how much say should a husband have over his wife's abortion?

[UpsideDownFlag]

i've been thinking about this lately. should there be a different set of rules of a women is potentially sharing responsibility for her kids with her husband? does the husband have any legal rights to try and make sure the fetus is born? i'm half asking this as a women's rights issue, and half asking it as a legal issue- since i am not sure what the law says about a husband's influence.

[MikeG]

1. He gets say if he agrees to carry it for 4 1/2 months.

[Warpy]

8. HAHA! Great answer!

Any woman in a decent or even a tolerable marriage will consult her husband, of course, but the decision is really hers. When we can do fetal transplants into male bodies and have them go to term there, then perhaps the males will have more of a say, although I can imagine few of them actually accepting the procedure, the discomfort, and the risk.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

96. Wouldn't that be great!

If it was men who carried the babies - you can be sure this world would have figured out how to transplant them into women a long time ago - lol!

[XanaDUer]

11. The last 4.5 months

.

[Liberal Veteran]

15. She gets the morning sickness...

...he gets the hemmoroids, back pain, stretch marks, and cesarean!

I love it!

[RoeBear]

2. the male has zero legal rights

as he should

[DoktorGreg]

63. Ding!!! Ding!!!! Ding!!! We have a winner!!!!

This is why men need choice also.

[Pithlet]

70. When did men gain the ability to get pregnant?

I must have missed that headline. Must have been a gigantic story.

[LoZoccolo]

80. If the man doesn't want the baby, he shouldn't have to pay support.

If the woman wants to keep it and he's signed an affidavit that says he doesn't want it, it's her problem, not his.

[cidliz2004]

86. Wrong Wrong Wrong

If the man doesn't want the child, then he shouldn't have sex with the woman, period. If you want to play then you must pay.

The point is keep it zipped if you don't want children, or wear 2 or 3 condoms

If a child is created and the man is the proven father, then the man must live up to his obligations.

[LoZoccolo]

88. A man's right to choose.

The state cannot force the man to give birth.

You realize that if you took that argument you gave ("don't have sex") and applied it to a woman, it would be an anti-abortion argument - which would be consistent if you are anti-abortion (you don't say), but if you were pro-choice it would be hypocritical.

[Pithlet]

205. The difference is

If a woman has an abortion, there is no child. If a man exercises his "choice" to abandon his child, you have a child with only one parent's support.

Support is not entitled to either parent. It is the child's entitlement. It is not up to either parent to decide to withhold that support when, for whatever reason and due to whomever choice, that child comes into being.

[DoktorGreg]

211. In other words,

You dont think men should have the right to choose to be parents.

Thats cool, It takes all kinds I guess.

[Pithlet]

234. No!

Of course they should. But, they aren't the ones who get pregnant. I'm sorry that is the way it is. If I could change that, I would. It would be a wonderful world if unwanted children never happened. Your solution takes an already uneven balance and makes it even more so, and leaves children hanging to boot.

[U4ikLefty]

So you are saying that a man should have to pay for his genetics alone

...and a man should have to pay for genetics that are not his because he was married...and your reasoning is: "I'm sorry that is the way it is"???

Wow!!!

[Pithlet]

238. Where did I say

that a man should have to pay for a child that isn't his?

If you're going to WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! me for something, at least make it something I said.

[U4ikLefty]

244. Oh my bad, I thought you were someone else

but do you think it is fair that a man should have to pay for a sex act for 18 years? How do you reconcile that with your sense of fairness?

[Pithlet]

248. How do you reconcile

making children pay because we want to make things more fair for adults? How do you reconcile putting more children in poverty so that men can have sex and not have to worry about paying child support for a kid they didn't want?

It sucks that men aren't holding the cards because their bodies aren't the ones getting pregnant. I understand that there is an inequity there. I'm saying that that unfairness isn't enough to warrent impoverishing more children. Because it is the children that are entitled to the support regardless of the choices that adults made.

[U4ikLefty]

254. Nice rhetoric, but doesn't address any point.

Children do NOT pay to make things fairer to adults. I think you present a false choice when you say the only two choices are child poverty & making biological fathers pay for a teenage hump.

I believe children deserve support too, just I don't think anybody should be FORCED into being a parent (financially) without their consent, just because we have a screwed up social safety net.

What's your solution to make it fair for both...or are you just fine with the inequity, beceasue it punishes men???

[Pithlet]

256. It absolutely addresses the point!

If a child is left with only one parent financially supporting them, particularly if it means that they have to go on welfare, then they are absolutely paying for it.

There is no solution to make it completely fair, because there will never be a time when both men and women get pregnant. Pay attention: I never said I was fine with it. Let's not play the "you must be a man hater" BS with me.

It isn't a false choice, because it is either/or. The man either has to pay child support or he doesn't. If he doesn't, then the child is left to be raised on one income. Where are the other scenarios, hmmm? Is there only half a child because one parent didn't want him/her?

[Yupster]

264. Robert Kennedy

"Some see the world as it is and say why? Others see the world as it can be and say why not?"

This is a discussion board of people who are interested in public policy. Let's come up with some solutions and force them into public debate. Let's never just accept the unacceptable.

[Pithlet]

268. Why the hell do you think I'm arguing for child support?

Is that not public policy?

[Yupster]

281. My Kennedy comment is directed at your

comment that it is an either or decision. Even though there are parts you're not comfortable with, the man must either pay or he doesn't.

My Kennedy quote is asking are those really the only two alternatives?

Can't we find a better way that helps the kids more and handles some of the inequities none of us are comfortable with?

Can't we think of better ways?

I've put my proposal on the table. I think it's a better way.

I'm trying to not just look at the world as it is.

[Pithlet]

282. How is removing the support of one parent a better way?

You've not had a compelling argument. Let the state take care of it! In a country that is chipping away at the amount the state takes care of them, regardless of which party is in control, that is hardly an argument.

I was only addressing the accusation that I was presenting a false choice. It is not a false choice, because no one, including you, can come up with a solution that doesn't leave children hanging. Because, despite your assertions, leaving children at the mercy of society is NOT a better option than requiring both parents to support them.

[Yupster]

301. That's our disagreement in a nutshell

We both think children should be well taken care of.

I think it's everyone's responsibility.

You think we should saddle it on the guy who had sex with the woman who became pregnant.

I think my way is better because ...

1. it allows a man to choose whether he should be a parent or not which seems like a pretty basic human right.

2. it doesn't leave the kid's welfare at the mercy of a dad who may be good or bad, drunk or sober, wealthy or poor, around or missing.

Still, I think you have the kid's interests at best heart. You're just wrong. But of course that's just my opinion.

[Pithlet]

303. And you seem to think

That it is okay to dump the plate entirely on women. You seem to think that leaving children at the mercy of society is taking care of them. You are wrong.

Your way only removes one equation, but leaves everything else the same. Sure, you think that everyone would ante up the difference. You are wrong there, too. Social programs are being cut, not added.

You are mistaken in that your way equally takes care of all children. Rainbows on Saturdays, and all that.

[DoktorGreg]

311. Yes, because she made the CHOICE

The man did not. You want men to subsidze bad choices, and bringing a child into poverty is a bad choice every time. When is raising a child in poverty a good choice?

You want women to be able to sue men, so they can be mothers, not make choices. Even though they are not capable. If the mother is unable to care for the child, and the father does not want to be involved, then she should have an abortion, adopt, or utilize abandonment laws.

Women already do this every day. Men do not, they do not have that option.

This child poverty thing is a straw horse.

[Pithlet]

315. It is not

Child poverty does exist. It takes more than one income to raise one if you're not rich to stay above poverty. Men aren't subsidizing bad choices, they're supporting a child that is JUST AS MUCH THEIRS!

Men aren't entirely blameless. It isn't as though pregnancy spontaneously happens and women randomly choose their victims.

There is a huge difference between forcing a woman to have a baby she didn't want, and forcing a man to pay for one that he didn't want. Because we don't force the former means we can't force the latter? We can't hold BOTH people responsible?

After a child is born, they don't disappear because the father didn't want them. Therefore, they aren't straw horses, whatever the hell that means anyway. I think you meant Straw Man, and I don't think you know what that means. A better example of a straw man would be painting men as completely without control in this matter.

[DoktorGreg]

319. It is too

Men are not subsidising the children, they are subsidising the MOTHERS.

If the man doesn't want the child, and the woman says "Im gonna keep my baby", the man is ENTIRELY blameless for the poverty.

And no, there is absolutly zero difference between forcing men and women to be parents.

The child poverty is IS a straw man, because he is a forced parent. We dont force women to be parents.

[Pithlet]

321. No

Child support is something that a child is entitled to, not the mother. You are looking at child support in the wrong way, and in a manner in which it is not intended to be used. Do some women use the child support money incorrectly? That may be, but that doesn't mean we remove it completely, and leave honest women who would use it for their children without support.

Do you know how much it costs to raise a child? I'm thinking there is a good chance you don't.

[DoktorGreg]

324. You just need to accept that you dont support choice for men

You think its a good thing that women hold all the cards on this profound issue.

Why not just accept it?

[Pithlet]

326. LOL

Whatever you say. I guess you can't accept that you don't care about children and poverty :silly: Excuse me, I shall go now and revel in the power that my uterus gives me. Who can I victimize next? I haven't filled in my quota of unwilling fathers.

[DoktorGreg]

327. Funny

Did you read about the guy in the Salon article I posted who was made a father after the woman inseminated herself from the semen in the condom?

Hahaha Funny..

How about that 12 year old out in Oregon that was raped by his school teacher. Did you now he pays child support?

[Pithlet]

330. Yes

It's horrible. I never laughed at that. But, you know, that isn't the case 99.9% of the time. What I find funny is you seem to take a case like that and project it onto everyone else. Women are the power hungry victimizers, and men are just the unwitting saps. I do take comfort in the fact that most men do not think that way, thank God!

I also find it worthy of note that you would mention the case of the 12 year old. A non-consenting child. I think it is absolutely horrible if a child is raped and then legally held responsible to the consequences. But, see, that is not the same thing as holding a consenting adult responsible. Do you honestly put grown men and victimized children in the same category?

[DoktorGreg]

331. Yes, you are a power hungry victimizer

That is why you can't simply admit you are against men's choice(and by proxy womens choice). Or is there some other reason you can't admit that? Whats going on in your life that you feel this way?

Me, Im happily married, have a three year old son, a job a mortgage and a big back yard, and two dogs. No poverty here. Life is good because most people think the way I do, and make responsible choices.

I even just wrote a check for $6,000 to send my kid to a montessori pre-school.

You are right, I am sooo out of touch.

[Pithlet]

332. I'm a Leo

And I love pedicures. I live in a house. I enjoy a good book now and then.

Oh, and I hate men. Oops, I guess that is totally obvious, isn't it?

[DoktorGreg]

333. Well, thanks for being honest finally

No, It wasn't obvious.

But thats ok, I hire all sorts of women in my chain of gift stores, cause they work for less (and clean better) then men do. Plus women are such suckers when it comes to gift stores. Ohhh shiny things.

I find the single women with children are ususally the most hard up of steady work. They all give me the the suggar daddy hugs.

Cheers!

[U4ikLefty]

267. Then shouldn't a woman subsidize the child they

give up to foster care???

[Pithlet]

270. Yes, and sometimes they are.

Just because you're ruled an unfit parents doesn't necessarily mean your financial obligations are removed.

Also, a woman can't up and leave her family without being financially responsible. Do you think it is only men who pay child support?

[DoktorGreg]

274. No it doesnt address the point

The point is the woman chooses to bring the child into poverty. Don't make men pay for that poor choice.

[Pithlet]

276. The point is

The CHILD didn't make that choice. It absolutely does address the point. These kids don't just disappear. They don't require less because one of the two adults that participated in their conception didn't want a child. They don't require less because their mother made a decision to have them even though their father was against it.

You don't just get to ignore the little issue of what the child needs because it isn't convenient to your argument.

[DoktorGreg]

272. They are also the ones that CHOOSE

If women have all the rights to that choice, then they should also have all the responsibility to the life that they are making. Every one in this thread agrees! Its the womans choice! Ultimately the women choose to leave the child hanging, not the man. It bears repeating, every one here agrees, its the womans choice.

Just because they choose to make a baby when they cant afford it, doesnt mean its right. I say, it shouldn't give them the right to haul men into court, just because the woman wants to be a single mother. The mother chooses to be a single mother.

The alternative is to ask the father if he also chooses to be a parent. If he makes that choice, fine. If not, oh well, the woman will be on her own.

Oh crap no! We cant give the man a choice (or CONTROL, oh no CONTROL!!) over his biological destiny. That power ought to be reserved for women. We cant have men making decisions about their own children or paternity.

Face it, you are against choice for men(and by proxy women also). It is that simple, no matter how much you deny it.

[Pithlet]

277. I'm not against choice for men!!!!!

And it doesn't become any more true because you keep throwing that accusation at me.

The CHILD does not make the choice. They don't require any less food or clothing because their mother made a decision not to have an abortion.

I'm not anti-men. I'm not pro-forced parenthood. I'm anti-child poverty, and anything that will add more children to the ranks of poverty in this country.

[Yupster]

289. If the point is to do what's best for the kid, how's about

making the richest man in each community pay a generous child support payment to each child in need in the community.

In Seattle, Bill Gates could pay $ 1,000 per month to each kid in poverty. In Pittsburgh it could be the Heinz family. That would help the kid a lot more than chasing after some 21 year old drop-out at Burger King for his $ 60 per month.

If the point is to help the kid, then let's really help the kid.

[Pithlet]

298. While we're at it

Why don't we just make everything free. I mean, that would totally remove poverty, wouldn't it? While were wishing for the impossible, I just thought I'd throw that out there.

What's best for the child is support from both parents. There is no way to legally make a person (man or woman) care about their kids. But there is a way to make them financially responsible, so we do it, because rich people aren't suddenly all going to become bleeding heart socialists. I would love for that to happen, but advocating it would be like advocating mandatory rainbows on Saturdays.

[Yupster]

304. Well, here is where ideas start isn't it?

How about we start by all at DU asking Teresa Heinz to sell three of her five mansions and use the proceeds to annuitizea a foundation to help kids with absent dads.

Not to pick on her alone, but these rich people with their conspicuous consumption make me sick.

How many mansions does Teresa need?

How many cars does Jay Leno need?

These are people we have influence over, but it seems we glory over their waste instead of criticizing it.

I know it's off topic, but it's late and I think we've pretty much each made our positions clear.

[Pithlet]

306. Yes. Yours is crystal clear. n/t

[DoktorGreg]

291. Why on earth are you advocating single motherhood then?

I am trying to be empathetic right now so...

