Father's Rights (Children)

[Res ipsa loquitur]

I am pro life and firmly feel abortion should be illegal. Having said that, I can continue. If a woman has the ONLY choice here in birthing or killing her child (abortion), a man who NEVER wanted to be a father should not be forced to be one; ie pay child support. A woman and a woman only choice to birth or abort? Fine....in that case, as its only her choice, only she should pay...given he never wanted to make a baby. Sex is not just to breed, after all.

The way it is now is vastly unfair to men.

[TrueMetis]

I am pro life and firmly feel abortion should be illegal. Having said that, I can continue. If a woman has the ONLY choice here in birthing or killing her child (abortion), a man who NEVER wanted to be a father should not be forced to be one; ie pay child support. A woman and a woman only choice to birth or abort? Fine....in that case, as its only her choice, only she should pay...given he never wanted to make a baby. Sex is not just to breed, after all.

The way it is now is vastly unfair to men.

Awesome so if a women screws up and gets pregnant it's her fault, a man does it no problem, he never wanted a kid anyway and so is not responsible.

Res are you sure you understand how women get pregnant? It takes more than one person.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I am pro life and firmly feel abortion should be illegal. Having said that, I can continue. If a woman has the ONLY choice here in birthing or killing her child (abortion), a man who NEVER wanted to be a father should not be forced to be one; ie pay child support. A woman and a woman only choice to birth or abort? Fine....in that case, as its only her choice, only she should pay...given he never wanted to make a baby. Sex is not just to breed, after all.

The way it is now is vastly unfair to men.

This makes no sense. Assuming: (1) Children have a right to life and (2) children have a right to be financially supported by their biological parents. Assuming the existing legal regime allows women to violate (1), you believe that all children should be deprived of (2), at least as far as their biological fathers go. The conclusion just doesn't follow from your premises.

[Liadin]

Sure, it sucks that the guy winds up stuck with child support payments when he didn't want a kid and was lied to. But what's the alternative? Allowing guys to disclaim all responsibility because they signed a piece of paper, regardless of the care they actually take in avoiding pregnancy? It's true that women have more choice since they can decide whether or not to abort. But that's because the stakes for a woman (having something growing inside her, having to give birth, etc.) are much higher than those for a man (just having to pay money). We can't wash our hands of any potential pregnancy merely by signing an affidavit, so why should men be able to?

[Res ipsa loquitur]

Sure, it sucks that the guy winds up stuck with child support payments when he didn't want a kid and was lied to. But what's the alternative? Allowing guys to disclaim all responsibility because they signed a piece of paper, regardless of the care they actually take in avoiding pregnancy? It's true that women have more choice since they can decide whether or not to abort. But that's because the stakes for a woman (having something growing inside her, having to give birth, etc.) are much higher than those for a man (just having to pay money). We can't wash our hands of any potential pregnancy merely by signing an affidavit, so why should men be able to?

Ahh...but here you are wrong, as women CAN wash their hands of pregnancy. Sure, they dont sign an affidavit...they just kill their own child. Abortion certainly allows women to disclaim all responsibility (as its hardly at all responsible to kill a child). Men here should be able to do the equivalent and get out of paying for a kid they never wanted. That is fair, to men and to women. If its a womans choice, alone, and he never wanted it, no man should be on the hook for it.

[ZombieWife]

I suspect that in a very large percentage of cases where the father didn't have to help support the child, the taxpayer would be doing it through welfare. So while it may be somewhat unfair that a man has to support a child he doesn't want, it's a hell of a lot more unfair to make everyone else pay for his stupid mistake. So fuck fathers' rights.

I went back and forth on this issue, wondering if the "choice" factor in pregnancy was skewed too heavily toward the woman. For example, the woman could choose to abort a child against a father's wishes without any real financial burden. Yet, the man, in a consentual act of sex, is pretty screwed all around.

Furthermore, if she was aware that he never wanted children and continued to have sex with the father regardless (knowing that it was her body and her future that was more on the line than his) then she's equally responsible.

But . . .

You bring up a damn good point, probably the most convincing point thus far.

[Timbits]

This makes no sense. Assuming: (1) Children have a right to life

That sentence made me laugh. :)

[Res ipsa loquitur]

Awesome so if a women screws up and gets pregnant it's her fault, a man does it no problem, he never wanted a kid anyway and so is not responsible.

Res are you sure you understand how women get pregnant? It takes more than one person.

