Father's Rights (Children)

[Seventh Pup]

Yes, but laws are often changed by challenging the existing system currently in place. This would be a nice place to set some precedent.

I think looking at the benefit to society is a big thing in changing laws. If the laws changed to allow a man to opt out of finical responsibility (by the way a ton of guys do this anyway even though it's not legal) what benefit is there for society? It doesn't benefit the child. It doesn't benefit the mother. It's more likely that society in general is going to pay more for that child then they would if the father was contributing.

So putting an opting out law on the book helps only one of the players in the pot; and the three others distinctly less well off.

More over the father has at his disposal a method that is damn near 100% at preventing him from becoming a father. If the man truly wants to opt out of fatherhood he needs to wear a condom every time.

Also accept the fact that every time he has sex (with a woman that is premenopausal) there is a chance of pregnancy. Even if she's on the pill and taking it perfectly there is still a 1% chance that pregnancy can happen. If he uses a condom there is still a 2% chance a pregnancy can happen. If he has a vasectomy there is less then a 1% chance he will become a father, but there is still a chance.

If he doesn't want to be a father, he should insist on the a two prong approach birth control pills + condoms, or vasectomy and birth control pill; or if he wants to take it all on himself vasectomy + condoms. Even if she doesn't keep up her end he still knows that he's chances are good NOT becoming a father.

Because there are option for a man to opt out before pregnancy occurs, if he chooses not to then he is accepting the risk that children might result from his chooses.

I can see the abortion argument already coming so let me be preemptive on this.

Early Pregnancy and Children are not the same thing. The same way that Sex and Children are not the same thing. Even though in both cases one can lead to the other.

He can prevent against children if he wants to, to a very high degree of success. He NEVER has to worry about pregnancy. A woman gets to make a choice, (a very hard choice); about if she is willing to let something grow inside her, because it is her body. There are a lot of reasons for choosing not to abort, a lot of it deals with when she thinks life starts. If she believes what is inside her a human child, not the makings of a human child, it can make it impossible for her to choose to abort even though if she doesn't want children. It can also be near impossible for her to know how she will feel until she is in that situation, so banking on the shell abort if anything happens is asinine.

ETA

To put it another way abortion is "opting out" before there are any actual children.

[TheKassi]

If someone is unwilling or unable to accept the responsibility for the consequences of their choices, why is it their choice at all? How is it that someone can argue that they are the only one allowed to make a choice, but then expect other people to deal with the consequences?

That is after all while libertarianism is BS is it not? When someone makes decisions poorly enough they usually either inflict collateral damage or demand that the government come in and fix the situation. As government is forced to shoulder the responsibility of the poor choices individuals make, they are rightly granted the authority to overrule individual choice.

This is why “My body, my choice” isn't an argument we accept from the PCP freak/crackhead/ect. It is often not merely them that pays for their choices, so they do not get to make that argument.

So if a lover and society as a whole are forced to shoulder the responsibility and consequences of a mother's choice, why is their right to choose not subject to similar infringement?

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

So if a lover and society as a whole are forced to shoulder the responsibility and consequences of a mother's choice, why is their right to choose not subject to similar infringement?

So anyone making less than say $20,000 a year should be forced to have an abortion? Just in case they want the father to help support the child or need government insurance and WIC?

[TerraPrime]

Re: 7th pup

Because there are option for a man to opt out before pregnancy occurs, if he chooses not to then he is accepting the risk that children might result from his chooses.

Sorry, this is not convincing to me. This is the same argument for women, when it comes to pro-life camp, i.e. "if a woman doesn't want a pregnancy, she shouldn't have had unprotected sex." Everything you said can be applied to women, too: hysterectomy/tubal ligation for vasectomy, pills for condoms, or simple abstinence. The fact is that contraceptive methods fail, all the time, because people don't use them correctly.

For me, the argument to not allow an opt out doesn't really require that men have meaningful control over the conception of the child, because, imo, he doesn't have any more control over it than a woman does. That is, both can try and do their best, but sometimes, contraceptive methods fail. The issue is then how do we deal with the consequences. The contention is that women get an extra layer of control because they are the ones who get to decide to continue or to terminate the pregnancy, and some men feel that it's unfair that men don't get to make that choice. I think the entire premise of their complaint is sheer stupidity. Of course they don't get a choice - it's not their bloody bodies at risk.