Because one of the very consistent factors of single motherhood is poverty. I mean wow, I have been a book worm on this subject the last few days. Single motherhood and poverty go hand in hand,(US Census data) and no amount of paternity suits are going to fix that. In fact, paternity suits seem to increase the problem of the fathers poverty, by proxy it increases the child's poverty. A full half of men involved in paternity suits drop out of school. I don't see how that helps anyone, let alone the child. Perhaps if we abandon the naive notion that that you can sue a man into parenthood (which by all accounts is not working) more women will choose not to bring children into poverty. I'm not at all sorry about it, a woman who just wants to have a child, is not a good enough reason to destroy a mans life, especially if she doesn't consult him about parenthood. Even worse, she does consult him, and ignores his parental aspirations.

Remember, the woman chooses to bring the child into poverty. Poverty is about a lot more than financial ability.

[Pithlet]

295. The child didn't choose.

That is what it comes down to. I'm not advocating single motherhood. But, these children are born regardless of how I, or anyone else, feels about that issue.

Yes, the woman chose to bring the child into poverty. That child is not any different than any other, and less needing or deserving of the same things that other children get, because their mother, in your or anyone's opinion, made the wrong choice.

[Alenne]

288. men have control over their biological destiny

some choose to use it. Others choose not to and when they get someone pregnant decide to yell about being tricked like they don't know how babies are made.

[Pithlet]

292. Honestly

You'd think that pregnant women just drop out of the sky, grab men, and say "Gotcha!"

[LoZoccolo]

285. You make a good, calm, reasoned argument here.

I wasn't serious about the "man's right to choose" thing or not having to pay support, I was just throwing it out to make a parallel between pro-choice arguments and really, to gaslight the conversation with a bizarre conclusion as well. But I say that elsewhere.

But since you bring up the inequalities in biology as part of your argument, don't you leave open the possibility that a pro-lifer could say that about a woman as well? Wouldn't they say that just because a woman has to carry a child to term if abortion is made illegal (because, as they would say, an unborn child is still a life that needs to be protected), well, that's just the way things are biologically?

I have up until this point refrained from giving a position on abortion, but that's not really what I do in these threads so much as I get people to flesh out their positions - I don't see much real argumentation here surrounding abortion other than like yelling and accusation. I've had a personal experience, and a discussion with a friend of mine who's a doctor that have been influential in shaping my views, but I haven't discussed them here. Personally, I think the issue is an impasse - some people say it ends a life, some people don't think so, some people fall one way, some the other, and they're not going to agree, and that's really the end of it. When people start making accusations about other peoples' intentions surrounding this issue, or I think really taking it anywhere outside of this impasse, I think it needlessly complicates the issue in ways that cause positions to become all convoluted as we see from this thread.

I will say that it's kind of...interesting, maybe scary, that I threw out the "male choice" thing as a joke, and then a few people come out of the woodwork that take that position (that is, unless they're not being serious either). I even found a website in support of it.

[Pithlet]

290. Pro-lifers are going to say that regardless

There is a difference between making a man pay child support, and making a woman go through 9 months of pregnancy. There is a difference between making someone pay a certain amount of money, and taking away decisions about one's own body and what it goes through.

So, I do think that pro-lifers are placing a much bigger burden on a woman by forcing her to carry a pregnancy, then, say, I am, for insisting that a person (regardless of their sex) help pay to raise a child that is theirs, even if they don't want anything to do with him/her emotionally.

[Yupster]

89. Tra saying the same thing about a woman

and see how quickly you're called a mysoginist.

[Cheswick2.0]

165. you can't say the same thing about a woman

she is in a whole different situation

[LoZoccolo]

170. Thanks for spelling that out in the detail it deserves.

I'm straight on it now.

[striderjames]

193. Why?

You say it is a different sitation but do not explain why. I understand both sides of the arugment and am conflicted. If they get pregnant(yes I said they) because they made a stupid mistake they are both at fault, correct? So why should one have the ultimate choice on what happens? Because it is her body? But that is only 9 months or so, the mans wallet will be carrying the kid for next 18 years....

Then again I would much rather no one have abortions and instead have much better support for these people. Give them training they need and the child care so they can continue their training. If they still don't want the kid then we should refine our foster care system so it works the right way. No more collecting kids so they can collect the checks.

[iverglas]

195. much as I might agree

... that the distinction between men and women in this respect is somewhat specious, and not necessarily a rebuttal to the arguments against mandatory child support for children one did not wish to have ...

the mans wallet will be carrying the kid for next 18 years

... do you not think it worth remembering that the wallets of the women who have custody of these children are also carrying them?

Are there really a whole lot of women with custody of their kids who don't contribute financially to the children's support? -- without even going into the value of the time and labour they expend in caring for the children ...

And could we try to keep in mind that the argument (s/he shoulda kept 'em closed/kept it zipped), when made against the woman, is not being made for the purpose of requiring that she make a financial contribution -- it is being made for the purpose of requiring that she assume the risks to her life and health, and accept the loss of liberty, that are inherent in pregnancy?

It really isn't quite the same thing, is it? No, it isn't.

So why should one have the ultimate choice on what happens? Because it is her body?

You got it. It is her body -- her life, her health, her liberty. The kind of violations of those rights that compulsory pregnancy constitutes are generally regarded as the main features of slavery.

Then again I would much rather no one have abortions and instead have much better support for these people. Give them training they need and the child care so they can continue their training. If they still don't want the kid then we should refine our foster care system so it works the right way. No more collecting kids so they can collect the checks.

What a load of disrespectful and ignorant crap.

First, we want to manipulate "these people" into having children, and then we want to coerce them into handing the kids over to somebody else so we don't have to contribute to their support.

Never mind that "these people" may not WANT to have a child, no matter how much training you give them, because that's what you'd rather they did; were you planning on giving them a choice, or just make 'em do what you think they should do?

And never mind that what you are saying about the nasty money-grubbing reasons of the women who do have the children, like you want 'em to, presumes that the women you are saying it about are either stupid or evil or both.

Yech. With friends like this ...

[MrSandman]

287. Now I have seen the argument....

And my opinion of it remains the same.

It is the woman's choice...period. Whether she accepts her husband's opinion, it is also her choice.

[progressivebydesign]

112. Sorry.. but too many men have been tricked into it..

.. condoms don't always work. How many of us know women who have gotten pregnant, accidentally on purpose? Chicks know that other chicks do that... even going as far as to prick holes in condoms thru the package.. and lie about taking the pill. If a woman wants a baby that badly, and has to trick someone into it, then he should not have to support the child. That's ridiculous.

[Yupster]

117. I actually broke up with a girlfriend

because I believed she was trying to trick me into a pregnancy.

We're still friends and I married someone else eventally, but it completely broke my trust when I believe I caught her trying to trick me into marrying her by getting pregnant.

I never confronted her, and no doubt never will.

She ended up adopting a kid on her own and I wish her the best.

[CaTeacher]

152. I know a very nice

man who was tricked into getting a girl pregnant. She really wanted to marry him badly--and knew that he would marry her if she got pregnant. He did marry her and they stayed together for 5 years and 2 children.

Of course she got bored with him pretty quickly and treated him like dirt after a few months. She eventually left him for another man, taking the children and half of his business. He was quite devestated--he had gotten quite attached to her (and the two children she had with him).

Bummer. He is a really nice guy--but he was pretty gullible.

[loyalsister]

122. I'm sure it happens

but probably not with the frequency that men pretend.
I think that's because men aren't used to being the victim and become mega dramatists when it happens.

[cidliz2004]

177. Match absent/delinquent fathers against women that trick men and prick

holes in condoms.....the absent/delinquent fathers is overwhelmingly more of the issue.

A woman can invite the fathers input.

If a woman is married, I would hope that hubby and her would discuss it and consider each others feelings most carefully.

A woman goes through hell before she really even considers whether she can/or should support the baby. A woman really doesn't even really consider that issue too much - her heart is ripped out and her gut is kicked before she even gets to the practical issues. This is what the man doesn't understand or go through. Even on this board, I have seen the "question...or statement....the man shouldn't have to SUPPORT the baby if he doesn't want it.... TYPICAL male response, superficial and incomplete.

The woman deals with IT ALL and the guilt if she does abort, the guilt for the rest of her life.

The man who has shown repeatedly that he walks away from living breathing children and doesn't WANT to support them and doesn't see his kids.

In order for a woman to get child support she has to hire an attorney and go after the guy, even if it is court ordered and to be paid through the court system. Then after being years delinquent, a woman gets the guy in court and the judge lowers the outstanding amount by 25 - 50%....it is total bullshit. When I see the LAWS protecting the woman and children from this lack of fairness in the court system and when I see men being thrown in jail for not paying child support, then and only then will I consider a man deserving of the right to have a "blanket" law protecting his rights on a fetus.

Another joke is the fact that women have had to pay for BCP forever and when VIAGRA came out, it was covered by insurance!!!! The system favors the men as it is, they don't need any more help.

By the way, I know plenty of wonderful men that are fabulous parents, and I know women that shouldn't have children, so, I am not one sided on this just realistic.

Besides the question here was IF THE MAN SHOULD HAVE LEGAL RIGHTS TO HIS WIVES PREGNANCY, not the woman's right.

The woman already has her burdens to care in this issue. It is not hypocritical to have different standards for men and for women on this issue, the woman afterall, is the one who gets pregnant and gets "stuck" in the heart or for the rest of her life for an unwanted pregnancy. Woman will love that baby whether or not it was planned or unplanned, men will walk away, they do it everyday. A woman, whether the man walks away or not will love the baby, the man can and often does walk away and doesn't look back. That is the basic difference on the REACTION to the pregnancy.

It really is apples and oranges.

[iverglas]

186. don't play the game, please!

When I see the LAWS protecting the woman and children from this lack of fairness in the court system and when I see men being thrown in jail for not paying child support, then and only then will I consider a man deserving of the right to have a "blanket" law protecting his rights on a fetus.

The two issues are COMPLETELY SEPARATE and we should not be tricked into confusing them, even sarcasticly. It isn't a question of "different standards", it really is a question of apples and oranges.

Men could be required by law to stand on their head and spit nickels for the benefit of the children they don't want, until the children turn 35, and there would STILL be no grounds for an iota of interference in women's right to decide the outcome of their own pregnancies.

The fact that these ARE two separate issues means that we should not be averse to discussing the second issue -- men's obligation to support children they did not want -- whenever it is raised without the implication that if men are obliged to do that, they should have some "say" in the outcome of women's pregnancies.

The right to an abortion is a matter of the right to life as well as the right to liberty. Pregnancy involves risks to women's lives, as well as limitations on their liberty. No one may compel someone else to assume a risk to her life; not even the government, without the most overwhelmingly important justification.

The obligation to support children involves a limitation on liberty -- men are required to relinquish some of the earnings from their labour or capital, to support an existing child. Men have no obligations to the child during a woman's pregnancy, because the child does not exist. There is simply no reason for a man to have rights in respect of a pregnancy -- he has no responsibility or obligation in respect of it.

The pregnancy is not what creates the obligation imposed on men. The existence of the child after birth, even, is not what imposes the obligation on men. Women are not who impose that obligation on men. The law (based, of course, on long and even ancient tradition) is what imposes obligations on men.

If men don't like that law, they can argue and press for it to be changed. Their argument has nothing whatsoever to do with women's reproductive rights: rights to life and liberty.

I'm not dead set against such a change. If a man has not expressly or by implication agreed to be the father of a child, I don't really know why he should be required to support the child. And I don't particularly think "keep it zipped" is a good response, any more than I think "abstinence" is good pedagogy. People have reasons for having sexual relations that have nothing to do with reproduction, and it is quite unreasonable to expect them to refrain from having sexual relations unless they wish to have children, or are willing to get landed with children they don't want.

If some Supreme Court were suddenly to up and overturn all child support laws in the land, and hold that a man who could prove that he had not agreed to be a father was not liable to support the child ... who knows, that might just be the revolutionary impetus we'd need. Women would rise up and run for office and vote, and we'd see excellent, free child care being offered in all our communities and schools and workplaces, and supports for women in need of education and job training, and paid maternity leave (paternity too, of course), and decent income supports for parents while they were unable to work because of childcare obligations, and decent family housing even for the poor, and guaranteed minimum incomes for children's needs.

We know from long experience in the less developed world that people with those kinds of improvements in their standard of living and quality of life naturally tend to limit family size, so it's unlikely we'd see a wholesale shift from "tricking" men into fathering children to "tricking" society into supporting children.

Making children's welfare dependent on the whims and capacities of their unwilling fathers is rather barbaric, when you come to think of it. It's simply the extreme result of the privatization of child-rearing that has been taking place in the long process of the development of capitalism. More and more responsibility for children's well-being has been shifted from the community to the parents, at the same time as the family unit has become more fractured and isolated.

Didn't someone say it takes a village? Instead of demanding more and tougher child support orders and enforcement, why isn't anybody demanding that the village step up to the plate and assume its responsibilities to its youngest members?

[LoZoccolo]

188. Hey hey I was just saying I don't wanna pay for some baby coming out.

I didn't say anything like we should be able to force the man's will on the woman because he has to pay for some baby coming out as the laws are now. That's why I like liberal women better, because there's less of a chance of me having to pay for some baby coming out because they believe in abortion and shit.

[iverglas]

189. uh

My point was that the two things are separate issues.

I believe that you are the one who initially decided to chuck the big orange into this apple barrel.

If your point is that men should not be compelled to pay support for children they did not choose to be a father to, then you might want to make it in a thread where it is relevant.

That's why I like liberal women better, because there's less of a chance of me having to pay for some baby coming out because they believe in abortion and shit.

I believe in the right to eat pizza for breakfast. I seldom do it. So I might suggest that you be less sanguine about your odds.

For someone with so many posts, you do say some bizarre and unpleasant things.

[LoZoccolo]

197. Point taken.

(See #123.)

I do think you're a very sharp writer.

[jdj]

121. Is this true?

I've been curious about this, I mean, can a parent just legally give up all parental rights to their child, and then be not financially responsible? Is it a state law, or federal...?

[LoZoccolo]

123. I don't know, I'm just fucking around again.

I hate abortion threads, and have a tradition of injecting obtuse arguments in the middle of them. Although some people on this thread were actually pretty reasonable.

[jdj]

126. I know in some cases you can give up parental rights.

But I wasn't sure if you could in this case.

It's pretty sad when you get so sick of swift boat threads that you have to duck into an abortion thread just to get some relief.

[Yupster]

124. No it's not true

The poster's giving his opinion that it should be that way.

[LoZoccolo]

129. Not really though.

See #123.

[0007]

142. Very poor logic!

[LoZoccolo]

160. No, you have very poor logic.

I figure if you can just go say that, then so can I.

