Should Men Have a Say?

[molten_dragon]

And if both parents choose abandonment? (ie real abandonment where the baby is put into a sack and left outdoors for the animals)

I'm not saying a man should be allowed to just walk off and never talk to the woman again and she should have no recourse. Here's how I envision this working.

A man and woman have casual sex and she gets pregnant.

She decides she's not aborting.

She should then be required to inform the man in writing within a reasonable length of time (30 days maybe?) that she's pregnant and does not intend to abort.

The man then has the same length of time to decide if he wants to be a father or not. If he does, then he'll either help her raise the child, or she can give up her rights towards it and he'll raise it alone. If not, he is required to sign legally binding documents giving up all rights and responsibilities towards the child and present them to the woman.

If the father doesn't sign those documents and just leaves, then he can be held accountable by the law for child support just like he can now.

 

[molten_dragon]

Fine - impose a nine-month waiting period before you can have sex.

:doh

It still wouldn't be equal. The man would then have 9 months and the woman 18.

 

[Panache]

And what about the kid? Forget about the kid?

I don't know, is the kid a person? If so, killing the kid should be illegal. If not, its non-opinion doesn't matter at the time.

Once the ZEF becomes a person, then the parent(s) that chose to bring it into the world is responsible for it, just like any other kid.

 

[kerussll]

The lady who decided to keep it without input from a man, can care for it without financial input from a man.

About half the women of this country feel abortion is wrong and not an option for them. So it would be wrong to encourage/intimidate them to have one. Strangely it's usually the same half of the country who is advocating for laws that get rid of a father's responsibilities...I find that very odd.

 

[Panache]

About half the women of this country feel abortion is wrong and not an option for them. So it would be wrong to encourage/intimidate them to have one. Strangely it's usually the same half of the country who is advocating for laws that get rid of a father's responsibilities...I find that very odd.

Don't half of the men in this country feel the same way? If so, they won't be encouraging women to get abortions. Problem solved.

 

[rivrrat]

People go to a sperm bank with the pre existing condition that the man will not be responsible for any offspring that result

Which is exactly what a woman does when she CHOOSES to have a child that the man does not want. See how easy that is?

Back to square one.

Men can decide whether to squirt their sperm in a woman. A woman can decide to let him. If a pregnancy results, she can decide to keep it or not, he has no say in that. That's the way it should be.

Of course he should have no say in that. No one is saying he should, legally. Why do you keep insinuating that we are saying that a man should decide if a woman keeps a kid or not?

That's the sickness of all this: you want to claim the right to say to a woman "either abort your kid or raise him without any help from his father."

Yes. With the added option that she can give the child up for adoption. What's so hard to understand about all of this? What is sick about the woman having multiple choices if she finds herself pregnant? What's so sick about the man having two choices if a woman he slept with finds herself pregnant? Is there something sick about choices?

 

[kerussll]

Don't half of the men in this country feel the same way? If so, they won't be encouraging women to get abortions. Problem solved.

What math class did you take? :lol:

 

[misterman]

Of course he should have no say in that. No one is saying he should, legally. Why do you keep insinuating that we are saying that a man should decide if a woman keeps a kid or not?

Because they keep insinuating it.

As it stands, you want to give men the power to blackmail them into it.

 

[misterman]

Yes. With the added option that she can give the child up for adoption. What's so hard to understand about all of this? What is sick about the woman having multiple choices if she finds herself pregnant? What's so sick about the man having two choices if a woman he slept with finds herself pregnant? Is there something sick about choices?

It's sick when a parent can so easily abandon a child, yes. It shouldn't be easy. It's necessary sometimes, but it shouldn't be easy.

 

[rivrrat]

About half the women of this country feel abortion is wrong and not an option for them. So it would be wrong to encourage/intimidate them to have one.

Then there's adoption. Still her choice and hers alone. If she doesn't consider those choices options for her, that's on her and no one else. If she has the choice of abortion, adoption, or raise a child without the financial resources and she chooses the latter... that's on her. HER choice. HER responsibility. That she doesn't consider abortion an option doesn't negate the fact that it IS one.