Thor, by the time she is pregnant it is only one person though. ONLY the woman has the choice to birth or to abort; ONLY she should pay for the consequences of her acts to birth a child, if that man never wanted one to begin with.

The way things stand are, the man is quite irrelevant except for his wallet, which is patently unfair to the man in question.

[Res ipsa loquitur]

This makes no sense. Assuming: (1) Children have a right to life and (2) children have a right to be financially supported by their biological parents. Assuming the existing legal regime allows women to violate (1), you believe that all children should be deprived of (2), at least as far as their biological fathers go. The conclusion just doesn't follow from your premises.

It makes perfect sense, given the world where abortion is OK and legal and ONLY a womans choice. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If a woman can avoid being responsible by not having the child then so to should that man be able to do likewise. As a feminist, equality is what I strive for; equal rights for women, and not special rights for women.

Essentially, its the shoe on the other foot. Maybe its ABORTION that actually doesnt make all that much sense.

[ZombieWife]

Thor, by the time she is pregnant it is only one person though. ONLY the woman has the choice to birth or to abort; ONLY she should pay for the consequences of her acts to birth a child, if that man never wanted one to begin with.

The way things stand are, the man is quite irrelevant except for his wallet, which is patently unfair to the man in question.

I get where you are coming from and I can see this side as well. I have known a few men in my life whose partners have gotten pregnant and aborted, very much against their wishes--men who offered to take the child and raise it. Horrifying situation, especially if that man feels very strongly about when "life" begins (and would consider a 6 week old fetus a "child").

But, I have to agree with what many people are saying here as well: as much as it sucks, the man is overruled in most situations here--fair or not. He, too, has the option of abstaining. But, how realistic is that?

I guess for me, as a woman, I always went above and beyond protecting myself when it came to sex. It was, after all, my body the baby would grow in for 40 weeks. My health at risk. My body that would change forever, my life that would be held in balance. Hence why I believe--to some extent--that a woman carries more burden in regard to the birth control side of things. Perhaps that balances things out to some extent? I don't know. It might if every woman believed as I did, but many don't. Many still believe it's 50/50, but when it comes to an "oops, I'm pregnant" moment, that ratio changes drastically. It feels very arbitrary.

So, I get what you are saying, but I'm not sure there really is a solution unless (as another poster suggested) a man asks a woman to sign some kind of paper that states he will not be held responsible should she get pregnant. (Not sure how that would fly in court anyway, perhaps a lawyer here would be able to pipe in.)

Anyway, I'm rambling at this point. It's not so cut and dry for me. Posts like yours show me the other side very clearly. I can't discount that.

[TrueMetis]

Thor, by the time she is pregnant it is only one person though. ONLY the woman has the choice to birth or to abort; ONLY she should pay for the consequences of her acts to birth a child, if that man never wanted one to begin with.

I don't know what drugs you are taking to maintain your internal consistency but they must be strong. The man could has avoided all this by shelling out for a condom. He contributed half the DNA, he made the choice to have unprotected sex as much as the woman and as such is equally responsible.

The way things stand are, the man is quite irrelevant except for his wallet, which is patently unfair to the man in question.

If he wants to see the kid he can, it's not that hard to get a court order for visitation rights. If not than a wallet is all the fucker deserves to be.

[S John]

You know, I've never been promiscuous exactly, but lately I've made a conscious decision to be even more selective. Not because I'm a prude but because - if I happened to get some random woman pregnant then I'm going to have to deal with whatever consequences may arise from that. That's just something I see as a fact of life.

I've certainly got a couple in my past that I'm damn glad I didn't knock up. Maybe I'm just growing paranoid, but the older I get the more I find myself considering the possibility of pregnancy before taking the plunge, so to speak. Really, its more out of fear of the terrible prospect of making a poor choice and having to deal with a crazy lady in my life for the rest of my days because I would consider it a given that I'd at least make sure any resulting kids were well taken care of. My buddy was giving me crap about one of my.. less well thought out.. conquests the other day and said, 'could you imagine if you had gotten her pregnant! she'd be part of your life forever!' The thought gave me goosebumps. The bad kind, not the exciting kind. Tread carefully out there ladies and gentleman, tread carefully.

So yea, Father's Rights.. in this case you have the right to reap what you've sown. I think its the right thing to do in any case, be a man about it and all that.