[Tight_rope]

158. Although you've made a good argument....sorry it's don't work that way!

Sure...It's wrong for a woman to deceit a man who doesn't want the child/children. I agree...why should he pay for the entrapment.

However, we know that many men will use this "LAME" excuse to get out of responsibility for a pregnancy that they "WILLING" participated in. Somewhere along the way they decided they didn't want to be part of it after all.

He just wanted to have a good time. He just wanted to "SHARPING HIS PENCIL". He didn't expect "HIS" erection to cause him so many problems in the end.

So, as one person above said. "IF YOU ARE WILLING TO PLAY YOU HAVE TO BE WILLING TO PAY". "DO THE CRIME YOU DO THE TIME"!

[LoZoccolo]

159. There's that "you play you pay" argument again...

...which isn't valid against a woman, but it is against a man. Are you against abortion? If so, then this is a consistent position. If not, then it's a hypocritical argument.

[Yupster]

171. Willing to play - willing to pay

That's right ladies. You were willing to have the sex. Now you have to have the baby.

Willing to play - willing to pay.

I think you're converting me to a pro-lifer Tightrope.

[Alenne]

175. Women don't have to have the baby

even if they are willing to play. They can always have an abortion. An option men don't have so men need to exercise all of their choices before they ejaculate.

[Cheswick2.0]

164. nope, living children have the right to support from the father

regardless of the relationship.

[LoZoccolo]

169. No they don't.

I know you are but what am I.

[Cheswick2.0]

163. We do have male choice

He can chose to keep his sperm to himself.

[LoZoccolo]

168. That is the same as the anti-abortion argument against females.

Why does this keep escaping peoples' notice?

[DrWeird]

3. none.

nt

[Mountainman]

4. If it were me, I would discuss it with my wife but in the end it is

between her doctor and herself. I would stand by her decision.

[JudgeSmales]

5. No. It is her body.

That fetus belongs to her.

[Liberal Veteran]

7. Welcome to DU, JudgeSmales....

Enjoy your stay.

[JudgeSmales]

16. Thank you very much. This is a great site. I have learned much.

[Tight_rope]

79. Welcome to DU JudgeSmales!

[Liberal Veteran]

6. I think in the final analysis, the woman ALWAYS has the final say.

However, if it comes down to it, it can be a dealbreaker in a marriage (or any relationship).

A good marriage will have an agreement reached between the two. If not, they have issue.

[LittleApple81]

9. But you know that, at least 18 years ago, in Kansas (and I don't think

it has changed) you could not have your tubes tied without your husband's approval? I almost could not believe it! I WANTED THEM TIED when I had my son, and they would not do it without his signature.

[rene moon]

17. Same thing happened to my mother

And my dad refused to sign it. And she couldn't do a damn thing about it. She got sick a couple of years ago and had to have a hysterectomy and still has terrible problems internally. If she had gotten her tubes tied earlier, she wouldn't be going through this mess.

I'm glad my dad feels terrible about it, asshole. Her body wasn't his, even though he seemed to think it was.

[ldf]

134. if that is the way he felt

she should have refused to have sex until he came around to her point of view.

he would have. sex is what it's all about. women have the power, if they would just use it.

if all women who felt so inclined refused sex with friends, boyfriends, husbands, until the right to choose was written in stone, never to be reviewed again, it would be.

again, sex is what it's all about.

[Tight_rope]

156. Sex and "CONTROL"!

It's like Money and Power!....

[ChickMagic]

20. That still happens in Catholic hospitals

My boss nearly died when she got knocked up at 45 (yes, she was knocked up and should have known better). They wound up getting married because of the pregnancy, but the little one didn't have a chance. He was less than a pound when he was born. She was so deathly ill that she stayed in the hospital another month. Her doctor told her she could not get pregnant again or she would die. She had to have most of the veins stripped out of her arms. But, they wouldn't tie her tubes without her brand new hubby's permission.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. One would hope they were in a communicative relationship wherein this

was not an issue. Beyond that, none. It isn't his body...do men need to ask their wives for vasectomies?

[UpsideDownFlag]

26. well said. n/t.

[put out]

31. Not where I'm from.

They make the decision according to their beliefs and their desire to determine their own reproductive future.

As women should.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

61. I guess the woman could always get a divorce if her

husband doesn't agree to the procedure, but that sucks.

[JerseygirlCT]

75. Exactly so. In this case, biology trumps all. When men can get pregnant

I'm quite sure they will demand control over their own bodies.

One would certainly hope that in the context of a marriage or some other committed relationship, this would be, in practice, a shared decision. But, bottom line -- it's her body and her choice.

[SarahB]

137. I had to sign a consent form for a vasectomy 2 years ago.

I'm pretty sure that legally he could have gotten it if I didn't, but Connecticut was notorious for antiquated birth control laws until the mid-60's. I suspect it may be a throwback to that.

I don't agree with it anymore than I agree any man should have rights over my body either. I probably shouldn't have signed it on a matter of principal, but I really was happy about the idea of not worrying about him knocking me up again, so I wouldn't have wanted to delay anything.

[melv]

140. actually, yes

when my husband went to get a vasectomy I had to sign the authorization, or else he couldn't have done it. What a screwed up ideologue!

[spotbird]

12. Obviously the final say is the wife's.

But a reasonable woman would consider her husband's point of view in her decision making process.

As for the law, it would be impossible to give the husband a legal voice. Just as a woman can't compel her husband to impregnate her. In this case biology is destiny.

[rene moon]

13. They should talk about it

But in the end, it's her decision. Not his body.

[UpsideDownFlag]

21. i was leaning that way. i was just imagining what it would be like for

the husband, if he really wanted to raise that child or something.

[MichiganVote]

30. Adoption is alive and well. Men have choices, just not THIS choice.

[rene moon]

33. All I can say is: oh well

No woman should ever be just a baby carrier for any man. Sorry.

[Yupster]

90. As a husband, obviously

it would be a dealbreaker.

Assuming a healthy mother and healthy fetus, and the husband wants the baby, and the wife says "sorry, I'm aborting it," well obviously that marriage is a gonner.

There's no way you could sleep with someone every night who killed your potential kid if you didn't think there was a good reason to do it. You'd have the divorce papers signed before the abortion.

Still, it must be the woman's choice.

But, a case with a married woman in a stable family situation where the husband wants the baby, I can't imagine a marriage surviving that.

Mine certainly wouldn't.

[iverglas]

187. "what it would be like for the husband ...

... if he really wanted to raise that child or something."

It would be a huge drag. Seriously. It would, in some cases, cause devastating emotional pain.

As does the woman's decision to continue the pregnancy and bear the child, in some cases. A good friend of mine, years ago, had a foolish relationship with his very young secretary when he was an articling student. She got pregnant, she was unwilling to consider terminating the pregnancy, she had the child and relinquished it for adoption. He was not interested in forming a family with her, he was in no position to rear the child, and he in fact did not want a child. And he was distraught about the whole thing.

But that's life. The alternative is unthinkable: to let one human being be compelled by another to submit to the physical effects of pregnancy, including the risk to her life, to satisfy the desires of that other -- or to let her be compelled to undergo surgical intervention to terminate a pregnancy she wishes to continue, in the other extreme.

There just isn't any other situation in which we would even consider allowing such a thing. We don't allow people to be compelled to rescue other actual people, e.g. by allowing someone to push them into the lake to save someone else. We don't allow people to be compelled to donate tissue or organs, even to save someone else's life.

And we certainly don't allow one person to compel another person to assume risks to her life and health, or submit to surgical intervention, simply to spare the first person emotional pain.

So we can all have all the opinions we like about what people in such situations oughta do, but that's really all just none of our business. We're either talking hypothetically or talking about some specific individuals about whom we might know very little, or just not know enough to have a worthwhile opinion -- the point being that our opinion about what such other people should do in such matters just doesn't matter anyhow, so why would we bother having one?

Men may not compel women to do anything in respect of their pregnancies that women do not want to do. We may all sympathize with the men in such situations as much as we like, but it would probably be useful for us to point out how much more horrible life would be if they were able to force their wishes on the woman than it is that they may not.

[wurzel]

14. None. It is the woman's choice (or burden).

[LibraLabSoldier]

18. in a good marriage,

they would discuss it. Then again, if it isnt his, she would want to dispose of the evidence before he found out. It is a thorny issue, to be sure, and there is no one size fits all answer. This is coming from someone who works in military medicine, so I have seen different scenarios come up that would turn your average anti abortionists hair white. Basically though, its her body, her decision.

[Demobrat]

19. He has no say at all, unless she wants him to.

She is under no legal obligation to even tell him she's pregnant unless she wants him to know. Women have been known to terminate pregnancies without troubling the father with the fact that the fetus even exists. I know.

[IronLionZion]

22. first off, abortion is a last resort

and the husband is supposed to be able to provide for his family so they don't have to resort to that. But if there is no chance of raising the poor child and all other options are exhausted, then who gives a flying fuck what the husband thinks? If you can't have a child then you can't have a child period.

just my 2 cents from someone who lacks a womb

[LibraLabSoldier]

23. I agree

Men should really not be on either side of this arguement. If you dont have to carry it, it should not be your decision. Just because we carry baby batter dispensers, doesnt give men the right to dictate who will bear their children. My wife gave me two, and I had a vas. Unfortunately, she had to have an emergency Hysto about a year later.

Womens reproductive health should not be presided over by men.

[Yupster]

91. Not always a last resort

What if the mother knows the baby is not her husband's.

Abortion may be a first resort rather than having the baby and maybe having to admit your affair.

Now how often does that situation come up?

I've read stuff that says that more than 10 % of fathers are raising kids that they think are there's, but are not.

Also, what's this about the "husband is supposed to be able to provide for his family..."

That seems awfully fiftyish. I know Ward Cleaver and Mike Brady would agree with you.

[iverglas]

185. actually, abortion is the ONLY resort --

-- for any woman who DOES NOT WANT to gestate a pregnancy and bear a child.

Pregnant. Two choices.

1. Gestate, deliver.
2. Abort.

Women are the ones who implement both of those choices in respect of their own pregnancies; no one else can.

Women are the ones who make both of those choices; no one else may.

Period.

first off, abortion is a last resort and the husband is supposed to be able to provide for his family so they don't have to resort to that.

You seem to be asserting that abortion is a choice that is made, or is to be made, only when a woman does not have the financial resources (either personally or through a male protector) to rear a child.

That is not accurate as a statement of fact -- women have abortions for a wide range of personal reasons -- and is not acceptable as the basis of any kind of policy position.

Nor, of course, is your assertion that a husband is supposed to be able to provide for his family acceptable as the basis of any kind of policy position. That is a private matter, to be decided between the parties to the marriage, and no one else. As a matter of fact rather than opinion, it is simply untrue as regards large numbers of families, where the husband does not bear sole or primary responsibility for supporting the family, whether by choice or by force of circumstance.

These are all matters that are to be decided by the people whose right it is to decide them -- women decide whether to gestate and deliver or abort, couples decide how their relationship functions economically and otherwise.


You appear to oppose interference in women's exercise of the right to decide the outcome of their pregnancies, but I recommend a little less focus on your or anyone else's notions about other options being exhausted.

[Pithlet]

24. Ideally, a couple would discuss it first

and each would take the others feelings into consideration. But, legally, it has to be the woman's choice ultimately. A woman's body doesn't become any less hers because she gets married. If a couple disagrees, it can certainly be heartbreaking for everyone involved. But that is not a basis to strip someone of their legal rights.

[progressivebydesign]

114. Yeah.. a normal, happy couple would not approach it as adversaries.

A decent marriage consists of communication. Ideally, yes, the couple should discuss it... because it does concern him, in some ways.. of course. Unless there is some type of abuse in the relationship, I can't see most wives just discounting the husband's opinion completely. Why be married, if that's the case. I think the they should discuss it, but it ultimately up to her... of course.

[DoktorGreg]

25. What if it is not his genetics?

And the pregnancy is the result of an adulterous affair?

The law stipulates its his child anyhow. What then? Isn't that a case of forced parenting?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

28. No the law does not stipulate this..that is a misunderstanding on your

part. There is some case law that if a man has raised a child as his own and later finds it isn't his, he is still liable to pay for the child...that is because the law focuses on the child's welfare...there is no law that if a woman is impregnated by another male, the one she is married to needs to raise it...feel free to post proof of that if I am incorrect.

[Madrone]

32. Actually -

In Michigan - (where I'm from, not sure if it's that way here in WA, or anywhere else) - if a woman gets pregnant by another man while married her husband IS listed as the father and determined responsible for the wellbeing of the child EVEN if the mother admits to having an affair and says the child is not her husband's.

I had a friend have to go thru a quickie divorce and flat out lie about being pregnant in the first place in order to prevent her husband from being saddled with the responsibility of a child that was not his and have the true father completely left off the birth certificate with no legal rights/responsibilities.

Crazy - but true.

[Pithlet]

42. It sounds like an archaic law

dating from before we could determine parantage through DNA. It should be stricken from the books.

[Yupster]

95. True it should be

but most states have a time period by which the father must challenge the parentage with a DNA test, otherwise the kid is assumed to be his legally.

So if the mom lies until the deadline is passed, the husband gets screwed.

I guess every husband must have a DNA test done at birth to protect himself.

[DoktorGreg]

43. No, you are 100% wrong

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-12-02-paternity-usat_x.htm

"The legal doctrines raising barriers to DNA testing on paternity questions are formidable. In 30 states, married men face a 500-year-old legal presumption that any child born during a marriage is the husband's. The concept, based in English law, is aimed at preventing children from being branded illegitimate. Nebraska's Supreme Court ruled last week that an ex-husband who is not a child's father cannot sue the mother to recover child support payments."

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

57. If it's 30 out of 50 states, then I'm only 60 % wrong...simple math

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Demobrat]

29. If it's not his a simple blood test will prove it.

And he can walk away. End of story.

[DoktorGreg]

45. Nope

In fact, he cant even get the blood test

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-12-02-paternity-usat_x.htm

[Yupster]

104. That's an amazing story DrGreg

Why would woman's groups be not trying to find an answer to this.

It seems too indefensible to be defended.

[DoktorGreg]

178. Its for the children!!! <feminine sighs>

Which is of course BS. It is a problem because of the Republicans welfare reforms in the 80's and 90's.

Basically, the state doesn't want to pay the welfare for single mothers, so they no longer allow un-wed mothers to leave the father line blank on birth certificates, that is, if they want to collect welfare. Thats when paternity fraud, at least in the case of the un-wed, became a problem.