I suppose I can be convinced to allow for a legal opt out for child support if we agree that for as long as the woman is pregnant, all her physiological changes are medically re-created in the body of the man in question. So we will fluctuate his hormonal levels, we will implant a silicone bag in his abdomen that grows increasing large, exerting pressure against his bladder, liver, and stomach, we will enlarge his mammal glands, we will make him take pills so he will retain water in his feet, and should the woman experience gestational diabetes, we will artificially suppress his insulin production to mimmick that, as well. For child birth and delivery, we will make him pass out kidney stones from his urinary tract that is proportionate to the size of a child, and if the labor was done through C-section, we will do that procedure on him, as well. Following that, we will keep up the hormonal changes for a few months and continue to enlarge his mammal glands. If we can do all that, then sure, he'll get a choice to opt out of child support for the rest of his life.

Re: TheKassi

So if a lover and society as a whole are forced to shoulder the responsibility and consequences of a mother's choice, why is their right to choose not subject to similar infringement?

My response is that in most cases, it is a situation of competing rights. In the case of abortion (here we go), the woman's right to self-autonomy over her body trumps the societal fiscal interest. At least, in the view of many people.

I also think that the scenario you presented is not quite aligned. The societal interest in the case of unwanted pregnancy is not to make the pregnant women continue with their pregnancy, correct? The interest, if we evaluate as the summative impact on each individual tax payer's finance, is to force women to get an abortion in cases where the government will need to step in to help pay for the cost of raising this child. In reality, the pressure is reversed. The pressure is to force women to keep their unwanted pregnancy. So I think this is an illustration that the cost of the event is not always the over-riding issue. Here, just as many people think that the right of the unborn fetus trumps the women's right to self-autonomy over her body. The fact that neither side of the debate really builds their case on financial cost seems to indicate that cost is not an important factor on this issue.

[Lady Winter Rose]

So anyone making less than say $20,000 a year should be forced to have an abortion? Just in case they want the father to help support the child or need government insurance and WIC?

I think not. She has right to screw her life and life of her child. But on which side would you stand:

Woman who choose to abort, even if she could treat child like Mother Earth or women who choose to keep the baby, but she can't bring up for her small fatherless family?

Just for argument sake, I not saying that we should control abortion by salary.

I think TheKassi would agree with me, but not sure.

[Liadin]

I think not. She has right to screw her life and life of her child. But on which side would you stand:

Woman who choose to abort, even if she could treat child like Mother Earth or women who choose to keep the baby, but she can't bring up for her small fatherless family?

Huh? Surely no one in this thread would advocate that every woman who accidentally gets pregnant should be making the same choice?

[TerraPrime]

But on which side would you stand:

Woman who choose to abort, even if she could treat child like Mother Earth or women who choose to keep the baby, but she can't bring up for her small fatherless family?

Huh? How are these competing choices? I'd support both. In the second case, I'd encourage her to consider adoption, particularly if the new mother is very young. A heavy financial burden early on is very hard to overcome later. But if she decides to raise the child on her own, with the help of some government welfare programs, then I'm ok with that, too.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

I think not. She has right to screw her life and life of her child. But on which side would you stand:

Woman who choose to abort, even if she could treat child like Mother Earth or women who choose to keep the baby, but she can't bring up for her small fatherless family?

Just for argument sake, I not saying that we should control abortion by salary.

I think TheKassi would agree with me, but not sure.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I wanted theKassi to clarify what she meant by society making the choice for the woman.

My stand is simple: you make a baby, you help pay for the baby. (it is the speech I gave my kids: birth control can fail, you need to be aware of this before you ever have sex. you need to think about your actions and what you would do if it did fail. one night of could sex could tie you to someone forever.)

[TheKassi]

So anyone making less than say $20,000 a year should be forced to have an abortion? Just in case they want the father to help support the child or need government insurance and WIC?

No.

I am asking why a woman's right to choose is considered sacrosanct when it comes to things like if she will or will not terminate a fetus, or if she will or will not get pregnant in the first place, but society has the moral authority to intervene in her choice to do virtually anything else to her body.

If the government has the moral authority to step in and dictate what she can put in her body, and upon what conditions she may engage in sexual activity with another, and so on and so forth, what is the logical basis for claiming a lover or society in general has no right to override a woman's reproductive rights in this particular area?