[Timbits]

I take precautions very seriously

That's why I always wear a chastity belt

Nothing goes in and nothing goes out :)

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

As a man I'd support the kid anyway since its not their fault their mother was a deceitful bitch. I doubt it would be a happy family however.

[wyrdite]

I think before we get into legalities, there should be more pressure on men to take responsibility for their reproduction. Several pharmaceutical companies have successfully developed oral contraceptives and implants for men, but they don't believe that men would buy/use them... so guys, go and pester Pfizer or whoever else until they get onto the market :P Men don't even have to worry about the litany of unpleasant side effects that women can develop from stopping their period for too long. Speaking from personal experience, a LOT of guys just assume their girlfriend is "taking care of things", either by being the person who always brings condoms or being on oral birth control. Plus, once there's equal responsibility between the sexes to prevent pregnancy, it'll get a lot easier to make an opt-out option for men.

I believe that when someone falls pregnant and has to decide between abortion/adoption/keeping it, there are a lot of things to consider--support from the child's father is up there with concerns like the mother's health, career, etc. It is a fairly major choice, and not one that should be rushed into. That said, if there was a legal opt-out option it would have to be limited; unfortunately the reality is that pregnancy works to a very short timeline. Given that after the first trimester the cost of abortion goes up exponentially as well as becoming increasingly risky and (for some) morally problematic, it doesn't seem feasible to allow men to opt-out after that time.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

It makes perfect sense, given the world where abortion is OK and legal and ONLY a womans choice. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If a woman can avoid being responsible by not having the child then so to should that man be able to do likewise. As a feminist, equality is what I strive for; equal rights for women, and not special rights for women.

Essentially, its the shoe on the other foot. Maybe its ABORTION that actually doesnt make all that much sense.

Well, no, that doesn't follow at all. If you actually believe that children are rights-bearing creatures, and that two of the rights that they possess are (1) the right to life and (2) the right to be financially supported by both biological parents, then it necessarily follows that (1) killing children is wrong and (2) allowing a biological parent to refuse to financially support their child is also wrong. That the existing legal regime allows the injustice of mothers killing their unborn children is of course not an argument for allowing the further injustice of allowing biological parents to escape financially supporting their children. Why? Well it should be obvious, but since you can't seem to grasp it, I'll spell it out -- if children are independent rights-bearing creatures, then the obligation to respect those rights is owed to the children alone.

Which is to say - that the law authorizes one moral injustice is not any kind of reason to advocate another.

[Eponine]

Sure, it sucks that the guy winds up stuck with child support payments when he didn't want a kid and was lied to. But what's the alternative? Allowing guys to disclaim all responsibility because they signed a piece of paper, regardless of the care they actually take in avoiding pregnancy?

IMO, it should be a two way contract - if the woman doesn't also sign before entering into the relationship, then it's not valid.

I think that it's a more serious situation than "sucks to be you" for a person to have a child that they don't want.

[Res ipsa loquitur]

Well, no, that doesn't follow at all. If you actually believe that children are rights-bearing creatures, and that two of the rights that they possess are (1) the right to life and (2) the right to be financially supported by both biological parents, then it necessarily follows that (1) killing children is wrong and (2) allowing a biological parent to refuse to financially support their child is also wrong. That the existing legal regime allows the injustice of mothers killing their unborn children is of course not an argument for allowing the further injustice of allowing biological parents to escape financially supporting their children. Why? Well it should be obvious, but since you can't seem to grasp it, I'll spell it out -- if children are independent rights-bearing creatures, then the obligation to respect those rights is owed to the children alone.

Which is to say - that the law authorizes one moral injustice is not any kind of reason to advocate another.

Who says I believe in Right#2? I can see instances where a man would have custody, and the WOMAN should not be obliged to pay a dime.

[Angalin]

child support isn't a fathers right, but a child's.

Canadian courts agree with this.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Who says I believe in Right#2? I can see instances where a man would have custody, and the WOMAN should not be obliged to pay a dime.

If you don't believe that children have a right to be supported by both of their biological parents, then presumably you don't need any justification for absolving men (or women) of the right to financially support their progeny. You certainly wouldn't need to base your justification on the existence of a legal regime (allowing abortion) that you find abhorrent. Your rationale, as presented, makes no sense. I suspect you backed yourself into this corner because you were too busy trying to make a clever point about abortion, that you didn't actually think through the clear implications of your argument.

But if you want - just lay your cards on the table. If you believe that parents have an obligation to support their children, what do you believe is the justification for it?