I don't think marital paternity fraud was even considered until genetic testing was widespread. I think the huge rate (no really its about 30%) was a surprise to a lot of people. In my research it looks like it was discovered on accident in a Huntington's disease research project. It didn't seem real to me at all, but the research keeps coming up some where between 10% and 40%. Basically, women have been keeping a big secret, they are every bit the horn dogs that men are.

The final case of paternity fraud, is a very new area, it is actually birth control fraud. It revolves around the idea of informed consent. Basically, the so called unintended pregnancy rate is much higher than birth control failure rates. Think about that for a second. Someone isn't telling the truth, and combined with the very surprising mis-assigned paternity rate, I think it is clear what is happening. The problem is, you cant isolate the cases of birth control fraud. In that case, men should have the same opportunities to walk away from parenthood that women have.

The reason for all the hysterics when you try to discuss this complex issue are simple. Women hold all the cards. Like segregationists, and slave owners before them, they are not going to give them up without a fight. Why would they? No one ever gives up the leverage they have on other people on purpose. Besides, look at the way women and the media demonize men. Even on this thread more than one women refered to men as merely animals that want to go around sticking their penises in anything that will let them. Look at how generic men are portrayed in our media, beer swilling, non-showering, lazy swine. They dont even think the men should have a say in the upbringing of their own children. Look at the hate tossed my way, just because I was all uppity and stuff about it. Lol.

[Pithlet]

206. Men are incapable of birth control responsibility?

The only way your argument is correct is if men have absolutely no control over birth control methods.

It seems to me that in your world, women are scheming liars and men are incompetent doofuses.

[DoktorGreg]

210. Not even

The only thing you have to accept is that men are not consenting to parenthood just by having sexual relations, just like women.

As for schemeing women, read this, it is about a woman who sued a man for paternity, after she raped him. http://www.nas.com/c4m/rape_case2.html

She said, "saved her a trip to the sperm bank."

[Yupster]

216. Incredible link

If the sexes were reversed, we'd all be yelling for the guy to be in prison.

The way it is, the rape victim has to send a monthly check to the rapist for 18 years.

Do women even care about judgements like this?

I saw one on tv about California.

Apparently there's a law in California that if you don't challenge a child support judgement within a certain amount of time, you are agreeing to it.

Well there was this 70 year old immigrant from Mexico on one of the Dateline type shows. He was paying child support for a child of a woman that he never met. He didn't speak english but his lawyer was on with him.

It seems his name was mixed up with someone of the same name.

The prosecutor said he understood the man's problem, but he was not paying because he was the father. He was paying because he didn't challenge the ruling in time. I just couldn't believe it.

Hopefully that's been corrected by now. I haven't ever heard anything more about it.

Do most women even care about things like this?

[Pithlet]

224. No, Yupster, we don't care.

Women don't give a shit when anything bad happens to men. Only women. You're on to us! :eyes:

[Yupster]

227. Anyone have any suggestions then?

Usually the only ones are proposed are "served him right. He should have kept it in his pants."

What if it isn't even his kid?

"Oh poor man - thinks he's a victim."

It sure doesn't seem like anyone cares.

[Pithlet]

232. It' not "serves him right"

It's "He's not the one who gets pregnant, but he's still the father". At least when it comes to support issues. When it comes to abortion, it's "It's not his body." If you detect a "He should have kept it in his pants" it's probably frustration in the face of "Women are evil deceptors who don't give a shit about men". Look around, there is ALOT of that in this thread.

If it isn't his kid, then he shouldn't have to pay. I don't think anyone has ever argued otherwise.

[Yupster]

250. "he shouldn't have to pay"

Well thanks for that at least.

"I don't think anyone has ever argued otherwise."

That is the position of the NOW, and they argue it in court and lobby it in thel legislatures all the time.

The tide is changing though. Soon the courts will start getting rid of this idiocy where men are forced to pay for other people's kids. Will they give the millions back that's already been paid? I doubt it.

There's big recent news.

A California man named Navarro has just won the first case where he got child support cancelled.

He's part of that group that gets netted by the lame California law that says if you don't protest paternity within 30 days, he's yours, even if a blood test says he isn't.

The appeals court ruled for him. A first -- hopefully a first of thousands.

The state legislature had earlier passed a law that would punish women for knowingly naming a false father on their birth certificates, but the law was vetoed by Gray Davis under severe pressure from the NOW. His stated reason was that if thousands of men proved they were not the dads, it would cost the state $ 40 million per year.

Anyway, join me in celebrating Mr Navarro and his brave lawyers' victory.

http://www.americandaily.com/article/4328

[Pithlet]

251. Link please

I'm not aware of NOWs position backing making men pay for children that aren't theirs. But it's possible I missed it.

[Yupster]

265. From the article linked right above

"(Another factor in Davis' veto was the political pressure of groups like the National Organization of Women, who successfully argued that passing the act would harm children who might lose support payments.)"

They have the same argument of yours. If a man gets out of paying, regardless of who the biological father is, then the child will be the one hurt, so if we got a fish on the line, don't let him go even if it's the wrong fish.

[Pithlet]

275. It still doesn't change the fact

that men should not be able to opt out of parenthood from the beginning. They really are two separate issues. This thread really is about men who know they're the father. I don't think that bringing up these examples that truly are unfair do much for the argument for the case of men who KNOW they're the father.

If NOW is backing holding men responsible for children that aren't theirs from the beginning, then I disagree on their posision. See, here's something you may not know. All feminists, and even all members of NOW, might not always agree with each other on everything. It doesn't nullify every single argument they've ever had, because they were wrong on one issue.

[Yupster]

284. Hell, I agree with NOW on most things too

In this case they're wrong and they're spending lots of money pushing a wrong cause. I think in this case they're making that 'W' in their name stand for too much when I believe their membership would not agree with what they are pushing if they knew it.

Also, when it's said that a law is archaic, I think of a law saying you can't tie your horse to a courthouse door on Sunday or something like that. I don't think of a law that the nation's most prestigious woman's group is fighting tooth and nail to keep.

As far as men opting out of parenthood, I think it's a gray area.

If a 17 year old gets drunk at a high school party ad a pregnancy results, I think he should be able to opt out of the obligations of parenthood absolutely for sure.

If a man is in a lengthy marriage, probably not.

In between -- that's the gray area that's open to discussion.

But certainly, I am completely against the idea that any man who has sex is committing himself automatically to be a dad with all the financial and other commitments associated for the next 18 years of his life.

[Pithlet]

286. Why?

How is that child any less needing or deserving of that support? Is it the child's fault that the man had sex, but didn't want to become a father?

I don't think it is all that unfair or far fetched to hold BOTH people responsible for a child that is born of their actions.

If a 17 year old girl gets knocked up at a high school party, she should have to bear the entire burden, no matter what she decides to do? Men no longer have ANY responsibility for their actions, regardless of their intentions? Being young and stupid and drunk is an excuse to not have any responsibility?

[Pithlet]

223. I don't have to accept that

I think most adults with half a brain, both men and women, know they are taking somewhat of a risk when they have sex, if both adults are in their childbearing years.

The difference is, women are the ones who actually, physically get pregnant. It is their bodies on the line, not men's. So, a woman's right to choose trumps "she should know better". It isn't because women are nicer than men, or matter more, or to get one over on men. It is because their bodies are involved. That is all.

What you're proposing is men being able to have that sex without taking that risk at all, because they could "opt out" if a pregnancy occurs, while women still bear the responsibility if they get pregnant, regardless of what they choose to do about it. How is that exactly making things fair?

[Djinn]

215. according to some "doktors"

condoms don't actually prevent pregnancy (only disease) and that using NO birth control is actually more effective than using condoms.

Suffice to say I wouldn't listen to too much of what they have to say on this issue.

[Yupster]

218. I just have one kid

Fought his way through a condom.

Luckily I was married and he's now seven and we're all doing just fine.

[Djinn]

225. of course it can happen

but a certain poster here makes claims that are completely laughable -ie that condoms DO NOT block sperm but block disease (looking at the comparative size shuts that down pretty quickly) and that not using anything is better contraception than using a condom.

That is clearly crap and to me somewhat ruins that posters credibility on issues of fertility and contraception

[DoktorGreg]

253. Why do you gotta be dishonest like that?

I never said any such thing. I said, condoms were no more effective than withdrawal. Which is true. Withdrawal is also the same as using nothing. The only form of family planning worse than Condoms and withdrawal is trying to get pregnant.

Remember the google link I posted with hundreds of statistical charts on it? With dozens of source studies? Even the strongest proponents of condom usage admit, it is "safer sex" not "safe sex". Even then condoms don't protect against genital warts, or herpes. If you use them for about three years, pregnancy for that matter. You seem to think condoms are effective birth control, which they are not. I would say your argument from ignorance severely diminishes your credibility. Do your own research and you decide.

I can tell you haven't done the research yet, because you are still misinformed.

[Yupster]

261. I only did a study of one

myself, and I can say that condoms are not effective as birth control and my son would agree if he understood what we were talking about which I sure hope at age seven he doesn't.

[Djinn]

309. that's rich

I wont tell you where I work but suffice to say I actually DO know what I'm talking about. If you claim that condoms are as effective a method of contraception as the withdrawl method then it's pretty clear who has credibility issues here.

I don't actually remember seeing ANY links prooving that condoms have failure rates on a par with withdrawl - if you did post them it was after that thread had drifted off my "last posts" page and was therefore days after I responded questioning your assertion, this statement:

"The only form of family planning worse than Condoms and withdrawal is trying to get pregnant."

is utter utter crap.

[DoktorGreg]

318. Well here you go

Actual failure rate for withdrawl is about 20%
Actual failure rate for condoms is about 20%

Source DoktorGreg

Dont beleive me, look it up.
http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/summarychart.html
http://www.sexuality.org/l/sex/contfail.html
http://www.healthcenter.vt.edu/Resources/shc-online-docs/information-sheets/slide-contra-fail-rate-04-2003.pdf
http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/birthcontrol/a/effectivenessbc.htm


Woah, look at that, withdrawl is more effective than a diaphrams or spermicides, and natural family planning (rythem et al). And on par with condoms, and the sponge.

I didn't just make this up, or is there some thing i'm missing here?

[Djinn]

325. OK then

1. http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/summarychart.html

states failure rate for those using condoms BETTER than withdrawl (both perfect and actual use) you'll note the difference between 14 pregnancies with condoms and 85 with nothing btw

2. http://www.sexuality.org/l/sex/contfail.html

doesn't mention the rates for condoms (male or female)

3. http://www.healthcenter.vt.edu/Resources/shc-online-doc...

will not load

4. http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/birthcontrol/a/effecti...

Also states that condoms are more effective than withdrawl

So thanks for proving MY point but I don't know how it helps you.

BTW - you do know that many women don't take hormonal birth control because they CAN'T - it does actually have side effects (unlike condoms) and doctors are VERY reluctant to fit IUD's in women that don't already have kids coz they have a habit of making you infertile.

Either way that info you've stated here and in other threads that condoms result in as many pregnancies as withdrawl is patently untrue

[Yupster]

97. That's how it should be

but that ain't how it is.

The courts rule that the husband has performed as dad, and therefore is dad to the kids and therefore owes child support to the cheating mom.

The worst cases are where the cheating mom runs off to live with the guy she had the affair with, takes the kids, and the court orders the ex-husband to pay child support to the cheating mom and the kids' real dad.

What a shmoe.

The justification is that it's best for the kids.

[U4ikLefty]

103. I agree...it is totally unfair

Too bad there's not more compassion out there for poor ole Joe "Shmoe".

[kiahzero]

118. Nope

Michael H. v Gerald D. (1989). A state can mandate that the husband is the legal father, even if it can be demonstrated that he is not the biological father.

[Pithlet]

37. What does that have to do with the question?

The question is should a husband have a say whether his wife has an abortion or not. Paternity isn't usually determined early in pregnancy. It seems to me that you have a beef with a particular law, if it indeed exists, that makes a man pay for a child that isn't his. That would be a separate issue.

[DoktorGreg]

46. It has to do with the original question because

The Mother can force the man into paternity, but not vice versa.

[Pithlet]

47. How often is paternity established early in the pregnancy

or before the child is born? The question is should a man veto a woman's right to choose. Are stating that a man should be able to force a woman to undergo CVS so he can establish paternity, and then force her to have the abortion if it isn't his so he doesn't have to pay for it?

It seems to me that the two issues, while about paternity, are separate, unless you're advocating taking the choice away from the woman as stated above. If that is indeed your position, then yes, it is somewhat related because you are giving a man power over his wife's body.

[DoktorGreg]

62. I advocate choice for men

I think the man should continue to have no standing over a womans choice, of what she does with her body, legally at least. I hope men and women can get along better than that though, but then we dont make law for the optimal circumstances. Law seems to be made for the idiots.

Also, I think men should be able to recover damages from paternity fraud, even if the man is the standing father. With mis-applied paternity at 40% in some populations, this is the only logical option.

Growing up I witnessed women repeatedly poisoning their children to their fathers, while happily suing them for more child support when ever dad got a raise. That is probably why I feel the way I do.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

64. mis-applied paternity at 40% in some populations?

Let me guess...you got this figure from some Men's Right's site...how about ponying up the empirical data so we can see if it's correct...these same sites tend to claim that up to 50% of all rape claims are fraudulent as well void of actual evidence for such or due to deliberately twisting or misinterpreting Justice Dept statistics.

Golly gosh...growing up I witnessed lots of women who got the shit beat out of them by their husbands...ain't that how anecdotal evidence works?

[Yupster]

98. So if it's only 10 %,

does that change the problem?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

108. Yes it does and the fact that USA today reported it certainly

wouldn't sway me.

In looking at that 10% or 40% or whatever the hell it is one thing is for sure...the male had sex with the woman...more likely than not he wasn't raped as that is physically not easy to do...he HAD a choice...interesting how y'all can make yourselves out to be the victim.

[Yupster]

111. So if the male had sex with her, then

he should pay child support regardless whether he's the father or not?

What if the woman had sex with 16 different men in the period in question? Should she collect child support from all 16 of them? They each had sex with her after all. They made the decision.

[DoktorGreg]

201. Hey dont joke about that

I found one case where a woman was receiving child support payments from both the biological father and a man she wed then later divorced.

[Yupster]

106. His USA Today link

says over 30 %, so it's not too far off.

[Pithlet]

69. You seem to have a pretty dark view of women

And you want to see policy based on what you saw growing up. Women are the ones that are always scamming men, and men are just unwitting victims. Fortunately, reality does not bear you out.

What populations are you talking about? Where are they? How large of a sample are you talking about?

I don't know what you mean by paternity fraud, either, or what kinds of things fall under your definition. Certainly, women lie about paternity, or are unsure. Certainly, men also deny paternity, even when they know full well they are more than likely the father. Neither sex has the monopoly when it comes to lying about paternity. And neither sex always gets away with it.

