would be illegal to murder in self-defense and we wouldn't have a death penalty.

You can't tell me that every things has one definition to it and one definition only. That would be like saying "Traditionally, the sanctity of marriage is reserved for a man and a woman" or that the definition of a family is a man, woman and their birth children, because that rules out the exceptions for gay couples and their adopted children, or single moms and single dads, or the sibling orphans of "Party of 5" or the independant pursuits of an immancipated youth- get it?

Women should be able to maintain their legal right to have an abortion, all 1.2 million of them a year! But in the rare event that a potential father finds out about a pregnancy, and in an even rarer event that he wants to protect his child, he should be able to.

But as of now I agree with you that there isn't going to really be any changes in the near future, a paradigm shift has to occur first and I am only contributing to that, take it or leave it. I also think that more fathers should desire to BE fathers than already do- but its probably asking too much of human beings to examine their values, morals, percived liberties, fundamental liberties, and actual liberties, huh?:cool:

Tmy

29th April 2006, 07:27 AM

I think it's unfair that a woman can give up her parental responisbility (i.e. adoption) but a man cannot. And when it comes to custodial rights, men are guilty until proven innocent. That needs to be fixed.

Men do have custodial/parental rights. In my state mom has to name who she thinks is dad. And there arent laws that say "Mom gets child casue shes a girl". That would violate equal protection. The reality is that mothers tend to be the caretakers, and when couples spilt the kid is most likely going to stay with the primary caretaker. You cant cut the kid in 1/2.

As for child support. Its for the child not mother. It follows the child should he move to a different caretaker. To allow parents to bail on support will just result in children going on the welfare rolls. Should the state be responsible to pay for a child? NO. His parents should.

Tmy

29th April 2006, 07:34 AM

Whoracle

29th April 2006, 02:18 PM

There really isn't an exception to what I said Chris. A lot of people are against "partial birth abortions" but have no problems with abortions for any reason in the first trimester. That's a lot different than saying abortions are ok sometimes and not others. Abortion is basically an all or nothing proposition and that's the way it should be. Either the fetus is a person with rights or it's not. It can't be one sometimes and the other other times.

Abbyas

29th April 2006, 03:59 PM

that he wants to protect his child, he should be able to.

How? By forcing the woman to continue the pregnancy?

That's what contraception is used for, aside from unwanted STD's, contraception is used because sexual partners don't want to be pregnant

As are abortions. Doesn't make my point any less valid.

Abbyas

29th April 2006, 04:04 PM

And there arent laws that say "Mom gets child casue shes a girl".

No, but all other things being equal (including parenting time) most courts are biased towards the woman.

It follows the child should he move to a different caretaker.

Not always. If a child is given up for adoption, the mother does not pay child support. That was my point, the woman does have an out that the man does not.

Tmy

29th April 2006, 04:19 PM

No, but all other things being equal (including parenting time) most courts are biased towards the woman.

Not always. If a child is given up for adoption, the mother does not pay child support. That was my point, the woman does have an out that the man does not.

But rarely are things equal. Courts will do whats in the best interest of the child. Which usually means status quo. Uprooting a child for no reason really doesnt make sense.

If a kids adopted then dad doesnt pay either. Its all on the new parents.

And Im all for notfitying dad about adoptions (if possible). many states have laws saying just that.

chris epic

29th April 2006, 09:10 PM

"Mom gets child casue shes a girl". That's not supposed to be a paraphrase of one of my statements, is it? Because I never said there are laws that say mom gets the child because she's a girl. I said 90% of the time, mother are awarded sole custody in disputes and gender stereotyping is a major contributor to that.

chris epic

29th April 2006, 09:13 PM

Chris. Might I suggest that as part of your research you go spend a day observeing at the Family Court. The courts are genreally open to the public. Maybe even make a request to speak to a family court judge. Im sure they could give you some real life insight for your paper.
I pulled my statistics from many books written by law and sociological professionals. Do you think in my personal observations I might witness the contrary to these professional's knowledge and observations? Do you know something I don't?

In any case, that sounds like a good idea.

chris epic

29th April 2006, 09:14 PM

It can't be one sometimes and the other other times.
Again- you are WRONG because the fetal homicide law contradicts that statement. A fetus isn't a person with rights, but in the case of this law, it is protected and a protection is a right.

chris epic

29th April 2006, 09:17 PM

Is it me, or are some of us jsut starting to go round and round in circles? Alot of stuff keeps being repeated, re-asked, and restated.

Abbyas

29th April 2006, 10:43 PM

Well, here's my bottom line. I don't care if the fetus is 99.999999% made up of the father's DNA. He doesn't have to carry it. Therefore he doesn't get the choice of whether or not it is carried.

Whoracle

29th April 2006, 11:45 PM

The fetal homicide law isn't stopping any abortions. Maybe saying rights isn't the right word because I know people on the internet love to attack terminology and not an argument. The fetal homicide law is a contradiction of our own laws. But laws aren't worth the paper they are printed on if they are not enforced right. So I'll rephrase for you, either abortion is murder or it's not so I don't have to deal with the weak rebuttal of slimey politicians grandstanding when it comes to these matters. When fetuses have real rights call me.

Pauliesonne

30th April 2006, 11:54 AM

Well, here's my bottom line. I don't care if the fetus is 99.999999% made up of the father's DNA. He doesn't have to carry it. Therefore he doesn't get the choice of whether or not it is carried.

That's why I keep my pants on unless I know for sure.

I don't want the pain of losing my potential child in an abortion.

Tmy

30th April 2006, 03:14 PM

I pulled my statistics from many books written by law and sociological professionals. Do you think in my personal observations I might witness the contrary to these professional's knowledge and observations? Do you know something I don't?

In any case, that sounds like a good idea.

I used to work at the family court. Its a quite a show over their.

Law professionals (aka Professors ??) dont know crap. Sure they know the theory, but the what happens in practice is another story. I think talking to a judge would be a big help.