Male Rights During a Womans Pregnancy

[@_girL........]

Do you think men should be able to get out of child support on the grounds that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy?

 

[Felicity]

Do you think men should be able to get out of child support on the grounds that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy?

OOOooooooo....good question....


No. I don't think it should be an excuse for a woman to abort either.

 

[FISHX]

Yes they should be able to get out of paying child support if they didn,t want the pregnancy to continue.

 

[vergiss]

Yes they should be able to get out of paying child support if they didn,t want the pregnancy to continue.

Wait, so a man needn't have responsibility forced upon him, but the woman does?

 

[FutureIncoming]

@_girL........ wrote: "Do you think men should be able to get out of child support on the grounds that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy?"

Are you saying it should be OK for woment to entrap men? There ARE two different factors involved here, Natural Mindless Biology and Free Will.
Natural Mindless Biology is responsible for egg-fertilization and womb-implantation. It does not always happen as a result of sex (it does not always happen even with assistance such as in-vitro fertilization). Meanwhile Free Will chooses the whether-or-not of sex AND the whether-or-not-and-what-type of birth control. The first increases the chance that Natural Mindless Biology can do its thing, and the second decreases that chance.

Regarding the participants, the Key Questions are, "Did they know about the chance of pregnancy, were they both consenting to sex, did they ever discuss the chance of pregnancy, and what did they decide to do about it?"

1. It is well known that plenty of pregnancies have occurred in complete ignorance, making the last two questions moot. It could reasonably be said that NEITHER participant consented to pregnancy in this case. It could also be reasonably said that their ignorance was the fault of their society, and so the society, not the participants, should pay for the consequences. (You may take "society" to mean whatever larger group is appropriate, from anti-sex-education parents, on up.)

2. It is possible for either sex to be raped (and the last two Key Questions are again generally moot). Male rape isn't much talked-about because males dominate most human societies, and male egos typically don't want to dwell on being non-dominant, but that does not change the facts. Nevertheless, should this situation be the case, it is quite equivalent to female rape, such that if the female is allowed abortion, then the male should be allowed non-child-support. (And if society forbids the abortion, then again society should also pay. Do you know what an "ecological niche" is? It is ANY situation in which reproduction and growth of the next generation can successfully occur. Nature doesn't care AT ALL what meets this definition. So, a society that forbids abortion of rape-caused pregnancies is an ecological niche in which rapists can have as many offspring as possible, perpetuating any/all genes that predispose an individual to use rape as a "reproductive strategy" --even if that individual THINKS rape is just a dominance-tool. Nature allows anything that WORKS, to pass genes on, including delusions.)

3. If the chance of pregnancy is not discussed by the consenting individuals who know about it, then they are just being stupid. Does the human species need this kind of stupidity (should they be executed, thereby bumping-up average intelligence)? Obviously they should pay for the consequences of their stupidity. Perhaps they will live long enough to learn to be less-stupid.

4. The result of discussing the chance of pregnancy leads to a number of possibilities.
a. Both want it: Both should pay.
b. The male wants it and the female doesn't: The male should be willing to pay, and the female should be willing to use birth control, or decide to become non-consenting.
c. The female wants it and the male doesn't: The female should be willing to pay, and the male should be willing to use birth control, or decide to become non-consenting. (I've heard about a marriage in which this was the case; the male chose secret masturbation to reduce sperm-count so much that the female eventually started seeking medical help for why she couldn't get pregnant. Sounds like a great plot for a wacky movie.
d. Neither wants pregnancy: Both should be willing to use birth control, or decide to become non-consenting. Note that the low-quality "rhythm method" of birth control is exactly that of choosing non-consent when the Natural Mindless Biological chances of pregnancy are greatest.

5. The choice to use birth control is far more important than the method chosen. All are imperfect (if you are one who believes the story of the Virgin Mary, then you must agree that even abstinence is an imperfect birth control method --which reminds me, why didn't God pay child-support for Jesus?). Anyway, **ALL** birth control methods have in common the fact that Free Will is claiming that it does not have to submit to the dictates of Natural Mindless Biology. Any society that refuses to recognize this, and prohibits abortion as a "backup plan" to birth control, is a society that promotes slavery to Natural Mindless Biology, that considers Free Will to be a no-account thing. Such a society should then pay the price of prohibiting abortion, not the participants in sex.