The only reason women are holding the cards when it comes to pregnancy is women are the ones who get pregnant. Women did not design it that way to hold power over men and victimize them. And a vast majority do not do so. There is no way to make it completely fair, unless we can make it possible for men to get pregnant, too.

[Djinn]

217. I hear this attitude alot

but almost everyone that spouts it can name considerably MORE single mothers who never get a cent out of their kid's father than they can the "scheming" woman out to trap a man into child support.

It's funny given that we're so geared towards woman's rights and that woman have it so easy in this regard that there are so many single mothers and their kids living in poverty...wonder why?

[Yupster]

220. Beacuase as a society, we don't

value kids without means.

We want our tax cuts or our new plasma tv more than we want to increase government aid to kids in need.

[Djinn]

228. also because a large percentage of men

neglect their responsibilities.

[Yupster]

233. See that's where we differ

I don't think men should be legally forced into being responsible parents anymore than women should be.

I believe that each person should have a choice in the matter, and the state should provide for the kid's welfare if he has no other means.

So, if a kid is without means, I blame all of us. I think it's a cop-out to find some bogeyman to blame while the kid suffers.

[Djinn]

235. and I think calling the father

a "bogey man" is a cop out. The fact is plenty of guys don't actually object to being fathers - until the kid is already out and about, THEN they piss off, what should the woman do have a retroactive abortion because the father turned out to be a deadbeat.

[Yupster]

237. That's why I suggest my affidavit idea

What do you think of it, and do you have any ideas that you think might correct some of the problems? Or do you not think any problems exist, and the guy in my example should just pay child support to his cheating ex and her boyfriend?

[Djinn]

242. yes I think problems exist - who said life is perfect

but I actually know from the available evidence there are more women living in poverty after being abandoned by the father of their child than there are evil women getting preggers on purpose and sucking some poor innocent man of all his cash. Without knowing the specifics of cases it's hard to comment on individuals issues and I havn't actually read the example you stated but I wouldn't mind betting there's more to the story - there usually is.

Unfortunately woman get pregnant not men - personally I think that's unfair but it's biology, not some evil male or female plot to oppress the other sex. It's something blokes may have to deal with because it wont change any time soon, and frankly as a childless by choice person I don't want to pay for someone elses sprog when there are two parents alive who are responsible for it's birth.

If women really are the scheming sucubi that some posters here make out then I'd suggest blokes think really carefully before screwing us and perhaps get a vasectomy. In reality the "sperm stealer" scenario is actually pretty rare.

[U4ikLefty]

249. There is only one person responsible for the baby's birth

the mother...it is her choice to give birth. The "father" must pay no matter what, or in your scenario.."get a vasectomy" How nice, your anwer to this problem for men is to give up on a chance of a family (vasectomy) becuase someone might trick us into preganacy.

Nice choice. Wait don't tell me, life isn't fair...right?!?

[Name removed]

252. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Yupster]

257. What's my solution?

I've offered my affidavit solution. What do you think of it?

[Name removed]

258. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Djinn]

313. so what was this quote

"becuase someone might trick us into preganacy."

you were talking about men tricky you into pregnancy maybe?? where is the insult?

ALert away if it makes you feel better though. :eyes:

In answer to Yupster

I actually DO have sympathy for blokes in this position I just don't think it happens as often as some people make out - I'd be reluctant to go with the affadavit idea (I assume we're talking about a man signing early on in the pregnancy that he doesn't want the kid, giving up all parental rights and also any financial responsibility) because there are too many holes.

The sort of women who would "trick" a guy into parenthood (a tiny number of them) would surely just not tell the bloke she was pregnant until the baby was a breathing screaming reality - many women don't actually know they're pregnant until very late in the pregnancy and there's no way a guy could proove that she did in fact know she was pregnant. I could also see scenarios where the guy doesn't want to be involved at all UNTILL the kid is maybe in it's teens and the guy suddenly gets all clucky - should he then have to make back payments?

Like I said - I think it's one of the advantages (sort of) of being female in that it's our body so we make the decisions - lets face it we don't get that option in many other areas.

[DoktorGreg]

320. A full 1/3 of child births are to forced fathers

So I think it happens more than makes you comfortable to admit.

I think you just need to accept that you are against choice in principle and practice.

[Pithlet]

322. Where do you get this stuff?

Honestly, it comforts me, because it makes me realize that this is just a silly fringe movement, and that most sane, rational people realize that a return to illegitimacy is a step backwards socially, and most constituencies aren't going to go for it.

[DoktorGreg]

323. I got this tidbit from the US CENSUS data

But I guess the US Government is is just a silly fringe movement.

And here is the non-existent issue being discussed on salon

http://dir.salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/10/19/mens_choice/index.html?pn=1

Granted since 2000, everybody has had much bigger issues on their mind.

[Pithlet]

329. This gets better and better

The US government! Why, it's shocking, I tell you. All these forced fathers. How does society continue to function?

Seriously, while someone becoming a parent before they're ready is a tragedy, it's hardly forced on anyone. Did you forget how babies are made? Really, sex is the reason behind pregnancy, even if the government tells you otherwise.

I never said the issue is non-existent. I realize that you aren't the only person in the world with this viewpoint. However, my participation in this thread isn't out of a fear that men are going to get off scot free in the child support department any time soon. It's mostly because I suffer from last-word-itis sometimes when it comes to posting on message boards, and it's fun to flex my debating skills every once in awhile.

[Djinn]

336. please provide a link to back up "forced fathers" stat

if it's anything like the links you provided above - it wont show any thing of the sort.

Because I have to wonder why the search function on http://www.census.gov/ shows there is nothing on that site that even mentions "forced fathers"

It would be a completely meaningless stat if it did exist - what do you define as "forced" father any unplanned pregnancy? or are you of the opinion that if a bloke says "don't want it" regardless of the other circimstances that he is a "forced father" and an instant victim.

[Yupster]

255. Please read the Navarro case

I linked below.

Tell me what you think.

[DoktorGreg]

328. I think it means

That this case or one like it is going all the way to SCOTUS and we are gonna win under the equal protection clause of the constitution.

[cidliz2004]

87. I have seen countless men walk away from their families

and not pay child support OR pay here and there and never the full amount.

I have seen women work two jobs because the guy doesn't want to support his children and the guy doesn't even see his children. I have seen men leave one family and go to another and have more children with another woman.

The fact is that women with children suffer most in divorce. Women and children fall to poverty levels in alarming rates when divorced. The system has always been slanted for the man and against the woman. The woman has to hire attorneys to chase down a father who doesn't pay child support, the joke is that she doesn't have the money to live on adequately much less hire an attorney.

The cost of living goes up and when a divorced father gets a raise he should pass some of that to his children in child support. Child Support is based on PERCENTAGE of wages, not a flat rate, so a man should pass his raise on to his children - not all of it - but some of it, it is the law.

Men resent taking care of their children when they divorce, and we should give them some rights over our bodies? Lots of Luck.

Now mind you I don't mean ALL men, I am married to a man that paid the most that law allowed in child support and he saw his kids every weekend, not every other. He was the exception though. Many men are good dads and many women are spiteful vindictive people. More women come out on the short end of divorce when children are involved though then men.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

109. How does a woman biologically FORCE a man into paternity?

What a PANTLOAD!!! A MAN can indeed force a female into pregnancy but a woman CANNOT FORCE a man to ejaculate inside her...:eyes:

[Yupster]

113. I think you're confusing

pregnancy and parenthood.

A pro-lifer believes the two are the same.

Once a woman is pregnant she has made her choice to be a mom.

A pro-choicer believes there is a choice between pregnancy and parenthood.

Between those two events a woman has a right to choose whether there will be a baby or not.

Therefore, a woman can force a man into parenthood by choosing to have the baby.

By the woman's choice, she legally obligates the man.

[SarahB]

139. It's not just about the pro-lifer concept...

If a woman is raped, and a prenancy occurs, she did not make a choice to become pregnant regardless of whether or not she continues with the pregnancy.
A man cannot be forced to mix his genetic material with hers to incur a pregnancy, but she can be forced without consent.

[Yupster]

146. I think when you bring rape into the mix

you're not going to find any disagreement anywhere on the DU boards.

I'd guess 100 % of DU'ers would agree a rapist should have no say in whether his victim has an aborion. The original question was about husbands.

Also, even te most pro-life DU'ers out there would agree that abortion should be allowed in the cases of rape.

I just don't think there's a lot to discus on the issue of rape and abortions. We'd all just agree with each other.

[PassingFair]

155. It was only very recently...

that a husband could even be charged with rape. Sorry, no biological prison for me. I decide what happens within my own body. I have sovereignty over my own body. If my husband rolled into me in mid dream and impregnated me, would that be rape? Questionable.
Should I be forced to bear a child against my will. Unquestionably NO.

[Yupster]

172. I think there's universal agreement with you

on this board on the topic of rape.

In fact I agree with about 95 % on this board who agree that under any circumstances, the husband should have no binding say. Has anyone disagreed with that? I haven't seen it.

[loyalsister]

125. BULL!

A child is born into a woman's custody.
If paternity is known, women have to have the consent of the father to put a baby up for adoption.
A guy can say no and force a woman into parenthood and never spend a second with the kid.

[Yupster]

127. The woman can have an abortion

No man or anyone else can force a woman to have a kid while abortion is still legal.

[loyalsister]

182. You either missed the point

Mine was that a man can indeed force a woman into parenthood. A woman cannot force a man to take the real responsibility. Any idiot can write a check.

And no a man cannot prevent or force a woman to have an abortion because your 13th Amendment says...

Article XIII.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

We don't require people to donate kidneys, blood, or even physical energy. Under this Amendment we have no legal obligation to serve anyone else. Not a husband, or a fetus.

[Yupster]

184. I guess I just don't get it?

How can a man force a woman into parenthood if she can have an abortion?

I mean aside from bizarre scenarios where the woman is held captive or something.

How can the woman be forced into parenthood?

Can't she just avoid parenthood by having an abortion?

[loyalsister]

191. Apparently, you don't

Yes it is a bizarre scenario, but it can and does happen.
Some women oppose abortion. It's a matter of choice. Her moral opposition can force her into parenthood.

If a woman would prefer to give a child up for adoption, a man can oppose the adoption and never ever spend a second with the child.

The child, however, is automatically born into the woman's custody. Unless the man okays the adoption the child is hers.

Depending on state regs, I assume it's possible for her to go to social services to try to have her parental rights terminated.
Then, if she ever has to have a background check for a job it will show up and look very very ugly.

[DoktorGreg]

200. Exactly, thank you for agreeing, women are not forced parents

Some women oppose abortion. It's a matter of choice. Her moral opposition can force her into parenthood.

In your example, the woman forces herself into parenthood. Not the man.

So no, women are not forced into being parents ever, men are.

[loyalsister]

214. Again- you don't get it

Men can say NO to adoption and force her into ACTUAL parenthood.
All the while never having seen the child himself.
The same guy would cry in his beer about paying child support.

There are women who cannot bear the idea of an abortion. These women would prefer to give the child up for adoption. It may be a religious issue for them. They may believe they will go to hell if they abort. Why should that be their only option to avoid parenthood? All a man has to do is avoid the issue.
A man is never ever ever forced to be a parent. Again, any idiot can write a check.

[Yupster]

222. I get it now

It just took me a while.

Okay, so a woman decides to birth her kid, but not to be a parent of it, rather to adopt it away.

Then the biological dad says no to the adoption.

Okay - I get it.

Here's what I would suggest.

The affidavit that I explained in other posts would work the same way here.

Before giving birth, the woman would sign the form saying she will claim no parental rights and accept no responsibility for the kid.

The biological father would sign a similar form.

If the father takes the responsibility he/she's his.

If the father also refuses responsibility, then the kid gets adopted out.

That way, neither person can be forced to be a parent without their agreement.

Would that work?

[loyalsister]

262. Sure it's a beautiful scenario

It looks like the father has forced the child into foster care rather than adoption. lovely.

[Yupster]

269. How do you figure that?

If the father wants the child, the father keeps him.

If the father doesn't want the child, he goes to adoption.

Where does foster care come into it?

[loyalsister]

334. Your afadavit doesn't vacate existing law

With no specific prearranged adoption and consent of both parents, they would most likely have to go through the ugly process of terminating parental rights.
She would have to beg for that, and the child would be placed in foster care until it could be adopted.
She would also have a nasty black mark on her record if she ever had a background check.
All the guy has to do is disappear.

[Yupster]

92. True

it is one of the most unfair laws there is.

A local case close to me a man went to jail because the court ordered him to send a monthly check to his adulterous wife and her boyfriend to take care of the boyfriend's kids.

He said he'd rather go to jail, and who can blame him.

[Vladimir]

27. None n/t

[CrispyQ]

34. Absolutely none.

Abortion is a woman's issue, end of story. These men (and unbelievable some women too!) that want to legislate our bodies really piss me off. They spend so much energy trying to limit women's choices & women's freedoms, but there is no talk at all about going after dead beat dads who slink off without taking any responsibility for the children they have sired. When will that become an issue?

[Taverner]

35. He can influence but...

In the end the decision is 100% hers.

[slinkerwink]

36. no say at all unless he agrees to carry the fetus

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[ScreamingMeemie]

39. MrGrumpy had a vasectomy even though I asked him not to. In time,

I came to realize (after damning him to hell. ;) ) that that was his decision. One would hope that the wife would discuss it with her husband. If they are at odds about this type of decision, they should be questioning the foundation of their marriage anyway, IMO. :hi:

[Deja Q]

40. How much say should a wife have over a husband's vasectomy?

If hubby does, that means he's for the marriage.

If hubby is against it, he's not as convinced about the relationship.

[wettap]

85. Vasectomy

My wife was REQUIRED to be present at the meeting I had with my urologist who was going to do my vas. He said that if I was married, he would NOT under any circumstance perform a vasectomy unless my wife signed off on it. I don't know if this was an institutional policy, but he made it clear that HE would not do it unless my wife gave the OK.

I work with this same urologist, and later asked him (rhetorically) why it would be OK for my teenage daughter to get an abortion without her parents (or her partners) consent, yet I needed my wifes OK to get my seed-sack snipped. He claimed it was an "old rule" that the entire department embraced. He refused to elaborate.

Hmmm...

[TexasBushwhacker]

150. That may be his policy ....

and it's his right to have that policy. You can't make a physician perform a procedure if they don't want to. There are plenty of doctors that don't perform abortions, although OB/GYN's have to learn how as part of their residency. There are OB/GYN's that won't tie a woman's tubes unless she's a certain age or already has a certain number of children. That shouldn't be a problem in a city or town of any size, but if you're a one doctor town, it can be a big problem.