My response is that in most cases, it is a situation of competing rights. In the case of abortion (here we go), the woman's right to self-autonomy over her body trumps the societal fiscal interest. At least, in the view of many people.

I also think that the scenario you presented is not quite aligned. The societal interest in the case of unwanted pregnancy is not to make the pregnant women continue with their pregnancy, correct? The interest, if we evaluate as the summative impact on each individual tax payer's finance, is to force women to get an abortion in cases where the government will need to step in to help pay for the cost of raising this child. In reality, the pressure is reversed. The pressure is to force women to keep their unwanted pregnancy. So I think this is an illustration that the cost of the event is not always the over-riding issue. Here, just as many people think that the right of the unborn fetus trumps the women's right to self-autonomy over her body. The fact that neither side of the debate really builds their case on financial cost seems to indicate that cost is not an important factor on this issue.

Regardless of where the current pressure lies that shouldn't change the principle behind the issue. Your argument would be a perfectly valid argument for why society should not use it's moral authority to infringe upon a woman's right to choose. I am however asking why society lacks the moral authority altogether.

Question: Is it your argument that if granting a woman's right to choose became to expensive, society would have the moral authority to strip that choice away from women?

sorry for typos, no time to edit.

[TerraPrime]

Regardless of where the current pressure lies that shouldn't change the principle behind the issue. Your argument would be a perfectly valid argument for why society should not use it's moral authority to infringe upon a woman's right to choose. I am however asking why society lacks the moral authority altogether.

Question: Is it your argument that if granting a woman's right to choose became to expensive, society would have the moral authority to strip that choice away from women?

I'll just bow out at this stage, because I don't want to derail this into an abortion issue. I'm sure if we wait long enough, we'll see another abortion thread.

[Galactus]

It's very simple to me: If you create a child you have the duty to support it. That is a right owed to the child (not to the other parent) your sex doesen't matter: It's owed in equal measure regardless. Custodial status doesen't matter either, it's just something you owe to that child, the bare minimum of responsibility that is automatically assigned to you. No ifs. No buts.

[Been here]

What it does come down to is the child - someone has to be responsible for that baby. The mother will be, but she had help producing the child. All actions have consequences. How many non-custodial parents would willingly pay child support if there were an "opt-out clause?" As a person who files on non-paying parents, I would go out on a limb and say just about all. But that's about 20 years of experience talking. If the parents don't take care of the child, society does. So men, wear a condon. That way you protect yourself from babies and STDs.

[Seventh Pup]

Re: 7th pup

Sorry, this is not convincing to me. This is the same argument for women, when it comes to pro-life camp, i.e. "if a woman doesn't want a pregnancy, she shouldn't have had unprotected sex." Everything you said can be applied to women, too: hysterectomy/tubal ligation for vasectomy, pills for condoms, or simple abstinence. The fact is that contraceptive methods fail, all the time, because people don't use them correctly.

True but I do not look at an early term fetus as a child. Which means that the lady having an abortion is opting out before there is a child involved, her opting out period is just a little longer, but more emotionally and finically weighty. A man can't opt out at this stage because he's not pregnant nor should he have control of the lady's body.

It's not perfect, but I don't think allowing a father to opt out would make it better. I would be in favor of allowing a father to opt out of any expense relating to early pregnancy. But once the kid is born it's his responsibility.

For me, the argument to not allow an opt out doesn't really require that men have meaningful control over the conception of the child, because, imo, he doesn't have any more control over it than a woman does. That is, both can try and do their best, but sometimes, contraceptive methods fail. The issue is then how do we deal with the consequences. The contention is that women get an extra layer of control because they are the ones who get to decide to continue or to terminate the pregnancy, and some men feel that it's unfair that men don't get to make that choice. I think the entire premise of their complaint is sheer stupidity. Of course they don't get a choice - it's not their bloody bodies at risk.

I suppose I can be convinced to allow for a legal opt out for child support if we agree that for as long as the woman is pregnant, all her physiological changes are medically re-created in the body of the man in question. So we will fluctuate his hormonal levels, we will implant a silicone bag in his abdomen that grows increasing large, exerting pressure against his bladder, liver, and stomach, we will enlarge his mammal glands, we will make him take pills so he will retain water in his feet, and should the woman experience gestational diabetes, we will artificially suppress his insulin production to mimmick that, as well. For child birth and delivery, we will make him pass out kidney stones from his urinary tract that is proportionate to the size of a child, and if the labor was done through C-section, we will do that procedure on him, as well. Following that, we will keep up the hormonal changes for a few months and continue to enlarge his mammal glands. If we can do all that, then sure, he'll get a choice to opt out of child support for the rest of his life.