 

[steen]

The poll is a bit vague. Ideally, everybody should have as much choice aspossible when it doesn't make other people worse off (Pareto effect).

But the way of doing it is iffy, unless you have somebody voluntarily take over his duties to the child.

But we certainly can raise taxes and use the funds to cover for the man so he doesn't have to pay, if that is what is alluded to here.

 

[FISHX]

Wait, so a man needn't have responsibility forced upon him, but the woman does?

How does that make sense since when has the man had any say in whether his offspring lives or dies?

If mummy doesn,t want little jonny bit daddy does what say does he have none. so why if he didn,t want the baby should he have to take responsibility when mummy doesn,t ?

 

[vergiss]

How does that make sense since when has the man had any say in whether his offspring lives or dies?

If mummy doesn,t want little jonny bit daddy does what say does he have none. so why if he didn,t want the baby should he have to take responsibility when mummy doesn,t ?

So in your ideal world abortion would be illegal and the father could just scarper?

 

[FISHX]

So in your ideal world abortion would be illegal and the father could just scarper?

No not at all in my ideal world both parents would get equal say in whether or not their child lived and the NEED for social termination would be deleted

 

[vergiss]

So if either parent objects, the pregnancy shouldn't continue?

 

[FISHX]

I didn,t say that .

If both parents want the offspring then fine if dad wants the offspring then in my personal oppinion then the off spring should be allowed to live just as it would be if it was only the mother that wanted the offspring
won,t be back till morning so i will post in more depth then

 

[Synch]

I didn,t say that .

If both parents want the offspring then fine if dad wants the offspring then in my personal oppinion then the off spring should be allowed to live just as it would be if it was only the mother that wanted the offspring
won,t be back till morning so i will post in more depth then

So you agree in terms of abortion if the father is known the doctor who performs the abortion must by law have consent of both parties? Or the abortion can be deemed invalid and illegal if such circumstances are not met.

 

[FISHX]

So you agree in terms of abortion if the father is known the doctor who performs the abortion must by law have consent of both parties? Or the abortion can be deemed invalid and illegal if such circumstances are not met.

I certianly do i know at least 3 people who have terminated against the fathers whishes and i,m sorry but seeing a father in bits over the death of his child is not a pretty site especially when he knows the death ws a chosen one.

 

[Jerry]

Do you think men should be able to get out of child support on the grounds that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy?

Consent to sex, even oral sex, IS consent to pregnancy.
Check it. (sorry, I couldn't find the actual ruling.)

When a man has any kind of sex with a woman, he is legally giving her his sperm as a gift. She is then free to do with it as she pleases (she could even give it too a lesbian friend.......that would make for a good story ).

The man can not get out of child support, or whatever ells, because childsupport is a right of the child, not the parent; and a parent can not sign away the rights of a child. Theoretically, only the child could do that, but a child can not consent to any contract or agreement or waver, so the childsupport sticks.

I recall a case where some chick even went through some dude's garbage and retrieved a condom, from which she inseminated herself with his sperm. I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that her deception was legal because that guy willingly disposed of his semen, thus disowning it.

That's how people get away with 'dumpster-diving'.
That's how cops can legally retrieve a sample of your D.N.A. from like a cup or something, without a warrant.
I know that this is just a T.V. show, but on Law and Order, the detectives will offer a suspect a coffee or soda. When s/he is don with it, the detectives take it to the lab for testing, and the results hold up in court.

Rather you are for or against abortion, men, you have no controle.
Either use a condom and take it with you, make her swallow and use mouthwash, or keep it in your pants.......unless you don't mind having children.....or have had a vasectomy......

 

[Jerry]

How does that make sense since when has the man had any say in whether his offspring lives or dies?

If mummy doesn,t want little jonny bit daddy does what say does he have none. so why if he didn,t want the baby should he have to take responsibility when mummy doesn,t ?

He should be a MAN and take care of his responsibilities, that's why.
That child needs a dad. Rather said guy intended to have a child and regardless of how the existence of this child disrupts his life, he now has an obligation to that child.

"It takes a man too be a dad".

 

[FISHX]

He should be a MAN and take care of his responsibilities, that's why.
That child needs a dad. Rather said guy intended to have a child and regardless of how the existence of this child disrupts his life, he now has an obligation to that child.