Personally I don't think a man should have to have his wife's "permission" to get a vasectomy any more than a woman should have to have her husband's "permission" to get her tubes tied or have an abortion. I would certainly hope that they would discuss it with each other, but legally, each person is the boss of what happens to their body.

[DoktorGreg]

180. Actually it makes a lot of sense if they are married...

Say the husband gets the vasectomy, but doesnt tell his wife, and she gets pregnant. I would think that could destroy famlies.

Not that I agree with it.

[Serra]

41. none

He shouldn't have any say, it's not his body.

[rene moon]

44. welcome to DU!

:)

[Lithos]

48. Excellent thread

My answers agree with the majority above. Respect should involve a dialogue between the man and woman. However, ultimately and legally it is her decision.

This ownership issue of a man over a woman has got to stop.

L-

[Bunny]

49. I'm not trying to be snotty, but is this one of those

"wedge issue" threads that are meant to distract and divide us, especially since Senator Kerry is having a pretty good week? I'm just saying, folks. Think about it. It seems to happen a lot around here.

[UpsideDownFlag]

51. its not.

i saw a rerun of a Nip/Tuck show where a guy had a baby that he had taken care of for a while taken away from him. it got me to thinking about how the father would feel about this issue.

[Bunny]

53. Okay. Seems like a reasonable question, then. n/t

[UpsideDownFlag]

58. well, i could have given a little more context- i was trying to

rock the boat or anything. i actually feel silly now, starting a thread like this b/c of a show.

[Skittles]

50. none

end of story

[Gman]

52. This is not a black or white issue

but a damn good question for debate. There is no clear yes or no answer to this question.

Some in the range of possibilities go from 1) the single woman that got pregnant after a fling one night after the bars closed, 2) to the poor single white/black/hispanic woman not in a LT relationship, 3) poor white/black/hispanic couple regardless of means, 4) the couple that has financial means, a good relationship and the baby has every chance of being healthy - no extenuating circumstances, 5) any of the above with a high risk of a very unhealthy fetus or danger to the woman's health.

My answers then are 1) No 2 No 3) Maybe 4) Yes 5) Maybe

There have to be many other situations that I have not listed. The more unique the circumstance, the more "gray" is the question.

To the ladies that argue "No under every circumstance", the man can have feelings for the child although I agree they are not the same. It did take two to get into this situation. Much should depend on the stake the man has in the relationship.

[Bunny]

55. You've made this way harder than it needs to be.

It really is the woman's decision. Much as the male involved may want to have some INPUT into the decision, in the end the only person with the tie-breaking vote is the woman. There can be no other way. She cannot be forced to be a vessel for the man, the state, or any other entity.

[Pithlet]

56. Okay

In scenario 4, where you answered yes, what can the husband do about it if his wife is determined to have an abortion? How does he get to assert his choice in the matter? And why does a single woman have the right to choose, but not a married woman?

No one who is arguing "no under every circumstance" is denying that men have feelings for children.

Edited to correct a nonsensical sentence.

[Yupster]

99. Get a divorce is all he can do

It really has to be her decision.

You can't have two people make a yes or no decision. One has to have the final say, and in this case that must be the woman.

I don't see how a husband could stay with his wife in this situation though -- assuming healthy everybody and all.

[Xipe Totec]

54. I Consulted With My Wife

And she said it was OK for me to have an opinion on this mater, as long as it agrees with hers. :eyes:

Seriously, I don't think this should be much of an issue. People who want to have babies look for spouses who whant to have babies as well and vice versa. This would have all been discussed by the couple before marriage.

And as for medical problems and complications, any loving husband would chose the life of his beloved over that of an unborn child. If not, they got some SERIOUS issue and this decision may be just the push they need to accept their differences and part company.

So in away, it IS up to the woman to decide. On the other hand, what kind of a fool would marry a woman who did not share his desires goals and aspirations, especially when it comes to procreation? :think:

(spelling fix)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

59. LOL...in the event the partners are married, I concur and share your

common sense. It was nice of your wife to let you post this :evilgrin:

[Xipe Totec]

60. Common Sense...

Ah, yes. I've gotten a lot more of that since I got married.

Its amazing how much two people's world views can merge in marriage. You can spot the couples that have been married for a while; they can communicate across a crowded room with nothing more than a glance or a raised eye brow.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. How much say does a wife over her husband's prostrate operation?

About, the same as her decision to have an abortion..zip, nada, zero.

[Yupster]

100. Sorry but

that's a pretty dopey comparison.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

143. How so?

Women don't have prostrates, men don't carry fetusi.

[Yupster]

148. Because

a woman doesn't typically have any emotional ties to a cyst in her husband's prostrate while a man may have significant emotional ties to his potential child.

Because a woman does not have financial obligations to her husband's prostrate, but a father has significant financial obligations imposed on his birthed child.

The main points of contention on this board has been the financial obligations and emotional ties the father has with the fetus, and whether those two things should bring with it any power over decision-making. Since your example includes neither of the contended issues, I came to my conclusion that it wasn't a very helpful comparison.

Didn't mean to offend and sorry if you disagree.

To give an example of how I'm seeing it, I might want to go on vacation to a place with beach and my wife a place with mountains. You might interject that the surface of the sun is a place too.

Yes it certainly is, but it doesn't contain either of the issues we're discussing, so the addition just isn't very helpful in solving our vacation problem.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

203. Vacation problem.

Using your analogy. You and the wife could decide on seperate vacations. You could compromise and go to Missouri. One of you could swallow their disappointment and go where the other wants.

However, wherever you go, only one of you may be carrying a foetus. Only one of you may suffer from prostate problems.

Perhaps my metaphor was not apt. How about a vasectomy? Let's say I don't want kids, my wife does, and I choose to have a vasectomy. How much say does she have in that decision? She may be emotionally attached to the idea of having kids, do she have the right to override my choice? I think not.

As for financial obligations. I would assume that the male half of the equation also had access to birth control. So, if the woman decides to give birth, he is responsible for his half of the upbringing.

My first wife had an abortion (illegal at the time) before we were married over my objections. Her reasons: 1. She didn't want kids. 2. She, quite rightly, felt that neither of us were anywhere near mature enough to raise kids.

[Yupster]

204. Your vacation compromises would be very apt

as they would attempt to take into account the contentious issues between the two sides. Separate vacations, a compromise place would both be positions to consider.

Do you have any compromise solutions to the childbirth problem? Any that would take into account the woman's control over her own body so she is not forced to be a mother without her consent and the man's ability to control whether he becomes a father without his consent?

We need a better answer than if the man doesn't want to be a father he should never have sex again. Unless you feel the same way about a woman, that is just an anti-male hypocritical response.

Just from the considerable yet feeble thought I've put into the issue, here's the best I've come up with.

1. The decision on whether to abort or birth must be entirely the mother's decision. It's her body. That will mean that a man may be emotionally hurt by another's decision, but I just can't see a way around that. No woman should be forced to be a mother.

2. There should be created a man's legal right to choose. Once a woman finds she's pregnant, she should have to inform the assumed father. The man will have a brief legal time to sign an affadavit either agreeing to be responsible for the child or signing his rights and responsibilities to the child away. At that point, the woman can exercise her right to choosde with the knowledge of whether there will be a father there to help her or not.

This way, it's entirely the woman's decision on whether she will be a mother or not, and it's entirely the man's decision on whether he will be a father or not.

I am thinking about whether this should be available to all men, or just unmarried men. The question is does the marriage certificate bring with it an assumption that the man is willing to be a father. I haven't decided in my own mind yet.

3. If nothing is done about numbers one and two, the law needs to at least be changed to end the completely ridiculous decisions that force men to pay child support for kids who are not their own. That's just insane, and it's hard to respect women's groups who are fighting to keep these horribly onerous penalties on completely innocent men.

[QC]

231. But you have to admit that the typo is hysterically funny! n/t

[Gregorian]

66. None n/t

[hyphenate]

68. It's a complicated issue

extending far beyond the woman's right to choose. I firmly, firmly believe it's the woman's ultimate decision over her own body choices, but if she is in a happy, enduring marital relationship, I think she should consult her husband to see what his opinion is. It's not going to make any difference if he says no and she still wants to do it, but more often than not, a couple will often decide to go ahead with the pregnancy.

Single women, abused women, or any woman who feels that the "father" is not a great influence in her life don't need to worry about such choices. In those cases, the "father" is and should be excluded from ANY choice making or any decisions at all.

[TowelBoy]

71. I'm so going to be flamed... he should have an... equal... share...

*cringes*

[Bunny]

72. Well, instead of cringing, why don't you explain your position? n/t

[TowelBoy]

73. Mostly because I am against abortion...

and so I think that if a man wants to save the child he should be allowed to... but I understand the woman has to carry the child, and I'm really confused about this topic, so maybe I just just erase my post...

[Bunny]

74. Well you can erase your post if you want to.

But you should understand that no one here is FOR abortion. Many of us staunchly believe in a woman's right to autonomy over her own body. The issue really boils down to one of control. Does a woman have control of her body, or doesn't she? Can her husband, or the state, force her to risk serious health issues and, yes, even death, in order to sustain the fetus? That is the issue.

There's no problem in being ambivalent about abortion. Please keep reading, and adding your comments. It's a difficult issue that a lot of decent people struggle with.

[Tight_rope]

78. I totally agree with you...It's all about "CONTROL"....

In the history of MAN KIND, I have never seen a case where any form of government has told a man what he can and can not do with his body. At least not with respect to reproduction issues.

Should the govenment start telling unfit men to have vestomies.

[DoktorGreg]

179. History is about war and conscription

So your premise is simply wrong.

[TowelBoy]

81. That's a good point, thank you

I'm really unsure about this, and that helped a lot

[Yupster]

101. How can he have an equal say though

He says yes, she says no, it's a tie -- then what?

You can't birth half a baby so someone's vote must count more.

It's got to be the woman's vote in the end.

[TowelBoy]

128. Touche, yes

I'm still in the learning process, but I'm getting there. Thank you

[Tight_rope]

76. None....She has no control over him "SHARPING HIS PENCIL" with others!

Husband or not...no man should have control over a woman's body. Just like a woman has no control over how many women her husband or other man have in having sex with other people.

[wickerwoman]

77. Let's reframe the question.

The scenario that is always posited is that the woman is pregnant and doesn't want the baby but the husband does. Does he have a right to prevent the woman from having an abortion?

Let's look at it from another angle.

Say a couple is married and the woman is pregnant and wants to keep the baby but the husband doesn't. Does he have a right to force the woman to have an abortion?

Sounds like a pretty grotesque abuse of state power to allow a husband to force his wife to have an abortion doesn't it? So why isn't the opposite a similarly grotesque abuse?

Look fellows, just face the fact that even if you have a "say" you will *never* have the final say in what a woman does with her body. And that's what the anti-choice activists are after. Not a "say" but a "final say".

I have more to say, but I have to run to work. I'll check in later and see what you think.

[LoZoccolo]

83. See, you use reason and argumentation to make a point though.

And no words in all capitals or curse words. We don't like that around here.

[put out]

84. Beautifully said.

If some other person can make you to carry a pregnancy to term, why, then, can they not make you to terminate a pregnancy?

If a husband wants a vasectomy and his wife does not want him to have it, can she stop it? If he does not want to undergo sterilization and she desires that he be sterilized, can she make him do this?

If an under aged woman wishes to terminate her pregnancy, should a guardian prohibit this? Will the guardian then provide financial support to the woman and the child until the child is 18? Or perhaps the guardian could take the born child from the woman, since she let it be known that she had wanted to terminate the pregnancy but was prohibited by the guardian. If the guardian does not wish to assume responsibility, could the guardian make the woman terminate pregnancy?

It must be the woman's choice. Finally, it must.

[Yupster]

102. I think the long-term solution

to a lot of these situations is to leave the decision whether to birth the baby or not entirely up to the woman.

There should be added protections for the man to allow him to not be forced into being a father without his permission either.

I think that's the fairest way, and eventually the law will move in that direction.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

110. Interesting since nobody told him to have unprotected sex

Why must you constantly post under the pretense that the man had no choice? The only difference is the sperm came before the woman's point of choice.

[Yupster]

115. Of course the woman chose to have unprotected sex too

Still, the law should not obligate her to be a mother, nor should it obligate the man to be a father.

They should each have a choice in whether they are parents or not.

[Pithlet]

208. I don't know if you answered it

In the other thread or not, but I remember asking: What is the difference between a child born of two parents who wanted him/her, and a child who's parents did not come to a mutual conclusion? How is one more or less deserving of the financial support of both parents. Forget about the adults in the situation. Forget about charities and the state. I'm talking fundamentals, here. Is there a difference?

[Yupster]

212. Both children are equally deserving of support

From where the support should come is the question.

If the mother wanted the baby, she certainly should provide support.

If the father wanted the baby, he certainly should provide support.

If there is not enough support, the taxpayers should step in to do everything they can to help that baby, whether he gets support from one parent, two parents or no parents.

The baby should be provided for. That is not at issue. The question is by whom?

In my opinion, not by a man who did not want to be a father unless he chooses to help.

Of course that man will help regardless as his tax dollars wil help thousands of other babies, but at least not such a large burden for one kid will be put onto him.

[Pithlet]

226. Why?

Why should men not face the consequences? Women have to, regardless. Why do men get to have sex without worrying about it because all they have to do when an unwanted pregnancy occurs is say "I don't want anything to do with it!" Why should the burden be shifted completely to women? It is bad enough that many men do that anyway (that gets missed in the women and their all powerful men dominating uterus argument) leaving women to deal with it on their own. Everyone is whining about how things aren't fair for men. Right now, the balance is entirely in their favor biologically, and even though legally they may be held responsible now, many aren't stepping up to that plate anyway, so women get held holding the bag.

You acknowledge that both are equally deserving of support? Then why can't they both equally demand it? Why does one have to rely on the shaky goodwill of society that already shows it doesn't care about its kids enough? You acknowledge that they're both equally deserving, but you don't want to back both of them up when it comes down to demanding that support. You are in effect saying that while they're both deserving, for children in the second scenario, it's too bad so sad, go on the dole, because your daddy signed a paper and hit the road.

[Yupster]

236. "Why the burden on the woman?"

Why should the woman have 100 % of the responsibility?

Because she demands 100 % of the decision making power.

With the power to decide comes the responsibility to live with that decision.

You can't hold a man or woman for that matter responsible for the consequences of any decision that someone else made. That just seems crazy.

It's a woman's right to choose. The choice is entirely hers. I think it has to be that way.

But then after she makes her choice, it's got to be her responsibility too.