I would be in favor of this. :)

[Balefont]

FTR, I just threw out the "opt-out" option for the sake of discussion. However, it was intended that the option could not be exercised after conception and that women would know going into sex that guy's position if something were to happen. Perhaps with the opt-out option exercised, a woman would be less inclined to make sexy with someone knowing that he wouldn't be a financial contributor if she conceives.

[Noontidal]

So... would anybody have an issue with a guy intentionally sabotaging protection with the intent of impregnanting his sexual partner? Suppose he poked some holes in the condoms or some such.

Let's suppose he really wants kids.

[Balefont]

So... would anybody have an issue with a guy intentionally sabotaging protection with the intent of impregnanting his sexual partner? Suppose he poked some holes in the condoms or some such.

Let's suppose he really wants kids.

That would be un-fucking-acceptable and is wrong on so many levels. I would put it up there with rape.

[Seventh Pup]

FTR, I just threw out the "opt-out" option for the sake of discussion. However, it was intended that the option could not be exercised after conception and that women would know going into sex that guy's position if something were to happen. Perhaps with the opt-out option exercised, a woman would be less inclined to make sexy with someone knowing that he wouldn't be a financial contributor if she conceives.

I still don't agree with this. Because there is ALWAYS a risk of that children can result from sex. Even if you use protection. Even if she is taking her pill perfectly*. There is ALWAYS a risk. He knows that going in. I don't think any woman can know for 100% that she would get an abortion if it came to it. I certainly don't know and I'm about as pro choice as you can get.

I don't think it's fair to the child or to society to allow for an opt out option. Not when there are physical ways he has of opting out that are pretty close to 100%.

*If she takes her pill realistically (meaning she misses the odd day, doesn't take it every day at the same time etcetera) then there is an 8% chance of pregnancy.

[Noontidal]

That would be un-fucking-acceptable and is wrong on so many levels. I would put it up there with rape.

Hmm, I don't actually disagree with this assessment, but would it make a difference if it was the woman trying to get pregnant?

The condom thing is only one of many ways, and I feel it is unnecessary to expand on it to include other possible means of achieving said end.

[Seventh Pup]

So... would anybody have an issue with a guy intentionally sabotaging protection with the intent of impregnanting his sexual partner? Suppose he poked some holes in the condoms or some such.

Let's suppose he really wants kids.

Just to be clear. I think a woman who lies to a man about birth control in order to intentionally get pregnant is doing a horrible thing to that man. Having children is a big life chose, and it's such a betrayal to make someone else's choice for them through deceit. I think that should be able to be used in decided child custody.

I can understand why a guy who found himself a victim of that would want out. Unfortunately there is no out. Unless we want to give the father the right to terminate the pregnancy (which I think would be a god awful idea for a lot of reasons). Adoption only works if you can find a third party to step in for your share. The mother might be a scum bag, and the father might not want the child, but the child is still deserving of care. It's not fair to the child to only give him/ her half the resources to draw from.

Also it is a known risk that birth control can fail. It's a know risk that people can be careless about birth control. It's a risk we accept and try to minimize. We try to have sex with people we can trust. We try to use the latest and safest forms of birth control. We should have good communication with our partner(s) and try to help each other stay safe. But we all know birth control CAN fail. It can leave a lot of people feeling cheated when it does. Hopefully they weren't intentionally cheated by their partner.

[TerraPrime]

I don't know.

I think I can get behind the idea that if a man can show in court that the woman had deliberately and knowingly sabotaged the contraception steps that he should be able to get out of paying child support. I'm not talking about a woman forgetting to take the pill, or similar mistakes. I'm talking about cases like a woman poking holes in the condom, or other similar acts of sabotaging. I think when people engage in sexual intercourse there's a reasonable risk they assume for a pregnancy being a result, but having your partner sabotage the contraceptive steps is beyond reasonable and I don't think people should be held financially liable for it. And I think that just as courts can sort out the difference between mediated killing (murder) versus just killing (manslaughter), they ought to be able to sort out whether there's sufficient evidence to show that the woman (or man) had actively sabotaged the contraception efforts.