Father's Rights? Men Want Right To Turn Down Fatherhood

  • Thread starter Thread starter beckers
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Liberalsaved:
We probably shouldn’t ever change anything in the world. There’s a chance that some of the results could be negative.
Click to expand...
I agree, we should change the definition of life or the definition of marriage.

Mike
 
40.png
siamesecat:
My only concern with that is a man could do that just to spite a woman, or what if he raped her and could still force her? Someone who has no business being a father? Now of course from a religious standpoint, this shouldn’t matter, as abortion is wrong. But from a legal standpoint, it is the mother’s body and I think a man should have to prove his ability to and agree to take custody as I stated in an above post.
Click to expand...
There used to be what is now obviously a prophetic parody of this situation years ago, when some comedy writers or somebody came up with legal contracts about one-night-stands and the equivalent.

And, now we see that such may be actually required, for those who – at the outset – are engaging in immoral activity.

Otherwise, I see that the feminist movement has a dilemma on its hands about the turf they have staked out as their own – that a woman has total domain over her body.

This case may be settled before it goes to trial. You know how these things go. After all the fuss, this woman may decide to abort the baby after all, if she loses and has no future income for this baby. Or, she may decide to abort the baby or give it up for adoption for other reasons.

Who knows? Maybe the respective grandparents may join the fray to assert their rights and battle for custody.

And, then, if the child goes out for adoption, maybe the father will go back years from now to regain parental rights, after perhaps having some change of heart.

And, perhaps even later, the baby grows up and gets depressed about how neither of his parents wanted her (him) and then commits suicide.

Wow, this is going to drag on forever. And, it will be a tragedy from almost every consequence. The only thing is to hope for a miracle that the couple will be reconciled.
 
40.png
trustmc:
I agree, we should change the definition of life or the definition of marriage.

Mike
Click to expand...
I wasn’t being sarcastic. I meant “shouldn’t” not “should.”
 
40.png
BioCatholic:
i guess Legislators felt it was better to have a women drop a child off with Paramedics or police than to smother it or leave it for dead. we actually have had this happen quite a few times. we arent allowed to ask hardly ANY questions. if the child is kidnapped, then fingerpriting would most likely discover it, otherwise the child will never know its biological parents. its a pretty good policy if you ask me.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think it may be an excellent policy, although I have no experience watching it be carried out, as you have. I’m surprised you get to ask anything at all. Is it stuff like a medical history of the child?

Perhaps the solution (to legal issues) is in Pre-Sexual agreements. There could be a form you could buy at the drugstore with six options. For example, option C could be, I refuse to pay any child support should the child be born alive. I’m being a triffle silly, I know, but I think of those movies like Gattica where they surreptitiously tested the DNA of potential sexual partners at those DNA booths. We have the sort of society that might in some way support such a legal agreement before sex, or at least having one on public file for your potential partners to check out beforehand.
 
Perhaps before purchasing condoms, you should have to sign the contract “just in case”.
 
I think that the pro-aborton movement is showing their hypocrisy in not supporting the men’s lawsuit. I don’t agree with the pro-abortion movement so I also disagree with the lawsuit, but I do think they are making a good point however. If pro-abortion people feel that women must make decisions about their bodies, than it is very hypocritical for them to demand that fathers pay child support if mothers opt out of abortion.
 
I think the guy is trying to duck out of responsibility.

Options:

Currently, women get pregrant by men.

Woman alone chooses death or life for child.

Man has no say, but has to pay.

If he has a choice.

He can decide life for child, she can choose death, does the child get to live? Will he get to raise the child alone?

He chooses death, she choose life, does the child get to live?
Will he be able to force her to get an abortion?

If he does not have to pay, will she get an abortion because there is no support?

Will she decide not to have sex out of marriage because she could get “stuck” with a child without support?

Granted, getting rid of abortion is the best option.

But, of those above, which will save more children?

Will this lead to pre-sex written agreements?

Should a guy get to choose life for his child?
 
If he were given the right to give the child up for adoption, then what?

:confused:
 
Hmm, actually I think that in an ideal world, right to turn down fatherhood would not be such a bad thing. Lemme explain.

In an ideal world there would be no abortion. So the only 2 options are, keep the child, or send the child to an orphanage / have him adopted / give him away / whatever you call it.