PS - I'm also wondering about the idea of men "getting to have sex without worrying ..." Wasn't that kind of the whole idea of the sexual revolution of the sixties, that people could have sex without feeling guilty. That just because you have sex doesn't mean you should be punished, or have to be forced into being a parent.

[Pithlet]

245. No no no no no no no no no

Because when a woman decides she does not want to have the baby, then no child happens. There is no child who only has to rely on the support of one parent.

THAT is the difference. Pay attention, because this is the crux of the argument. Children should not have to suffer because women have the right to an abortion if they want one.

Women and children shouldn't have to carry 100% of the burden to pay for the right to choice, while the man can just casually decide he wants nothing to do with it, whether or not the child is born. Wow, sex with no consequences! What a coup! That should make things nice and equal!

There is no way that the situation can be made completely fair. Of the two ways to correct the inequity that choice brings to the table, I think the adults should have to shoulder that inequity, NOT children. I'll take a man having to pay support over a child suffering from want of it any day. Your solution to shoulder it on society is no good, because it is not fair to put a child in a position of having to need it just because an ADULT didn't want to step up.

[Yupster]

259. Children should not have to suffer

On that we are in total agreement.

The issue between us is that I believe that the state should provide for every child who has not means. I believe any child without means is an obligation of each of us regardless of how the child got to that situation.

You believe a father should provide even if he doesn't want to be a father.

That's our difference.

We are agreed that the child should be well taken care of.

[Pithlet]

263. I don't believe that a father "should"

I believe that a father "has no other choice". There is a difference. I don't like that men are put in that position. But as unfair as that is, it is MORE unfair for a child to be put in the position of requiring the state to help them because they are poor, because their father backed out. It is irrelevant to that child if his father wanted to be a father. He's still his/her child.

If there was a way to make sure that children were never conceived unless both parents wanted them, then I'd be all for it.

The state should absolutely have to provide for every child who has no means. That does not give men the right to leave children in the position of having to rely on the state, to correct an inequity that refraining from imposing on a woman's right to her own body creates.

You seem to think that plunging a greater number of children into poverty by correcting an imbalance of power is hunky dory because the state can always step in. That, to me, is ludicrous.

[Yupster]

271. I don't propose putting any kid in poverty

I propose we all through our tax dollars care for each kid without means.

That will be much better for most kids than chasing around a dad for some monthly pittance which will leave the child in poverty with or without the dad's support.

I want to do much better for these children.

[Pithlet]

279. Yes, you do.

If you're advocating letting a parent off the hook just because "they didn't wanna" then you are advocating putting that child in poverty. It doesn't make them any less poor because the state steps in. They're just kept from starving and freezing to death, and pretty soon that may not even be the case anymore.

[Yupster]

294. I've honestly enjoyed the discussion, but

this post doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

"It doesn't make them any less poor because the state steps in."

Huh?

If the state steps in and gives them $ 1,500 per month that wouldn't make them less poor?

Giving someone $ 1,500 per month sure wouldn't make them more poor.

I guess I just missed your point or something.

[Pithlet]

302. Yep, you are

Money doesn't fall out of the sky. People on welfare are STILL poor. Just ask anyone on welfare. Programs have been cut so much that there is no such thing as a free ride anymore. Your assertion that the state would step in is naive at best. See my post about advocating rainbows.

[Yupster]

310. To paraphrase Lennon

you may say I'm a dreamer -- I hope I'm not the only one.

All of today's great pillar's of our social safety net, social security, medicare, unemployment insurance were once naive dreams.

Let's keep thinking and keep pushing.

Progress doesn't just happen. It must be pushed and pulled.

[Pithlet]

312. Those things may yet happen

I've never said otherwise, and I'm forever arguing for that change. I just think it makes no sense to yank out support from under children's feet before that change that we're striving for happens in the name of making things more fair for the adults.

In other words, you're focusing on the going about the wrong way to correct the issue at this time. We are working to effect change, but we are also in the now. We can't pretend we're in the future, or ignore the problems we face now.
Your priority seems to be more towards men and paying child support for children they don't want, over the children themselves, who have to live in the now, and can't afford to wait for the rest of us to get with the program, come second.

[Yupster]

260. Also it is much more fair for the child to get his means

from the state rather than hoping to get it from the daddy lottery.

Did mom have sex with a rich guy or a poor guy? A guy who can be forced to pony up, or a guy who will run away?

I don't think that should matter. All children should be well taken care of regardless of who mom is screwing.

[Pithlet]

266. But those examples are things no one can control

We can determine whether a man is held up to an obligation to make sure his offspring isn't poor to the best of his ability.

Yes, it is much more fair for a child to be supported by both of his capable parents than only one, if that other parent is out there and capable of supporting him, but just chooses not to.

"Daddy lottery"? The fact that you would use that terminology is telling, coming from someone who's bemoaning that no one in this thread, or the world, cares about men.

[Yupster]

273. Daddy lottery is apt

It shouldn't matter to a kid if his unwed mom had an affair with an NBA player or a drunken 17 year old in the backroom of Burger King.

The kid should be well taken care of regardless.

[Pithlet]

280. If you think

that all poor children in this country are well taken care of, then you're living in a fantasy land. There are homes in the city I live in where there is no running water and the windows are boarded up. And children live there. And they're being "taken care of" by the state.

You don't seem to think that it should matter what the father does for a living, but it should matter whether or not someone wants to be held responsible for a child that is theirs.

The support of a parent can often mean the difference between having health insurance. Between having a college education. Between going to a good school. If it those other things you mention shouldn't matter, then why should the choices that adults made that are out of their control, matter?

[Yupster]

296. If I think that all poor children are

well taken care of?

Where in the world did you get that from?

I was a public school teacher for nine years.

I know our current system isn't providing enough for too many. That's why I want a radical change. I want to make things better.

I am not satisfied with the status quo.

[Pithlet]

300. Then I don't understand

Why you are advocating a system that would legally leave children with the financial support of only one parent when there are two capable of providing it. It makes no sense to me.

[Yupster]

307. Because if the state stepped in and

provided three times the support that the absent dad could ever hope to provide, then the kid will be better cared for, and the man would have a right to choose whether he wants to be a parent or not.

It is a much better system.

We can't afford it?

Bull.

We just have our priorities screwed up.

And I don't just mean the rich either. Oh they want their 25 % tax rate instead of 45 % so they can afford their third and fourth mansions for sure, but the rest of us want our 10 % tax rate instead of 15 % too. Otherwise we couldn't afford our plasma tv's.

We could easily afford to take care of every kid we have if we just changed our priorities, and the place for that to start is places like DU where we have people who care and are willing to make their voices heard.

[Pithlet]

308. I never said we can't afford it

But we aren't there now. Why remove the support before we're at that point?

Where I think you're wrong is asserting that men should opt out of supporting their own children when childhood poverty is such a huge problem, and one that shows no signs of going away. To me, that is screwed up priorities. There is no sign right now that this country is suddenly going to turn progressive overnight.

[Yupster]

314. How's about giving me a little bit of a break?

You think I want to pull all the supports out yesterday without having another system in place?

Can't I get an assumption that I am a reasonable person?

Oh well, my wife's gone to bed and I need to also.

Best wishes.

[Pithlet]

316. You're the one arguing

for giving men the choice to opt out of support. I'll give you a break when you admit that right now that wouldn't be the best thing for children. ;)

[kiahzero]

119. Why do you persist in using that straw man?

You should know better, and yet you continue. They are plenty of ways that a man can perform what would reasonably be called 'due diligence,' and yet a pregnancy results.

Condoms fail. Birth control pills fail. I would say 'rhythm' fails, but that's not really a good method; same with pulling out.

Basically, my point is that you can do everything you want to prevent a pregnancy (hell, I'm pretty sure I've heard stories about vasectomies not stopping the little swimming bastards), and a pregnancy might still result.

I agree that if a pregnancy results from mutual or male irresponsibility, the aforementioned male is going to have to face the consequences of his actions. However, if he and the woman in question had agreed that they were not going to have children, and then the woman proceeds to break her word, I fail to see how the male is responsible for that.

[Pithlet]

207. Because it is his child either way

That child is entitled to his support. No child, no support. It's as simple as that. It is not the child's fault that his/her parents couldn't come to an agreement. It is not the child's fault that he/ she was born into that situation.

Once a child is born, neither parent should be let off the hook, unless both have relinquished their parental rights in favor of adoption.

There is no difference between a child born of a united marriage where both wanted him/her, and a child born from two people who couldn't come to an agreement on the situation. Both are entitled to the support of both their parents.

A woman cannot walk away from a child without the burden of support. More and more women are non-custodial and paying child support. A man should not be able to either, just because women are the ones who get pregnant.

[Yupster]

213. That child is the responsibility of all of us

It should be up to the taxpayers to provide him/her what it needs. I call for significantly higher payments to dependent children.

That makes a lot more sense to me than just choosing a guy and saying you need to pay.

Especially if the kid isn't even his.

Or the dad is an 18 year old who had a one-night stand, or got drunk at a party.

Just because a person has sex does not mean they are consenting to be a parent, and are allowing someone to reach into their pocket for 18 years.

Ther kid should be taken care of. No one disagrees with that.

[Pithlet]

229. No, it should not

because we already don't have enough to take care of them as it is. Children make up the majority of poor people as it is. If we aren't going to hold their parents responsible for them because "Wah, they don't want it!" then we're going to suffer a huge problem.

If the kid isn't his? Start another thread, because we're discussing when it is his. There are DNA tests to prove paternity. If there's some archaic law that makes it his problem anyway, than change it. Don't punish children, instead.

[Yupster]

240. We need to work to increase support for kids in need

Also, thanks for agreeing with changing the unfair paternity laws.

They may be archaic, but they are being forced on people every day.

I think you are the first person on the board who agreed they should be changed. The reason they aren't being changed is because women's groups are fighting to keep them.

[Pithlet]

246. Bull

I don't know of a single woman who is fighting to make men pay for children that aren't theirs. I know that I'm not the only one who thinks this, and I'm pretty sure I saw someone else in this thread state it, also. At any rate, I didn't see ONE person state that making men pay for children that aren't theirs. You're looking for bogymen that don't exist. Yet more "Women are selfish and don't care about men" bullshit. If those laws are still on the books, it is probably due to the law being slower than technology, a problem that is nothing new.

[Yupster]

278. Here's the NOW's

Legislative scorecard

http://www.canow.org/politics/2002reportcard.pdf

scroll down a little to bill AB 2240

it's a bill which would allow men to challenge paternity for up to three years after birth.

NOW's recommendation -- OPPOSE

[Pithlet]

283. Hmmm

Are we at the NOW message board? Did I accidental go to the wrong board, and find you here? I thought I was in a DU thread.

How does it change the fact that a parent should not be able to opt out on the responsibility to their child? NOW could be the most vile, man murdering organization, and it wouldn't change anything. You are unable to come up with a compelling argument to leave children in the lurch, so you're throwing out things that really have nothing to do with it. I think it is awful that some men are unfairly held responsible. And if NOW supports that, they are absolutely wrong. But that doesn't mean we just throw out parental responsibility for men altogether. If a man becomes a father, then he needs to be held responsible. He doesn't get a free pass because women were given the choice to abort. Because it makes no difference after the child is born.

[Yupster]

299. You said you didn't know of a single

woman who supported what I described.

I showed you not just a single woman, but a very large woman's organization. Isn't that what you wanted?

Geeze.

I also will never come up with any argument for leaving children in the lurch, compelling or uncompelling (anti-compelling?), because I would be completely against that.

I want children to be better supported, not less supported.

[Pithlet]

305. I don't

I don't know every single woman in the NOW organization. I'm not aware of every single case, and the opinions of every single woman in the NOW organization on them.

You are arguing for less support by letting men off the hook. That is less. Two parent's support - one parent's = less.

[sendero]

209. And you act like..

... no woman has ever lied to a man - saying she was on the pill or whatever, when she was not. When she becomes pregant and decides to have the baby, the man has an 18 year financial obligation and he has no recourse whatsoever.

I'm sure your answer is "never leave your sperm anywhere", and that is good advice, but sometimes things are not so simple.

I totally believe that a women has the final word on whether or not to carry and deliver a baby, but there is a lot of unfairness on both sides of the issue, some which should be addressed and some that are just insoluble.

[Alenne]

239. Stop putting the responsibility on the woman

The man should use birth control to protect himself. It is his responsibility to make sure he does not get the woman pregnant. If he is going to leave it all up to his partner than he has to deal with her decision. Even if she lies if he protects himself it won't matter.

And let's not forget the woman also has an 18 year financial responsibility and more since the child usually lives with her.

[lgardengate]

82. Law says husband has no say,but if they are married.......

I say they should talk it over and his wishes should be considered...unless she wants to set herself up for a ruined marriage. JMO

[kerry-is-my-prez]

93. None - just because I'm married to him he doesn't own my body.

or cells that are in my body.

[LanternWaste]

94. Since I believe the wedding vows are inviolate and an absolute...

Since I believe the wedding vows are inviolate and an absolute-- man and wife sharing in deed, word and action, I believe that the husband's opinion should hold equal weight in the final decision as with all other decision's in the household.

As for the legal perspective, I honestly don't know. I've heard very persuasive arguments from both sides and consider myself absolutley undecided (how's that for a waffle....).

[Yupster]

107. And what if they each give their honest opinions,

and the vote is a 1-1 tie.

What then?

[LanternWaste]

131. They continue to discuss it...

Then the married couple continues to discuss it until a position is worked out that is perceived as fair to both individuals. I doubt that any married couple would simply state an off the cuff opinion on the matter and then consider it case closed, especially regarding something as traumatic as an invasive medical procedure.

It's really not that difficult if both the man and the wife put the other's wants and needs above their own-- but then I'm the first to admit that I'm a bit of a traditionalist... believing that sanctified marriage is a complete and total partnership, in both the easy and the difficult aspects :P

I realize that a man cannot physically force or compel a woman into doing something that she refuses, however the fundamental crux of the question is how much *say* should he have, which I interpret as meaning how much of his submitted opinion is valued and examined by the wife.

[Yupster]

149. If they come to a agreed decision

between the two of them, that's great.

You don't need laws for those situations.

You need laws for the situation where the two just can't come to agreement. If one is adament yes and the other no, you can't just keep telling them to talk some more. The baby will be born before they decide.

There has to be a law one way or the other for those cases.

[LanternWaste]

167. Maybe I missed something...

Maybe I missed something, but the original question dealt with how much "say" should the man have, not what laws are or are not in place. And that is what I was responding to.

If they don't come to an agreement, I have a difficult time believing that a man could "force" his will on the wife (in regards to lawful actions)-- she could easily slip out the door one morning, with him unaware and get an abortion regardless of what he thinks. No one (at least not me) is arguing that that cannot happen.