"It takes a man too be a dad".

Then does the mother also not have a duty to continue the pregnancy if the father wants to keep the baby and she doesn,t?

 

[vergiss]

Consent to sex, even oral sex, IS consent to pregnancy.

What the heck? I can get pregnant by giving a guy head? :lol:

 

[Jerry]

Then does the mother also not have a duty to continue the pregnancy if the father wants to keep the baby and she doesn,t?

In my opinion, yes.

Perhaps the child would be better off being adopted, rather that living in an environment where it's own mother doesn't want him/her.

 

[Jerry]

What the heck? I can get pregnant by giving a guy head? :lol:

You didn't check out my source, I see.
Check it.

In a lawsuit against his ex-girlfriend, Richard O. Phillips has alleged that about six years ago, he engaged in oral sex with her. Unbeknownst to Phillips, he says, his girlfriend, Sharon Irons, allegedly saved the resulting semen and used it to inseminate herself. A pregnancy resulted, Irons gave birth to a baby, and DNA tests proved Phillips to be the genetic father.

Though Phillips allegedly did not learn of either the pregnancy or the birth until some time later, a court nonetheless ordered him to pay approximately $800 a month in child support............

 

[Stace]

You didn't check out my source, I see.
Check it.

I can't seem to find the final verdict in this case, but I found something saying that the judge doubled the child support payments to $1,600 a month :mrgreen:

http://news.usti.net/home/news/cn/?/world.law/2/wed/da/Uus-paternity.RaX3_FME.html

 

[Jerry]

I can't seem to find the final verdict in this case, but I found something saying that the judge doubled the child support payments to $1,600 a month :mrgreen:

http://news.usti.net/home/news/cn/?/world.law/2/wed/da/Uus-paternity.RaX3_FME.html

If I may be so bold.....problems like these are why traditional belief systoms have the social structure that they do. When one pulls a thread, the whole thing starts to unravel.

He intends to seek joint crudity of his doughtier and start visitation? So, his daughter does not know her father? Sounds like a woman's 'reproductive rights' do involve more than herself, and that it is more than just her own privet business.

It seems to me that a woman's 'reproductive rights' also involve her children, and by proxy, the father.

 

[Alastor]

I didn't like the poll choices.

One is no rights for the male, and the other is sole rights to the male.

"Mutual concent" would be a good option to add, in order to get me to vote.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I find the concept in the original post utterly disgusting, but I have to admit that it is the consistent position. If consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy-- and I maintain that logically, it does not-- then the father cannot be legally obligated to support the child.

However, I do believe that a father who chooses this option should also forfeit all parental rights; he is not the father of that child in the same fashion that the mother would not be if she had aborted.

The problem is, if the mother aborts, there's no child to be responsible for. If the father "aborts", the child still exists and still needs material support.

This position is also consistent with the fact that many States have laws that dictate that if a woman gives birth while legally married, her husband is automatically the legal father of that child-- regardless of paternity testing-- and may be held responsible for child support. By remaining married to the woman and taking the child into his home, he is agreeing to take responsibility for that child's upbringing.

Unfortunately, in the event of divorce, the law does not grant the non-custodial parent the same right to transfer the responsibility to another willing person. I am not sure how to address that one, because allowing this would make it too easy for the non-custodial parent to remove themself from an obligation that they have agreed to-- and too many divorced parents are willing to do so.

Regarding the thread title-- men cannot have parental rights during the pregnancy, because they cannot take responsibility for the care of the child. Until it is biologically independent of its mother-- until it can be removed from her womb alive-- the only person who can take this responsibility is the mother; this means that she is the only person who can logically be allowed to make decisions regarding the child.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

One is no rights for the male, and the other is sole rights to the male.

"Mutual consent" would be a good option to add, in order to get me to vote.

Your position is impossible. If the father has any rights in the decision-- if mutual consent is required-- then he can force the mother to go through with the pregnancy regardless of her preferences. She has no rights.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

When a man has any kind of sex with a woman, he is legally giving her his sperm as a gift. She is then free to do with it as she pleases (she could even give it too a lesbian friend.......that would make for a good story ).

This kind of insanity is why parental responsibilities (and therefore rights) should not be legally associated with reproduction; they should be based on the parents' agreement to keep and raise the child.