So there would sort of be three different ways the rules could work, for children born out of wedlock.
  1. Current system - The woman’s choice to either keep or give away.
Problem - Why should the woman be favored over the man (or the other way around)? He is the child of both of them and both of them will have to support him. "Doesn’t this system discriminate against men?"is what those men who are bringing forth this lawsuit are asking.
  1. Only give away if both partners agree to give away.
Problem - Then if one wants to keep and the other wants to give away, the one who wanted to give away would become a distant parent. Probably support only by money. Then the child either doesn’t have a clsoe mother, or doesn’t have a close father. Both of these options are often pretty disasterous (don’t mean to offend any single parents or children of single parents here. Just saying I reckon it’s better for a child to have a close mum and dad).
  1. Only keep if both partners agree to keep.
Problem - This would probably be harder for a woman, if she had to give away her child because the father didn’t want to support it - because she would feel more attached to her child, after having carried it for 9 months (whereas, if a father was forced to give away when he didn’t want to, it generally wouldn’t be as hard). However, genrally a woman might be able to accept that what happened is best for her child and then not feel so bad.
Is it worse for someone to be forced to keep a child when they don’t want to, or for someone to be forced to give a child away when they don’t want to? These are okay questions. However, I think there is a more important question.

Is it better for the child to live with his natural parents (or one of them) when the other doesn’t want him and doesn’t want to support him? Or is it better for a child to live with foster parents who both love him and will both support him?

IMHO the second of those is better.
 
Here’s a link to another article which appeared today on Fox News.

Last Thursday, The National Center for Men filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of Matt Dubay.

The NCM has nicknamed the suit ‘Roe v. Wade for Men’ because it seeks to allow men a legal right to decline the responsibilities of fatherhood to the same degree that women can currently decline motherhood through abortion: that is, absolutely.

Mike
 
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187883,00.html

VERY VAILD POINT—

The lawsuit’s essential message is correct: the ongoing discussion of reproduction often proceeds as though men do not exist, especially regarding abortion. The marginalization of men in abortion is somewhat natural; as a matter of blunt biology, it is a woman’s body. Unless the man has entered into a contract with the woman, she has a presumptive right of self control that trumps his claim. Otherwise, the man could force her to have an abortion or to become breeding stock.
The marginalization of men cannot be similarly justified, however, once a child is born and three entirely autonomous human beings exist. At this point, in my opinion, the worst inequity toward men in our society occurs. Men are held legally responsible for their children’s support even when they are denied visitation. In essence, fathers have responsibilities without rights and that is a travesty, both legally and morally. Fathers live with broken hearts; children struggle without the love and guidance of both parents
 
40.png
Flopfoot:
Hmm, actually I think that in an ideal world, right to turn down fatherhood would not be such a bad thing. Lemme explain.

In an ideal world there would be no abortion. So the only 2 options are, keep the child, or send the child to an orphanage / have him adopted / give him away / whatever you call it.

So there would sort of be three different ways the rules could work, for children born out of wedlock.
  1. Current system - The woman’s choice to either keep or give away.
Problem - Why should the woman be favored over the man (or the other way around)? He is the child of both of them and both of them will have to support him. "Doesn’t this system discriminate against men?"is what those men who are bringing forth this lawsuit are asking.
  1. Only give away if both partners agree to give away.
Problem - Then if one wants to keep and the other wants to give away, the one who wanted to give away would become a distant parent. Probably support only by money. Then the child either doesn’t have a clsoe mother, or doesn’t have a close father. Both of these options are often pretty disasterous (don’t mean to offend any single parents or children of single parents here. Just saying I reckon it’s better for a child to have a close mum and dad).
  1. Only keep if both partners agree to keep.
Problem - This would probably be harder for a woman, if she had to give away her child because the father didn’t want to support it - because she would feel more attached to her child, after having carried it for 9 months (whereas, if a father was forced to give away when he didn’t want to, it generally wouldn’t be as hard). However, genrally a woman might be able to accept that what happened is best for her child and then not feel so bad.
Is it worse for someone to be forced to keep a child when they don’t want to, or for someone to be forced to give a child away when they don’t want to? These are okay questions. However, I think there is a more important question.