[iverglas]

190. here's a tip

This is the second post in which you've referred to "man and wife".

You might not want to make your bias on the question of who comes first in this deal quite so obvious.

Man, woman.
Husband, wife.

the fundamental crux of the question is how much *say* should he have, which I interpret as meaning how much of his submitted opinion is valued and examined by the wife

And a man who matters doesn't have an "opinion" that involves his wife submitting to his wishes, against her own, in a matter that is so fundamental to her own life, health and future.

Decent people recognize that their "submitted opinion" -- i.e. what they want -- about matters so fundamental to another person's life, health and future just aren't worth a pinch of poop if the other person doesn't want the same thing. Nobody's saying they shouldn't say what they want, but to use any means to actually get what they want when it is contrary to what that other person wants, in such a matter -- including the coercive force that is exerted by mere argument and emotional appeals when they are used between two people in an intimate and interdependent relationship -- is indecent.

[LanternWaste]

202. Nice points

It's not a question of submission to the husband (or "man"... whichever is lessed biased :P ) by the wife or submission of the husband to the wife ("woman"?). It's a question of both submitting to each other and in doing so, fulfilling their ultimate vows to each other. Yes, I know... that sounds naieve. But as I've said, I'm a traditional romanticist :7

I do believe that a husband's opinions are valued by the wife in a sanctified marriage and vice-versa despite the depth of concept and/or import of the decision being made... in fact, I would think that that the more serious the matter (life, health, future), the more the partner's opnion would be regarded and valued.

But again, look at this through my perspective in which I consider marriage being not merely a physical extension of passion, but also the act of conjoining two people in spirit as well as in flesh. That in the eyes of the couple, they are one much more than they are two. Maybe that will help you realize that I really don't consider one's will more important than the others.

I honestly don't think either ones comes "first" regardless of how you interpret my language. I think the marriage comes first. I completely understand why one might look for "clues" of bias in a discussion like this. But to absolutely honest, I don't consider myself any more nor any less important (or, in other words... "who comes first") than my wife.


"Nobody's saying they shouldn't say what they want..."
Well, that's the point I'm making. If the original question is "How much say should the husband have...?", we would both appear to be in aggrement on it. :)

[Tight_rope]

153. "vows are inviolate and an absolute"...this is total rubbish!

Statistics have proven that "vows are 'NOT' inviolate and an absolute". My ex-husband can contest to that. But we won't got there.

I'm sorry, but with 50% (the number is probably higher by now) of all marriages ending in divorce, I have a had time in allowing any "MAN" to make decisions over "MY" body. I don't say this because I have any children from a broken marriage. I say it because although most marriages start off with the great notion of love and togetherness (You know the love everlasting theory) many things happen during the marriage. And sometimes people can't and don't overcome whatever hill, battles, tragedies that put a wedge between them. Hence, they divorce. If they had children it's always the child/children that suffer the most lose and hurt.

We have many cases where the other parent forgets that he/she has a responsibility to the child/children. In "MOST" cases it's the mother who gets custody. Most men get to move along with their lives. They can go out there and start reproducing again and not even look back. But not the woman, she still has the responsibility of supporting the child/children. Yes, I know many will argue that the courts make those irresponsible men pay child support. Well sure, but how many still don't pay, are late with payments or just refuse to pay and end up in jail.

We won't even go into the abuse cases that leave soon many women helpless with children that "SHE" need to take care of.

So to conclude, with the history of failed marriages, I believe it's impossible to use the argument of "vows are inviolate and an absolute" as a logical reason why a husband should have say so over his wifes body.

[LanternWaste]

166. Maybe it is total rubbish... for some people.

I believe that part and parcel of the definition of "Vow" (at least in the context of marriage) is inviolate and absolute. I have no trouble believing that many, many people break vows (whether wedding or other), but then I have no trouble believing that many, many people don't take vows seriously... a lot of people I know simply look at marriage as one additional exercise of dating rather than as the finality I believe it really is.

Maybe I see marriage different than most people. I see it as two people conjoined as one-- as a lock and a key become one mechanism, the man and the wife become one organism. Once the vows are in place, the key is useless on it's own as is the lock, but again, I realize that most people don't take the vows seriously from the start and thus don't see it as an absolute. Yet I sincerely believe that the vows *are* inviolate and absolute regardless of whether the people making them aren't.

And again, this one organism deals with joy and pain, despair and hope together, as one. This organism makes decisions as one and plans for the future as one. It's not one making a decision over another as you stated, it's the two making a decision together for the good of the whole. Taking this a step further, sometimes divorces do happen for valid and good reasons. I see this as a serious step, akin to having a limb cut off-- something to do only in the most dire of circumstances.

It's true I have traditional romanticism as part of who I am. I feel lucky and blessed to be this way. Maybe I didn't make it clear.... my opinion is in regards to my marriage only. How could it be otherwise? And, if both my wife and I are of the same opinion, it hurts no one nor steps on anyone's toes. :-)

Maybe it is total rubbish... for some people.

[Tight_rope]

183. A valid point you have made...One that I considered when writing my post!

It's truly a blessing that you and wife have found what many search for all their lives, yet they never find.

Yes...what you have is rare. And I'm sure you realize this and I'm sure you wife also. In your case, once again a rare case, she would consult you.

But keep in mind that such is not the case for all. I would rather protect the woman who can't protect themselves. Who are in situations where someone is dominating over her.

My statement was not to belittle what people like you have. It's to protect what many unlike you don't have.

[WillyT]

105. None !!! Or... Whatever 'Say' She Chooses To Give Him !!!

But basically... none!

[mitchtv]

116. 49%

says it all, I believe

[jus_the_facts]

120. if she didn't want the child....then she shouldn't even TELL him....

....she's pregnant....then it's a NON ISSUE all the way around...duh! :eyes:

[robcon]

130. The "ownership" that is suggested by your post, jus-the-facts...

is obnoxious in the extreme.

[jus_the_facts]

132. Oooookay......

....wtf'ever you say....ownership is 9/10ths of the law anyway! :eyes:

[skygazer]

133. None

Of course they should talk about it - one would hope the relationship had enough communication for that but ultimately it's her decision. Until that fetus is a viable baby, it is part of her body. Period.

As for the child support argument, contrary to what many men believe, women are not out there by the thousands trying to get secretly impregnated and embezzle child support money out of unwary men. Oh, sure, I imagine it happens here and there but it's no epidemic. Besides, why is birth control only the woman's responsibility? If you don't want to be a father, use a condom. Your own condom - don't expect the woman to provide it. If your worried that she's poking holes in your condoms, DON'T HAVE SEX WITH HER!!!

[Nikia]

135. None legally

But in many cases, this disagreement will end the marriage or relationship (if they are unmarried).

[murray hill farm]

136. None!!!

When push comes to shove, the life responsibility for the child is always the womans...nurture, shelter, education...everything..and it does not change a thing that the father is legally responsible. What percent of men actually pay child support? The decision is and should be the womans to make....and only the womans to make.

[IndianaGreen]

138. None, zilch, nada!

End of discussion!

BTW, for those of you interested in this topic from an historical perspective: Soviet women had more reproductive rights in 1920 (thanks to Lenin) than American women have today!

Lenin removed all of the abortion restrictions that existed under the Tsar. Women could have an abortion at any time, and it was provided free of charge by Lenin's universal health care system.

[0007]

141. Nada - His freedom ends where her nose begins.

[Tight_rope]

154. LMBAO...thanks for the laugh of the day!

[Mandate My Ass]

144. I've been thinking about this lately too. Here's my conclusion

[Yupster]

151. By your dead horse picture, do you

mean that the topic shouldn't be discussed and the status quo should be preserved?

I'd like to instead see if I can get general agreement from most of the board.

Would most everyone agree that the status quo should be preserved that the woman should have 100 % of the decision making ability to terminate a pregnancy or not, and also

that the courts should put more balance into some of the most egregious impositions on men such as making them pay child support for kids who are without a doubt not their's?

I would think almost all of us could agree to that.

[Mandate My Ass]

161. Any woman who demands child support

should be taken immediately in front of a firing squad and shot as full of holes as swiss cheese without benefit of a trial.

And if it turns out that she has had an adulterous affair, (you and Doktor Greg should get a room) I think they should reanimate her corpse and execute her all over again except this time using cattle prods.

Because you just cannot punish a woman enough if she has had intercourse.

M'kay?

[Yupster]

174. I don't agree with you

I don't believe the world is anywhere near that black and white.

[Mandate My Ass]

176. Could've fooled me

:eyes:

[Djinn]

221. and lock up all those women

pricking holes in condoms and diaphragms, pretending to be on the pill and sneaking into men's rooms at night to steal their sperm.

After all, the majority of women dream about the day they get up the duff to some loser they had a fling with who wont support them or their child ... It's all we talk about when a bunch of chicks get together (once we've finished having naked pillow fights of course) I can't wait myself :evilgrin:

[Yupster]

230. I don't think anyone is saying anything

about the "majority of women."

So a woman tells her husband that she's divorcing him and moving in with Fred.

And oh by the way, our two kids aren't ours. I've been having an affair with Fred for years and the kids are Fred's. They're coming with us.

Oh and by the way, the court is ordering you to pay $ 1,200 a month child support to us. Please send the check each month to Fred as he handles the money. Thanks darling.

Anything that we should do to change this situation legally, or do you think another nice sarcastic comment would do?

You do them so well.

[Djinn]

317. the sort of legislative changes you want however

would effect the majority. Sorry if you think I'm too sarcastic (a personality trait that isn't going anywhere soon I'm afraid) but it's about the only way to deal with these threads without despairing - there's a hell of a lot of undisguised hatred (or at the very least serious distrust) of ALL women on here and this is a LIBERAL site?? btw that doesn't refer to you but if you can see it in some posters remarks then I don't think we'll ever agree on this.

I'm not sure of the exact laws that apply to this in every US state - I know here that if a man can prove he's not the biological father of children (in Aust) he can not only stop paying and sue for repayment of monies already paid but he can also keep up a relationship with that child because they've already bonded - I don't know how to get it fairer than that.

[pinto]

173. I trust that the decisions made about pregnancy are, when possible, mutual

affairs. I also trust a woman to make those decisions on her own, when necessary.

[rbnyc]

145. None

To me, the issue isn't about whether to have a baby, it's about whether to continue the pregnancy and whether or not to continue a pregnancy should be exclusively up to the person with the pregnant body.

Of course ending the pregnancy means not having the baby, but I really do think that's the secondary concern.

[Fleshdancer]

147. Depends on what the woman is comfortable with

I'm married and my husband's opinion would definately influence my overall decision. However, if he did something stupid and attempted to tell me what to do, then his opinion would be absolutely worthless to me.

Abortion and marriage are two very personal things and what works for some people may not work for others. At the end of the day, it depends on the couple.

on edit: I don't think anyone should legally have any say over a woman's pregnancy.

[Castilleja]

157. None.

I was going to say "Little to none", but I changed my mind, "NONE". Although the woman is free to listen to his opinion. Her decision. That's it.

[Cheswick2.0]

162. none

If they have a good relationship then I am sure they would make the decision together. But ultimately it is hers to make.

[happynewyear]

181. the day a man can give birth, he has the right to have an opinion

Until this incredible feat is accomplished they have none the way I view it, be it married on not married.

It is up to the WOMAN, not the man to decide.

Too many men cut and run, leaving the woman behind with the kids and often much of the responsibility that goes with it sadly enough.

:dem:

[striderjames]

192. I am generally against abortion, but.....

Since we as a country would rather kill then fix the ultimate problem I suppose we need to accept abortion being the only solution in many situations. With that being said the women ultimately has the right to choose the fate of her child. Of course the women should at least consult the father and get his thoughts on it. At least a women with any decency should do that, but ultimately it is her decision and I do not think there should be any laws saying otherwise.

However, a better solution is to prevent the need for abortions period. I mean to me it is rather barbaric in nature and also in some cases unsafe. Don't get me wrong I am not some religious fanatic or anything I just think abortions are not the ideal solution. I would much rather we spend that time giving these potential mothers the education and support they need to raise their children and also perhaps REPAIRING the screwed up foster system we have now. But until we can do that I suppose abortion is the best option.

[Name removed]

194. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kayell]

196. Please don't feed the 14 year old

troll.

[Zynx]

198. Technically, he cannot stop her, but if it were my wife and she did it

without consulting me and without a medical reason for doing it, I would divorce her faster than you can say "abortion". I think that the husband should at least be consulted on the matter. The baby is as much his as her's.

[The Flaming Red Head]

199. After being married to an abuser

I'd say zero. That was the best choice that I ever made and I shudder to think what my life and my son's life would be like if I still had an attachment to a wife beater.

[Maddy McCall]

243. Amen!

Been there, too.

[DubyaSux]

219. WHY NOT ADOPTION????

Everyone assumes the two-choice scenario. But there is actually 3.

Adoption may be the better issue for all. I think there is something inherently sexist in two people not having the same rights because of the same mistake BOTH made.

Maybe the third option would work. If the couple can't agree on what to do, there is a waiting list of two-parent families waiting for children. If the woman chooses to do what she wants to do unilaterally, she should expect to fullfill that committment unilaterally. Otherwise, the father suffers basically, indentured servitude, for 18 years because he has no say on how to deal with a problem BOTH created.

The woman is in control of 3 people's lives when she gets pregnant. But 2 have no say in the matter. Something is wrong with that picture if you ask me.

[Maddy McCall]

241. There is also a waiting list of LIVING children in homes waiting to be...

adopted. Why don't all of those marvelous two-parent families on the waiting list you mention go adopt the children that are already alive?

The third option you mention still puts the burden on the woman of sacrificing her education and career; possibly her mental,physical and emotional health--basically ALL aspects of her life for nine months to be an incubator when she may not want to be.

The woman is in control of no life but her own; therefore, the solution that SHE chooses should be based on how the pregnancy will affect HER life.

You mention "inherent sexism." When men start bearing children, then the biology of their burden will be considered by the law. Until then, biology gives women the choice. Deal with it.

[Alenne]

247. one has a say before she gets pregnant

Why are people acting like it is so hard for a man to not get a woman pregnant? It seems some men believe they should not be responsible for their sperm before and after a pregnancy.

[Placebo]

293. He Should Have ABSOLUTELY NO SAY.

It's her body, and unless he is going to carry the baby to term, he has absolutel NO SAY in the matter.

[mstrsplinter326]

297. if the answer is no...

Does it make it illegal for a man to pass legislation concerning abortion?

It should.

[ReallyTired]

335. The husband gets NO say if the condom POPS