Is it better for the child to live with his natural parents (or one of them) when the other doesn’t want him and doesn’t want to support him? Or is it better for a child to live with foster parents who both love him and will both support him?

IMHO the second of those is better.
Click to expand...
Legally in the United States once the baby is born both have equal rights to them… For example if the mother wants to give the child up for adoption, the Father can sue for custody of his child, and even perhaps make mom pay child support…Or he can have her sign her rights away. The Baby Richard case invalidated in adoption because the Father wanted his child. And I agree with the case…

Just because one parent doesn’t want the child, doesn’t mean the other parent should have to give up his or her child…We live in a free country…Besides, whose to say a couple of years from now the single parent might not meet someone, and get married who will adopt their child. Stepparent adoptions are actually the most common form of adoption here in the States…
 
40.png
StratusRose:
Does anyone else see this lawsuit as incredibly childish? The man they are using sounds like a little kid who got his toys taken away. People need to grow up and realize that sex, does in fact, cause pregnancy.
Click to expand...
I was beginning to think I was the only one who finds this lawsuit a waste of time.

Reminds me of when I was younger and I was trying to figure out why it’s ok for a man to walk down the street topless, but women cannot. Maybe I should file a silly lawsuit. It’s not that I want to walk down the street topless… I would never do that. But it’s a stupid lawsuit and people appear to love them.

Sadly, I read all these posts and it is so apparent why abortion will never be made illegal. As long as men can walk away, women will seek abortions. As long as women are blamed for “getting pregnant” as if they get that way alone, they will seek abortions.

Obviously, the final choice is up to the woman. If men want a say in this matter/debate, they need to “MAN UP” and make better choices. A good choice would be not to get a woman pregnant if he is not in a position to go the distance. But should he get a woman pregnant, he should accept the fact that he cannot force his rights on the woman.

Women and Mothers should spend more time helping their daughter develop better self esteem. A lot of girls become pregnant early because their self esteem is so low, the minute they get a compliment, they do anything to keep them coming. Too many girls early on equate their self worth to the “man on their arm”.
 
Sadly, I read all these posts and it is so apparent why abortion will never be made illegal. As long as men can walk away, women will seek abortions.
Click to expand...
Men can’t walk away. Isn’t that the point of the lawsuit?
As long as women are blamed for “getting pregnant” as if they get that way alone, they will seek abortions.
Click to expand...
I think that these men blame women for having children, not getting pregnant. After all, pregnancy is not an isue for a clump of cells. For a lot men, being a gentleman is paying their half for the abortion.
 
i think it is time that married men especially had a say in abortion, a colleagues wife got offered a promotion, the baby would get in way of the promotion so she went and aborted the poor soul, he took it very badly as he thought it was a very wanted child (she did have to give up abc), their marriage is still very much on the rocks after a year and a half
 
40.png
cainem:
i think it is time that married men especially had a say in abortion, a colleagues wife got offered a promotion, the baby would get in way of the promotion so she went and aborted the poor soul, he took it very badly as he thought it was a very wanted child (she did have to give up abc), their marriage is still very much on the rocks after a year and a half
Click to expand...
I can’t even imagine! :nope:
 
Gabriel Gale:
Men can’t walk away. Isn’t that the point of the lawsuit?
Click to expand...
Some women don’t even get to the lawsuit stage for child support…

Men can walk away and disappear long before the baby is even born.

Some women have such low self esteem that the minute he says “Its not mine”, the woman has an abortion, just to avoid shame and embarrassment.

Yes, men CAN and do walk away, leaving the woman the take to cheap and what she thinks is the only way out.
 
40.png
Bella3502:
Some women don’t even get to the lawsuit stage for child support…

Men can walk away and disappear long before the baby is even born.

Some women have such low self esteem that the minute he says “Its not mine”, the woman has an abortion, just to avoid shame and embarrassment.

Yes, men CAN and do walk away, leaving the woman the take to cheap and what she thinks is the only way out.
Click to expand...
I’m having increasing difficulty seeing women as victims. Last night on 60 Minutes, the had a story on sperm donors. They stated that 50% of the recipients were single women.

The government’s reason for forcing child support payments from unmarried fathers is for the benefit of the child. Yet, the government does not regulate reproductive medicine and single women CHOOSE to have these children without any support from the father.

How long will these contradictions last?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top