 

[VanceMack]

Did I say that? No. You have no idea what my views on abortion are.

If you want to talk about abortion, we can talk about it. It's an entirely different issue though.

Actually you said precisely that...its not a child til its born.

 

[rivrrat]

Because they keep insinuating it.

As it stands, you want to give men the power to blackmail them into it.

LOL Like the fact that women NOW have the power to blackmail men? Tell them that they're on the pill when they're not? Poke holes in condoms? Tell a man that she's pregnant with his kid when it's someone elses?

Bull****. The man would have no power whatsoever to blackmail anyone. He would merely be telling her the facts and allowing her to then make an informed decision on the subject.

It's sick when a parent can so easily abandon a child, yes. It shouldn't be easy. It's necessary sometimes, but it shouldn't be easy.

Who said anything about easy? That's irrelevant.

 

[Panache]

What math class did you take? :lol:

Through calculus, why?

 

[Panache]

Because they keep insinuating it.

As it stands, you want to give men the power to blackmail them into it.

It's not blackmail to say that if someone wants to have a kid, they have to be the one to take care of it. How is that blackmail?

 

[OxymoronP]

I recently stumbled across this article and was wondering everyone's thoughts on it?

Why Men Should Have No Say On The Abortion Issue

What do you think about men having a voice in the abortion debate if they themselves are not fathers or fathers to be?

I think it all comes down to defining at what stage a fetus becomes a person protected by law.

 

[Marilyn Monroe]

LMFAO No, and no one is suggesting anything of the sort.

What we ARE suggesting is that the man can go to court and state he does not want the child she is CHOOSING to have, and therefore wants released from all financial obligations should she CHOOSE to have and keep the child.

No, as long as a woman has a choice in whether or not to be a mother (be it by abortion or adoption), then so should the man. Period.

False.

We all have choices, and having sex and knowing the consequences of the sex act (just because you don't like the consequence)doesn't mean you can toss responsibility. Women have all the say because they are taking all the risks. Forking out maybe $180,000 for a human life to be adequately supported is small potatoes.

You're saying if a man doesn't want a kid today,(but maybe in ten years he'll change his mind), that he should not be responsible, even if the kid is born and this man is the father? Just because he doesn't want it? My guess, fatherhood would fall from the face of the earth, and some mother's eventually would do the same, and the human race would go to hell in a handbasket.

 

[Panache]

False.

We all have choices, and having sex and knowing the consequences of the sex act (just because you don't like the consequence)doesn't mean you can toss responsibility. Women have all the say because they are taking all the risks. Forking out maybe $180,000 for a human life to be adequately supported is small potatoes.

You're saying if a man doesn't want a kid today,(but maybe in ten years he'll change his mind), that he should not be responsible, even if the kid is born and this man is the father? Just because he doesn't want it? My guess, fatherhood would fall from the face of the earth, and some mother's eventually would do the same, and the human race would go to hell in a handbasket.

So why didn't this apocalypse occur prior to the invention of child support laws?

 

[Marilyn Monroe]

So why didn't this apocalypse occur prior to the invention of child support laws?

Men stayed at home and raised the family. Cost a lot more than $200,000. Child support has been a huge pain in the rear for the courts, but it has helped out a lot of children. No child support you'd have a lot more juvenile deliquents.

 

[misterman]

So why didn't this apocalypse occur prior to the invention of child support laws?

Maybe it was a problem back then. Maybe that's why the laws were passed.

The main reason is that sex outside marriage was much less common. Marriage is one of those legal things that was supposed to prevent this.

Fathers abandon their kids too much now, even with the laws in place. Don't tell me you think it won't happen alot more without the laws.

 

[molten_dragon]

False.

We all have choices, and having sex and knowing the consequences of the sex act (just because you don't like the consequence)doesn't mean you can toss responsibility.

Unless you're a woman, then it's fine to have sex knowing the consequences and toss the responsibility. :roll:

Women have all the say because they are taking all the risks.

Bull****. Women may be taking the medical risks, but there are other kinds of risks (namely financial), and men take more than their fair share of those.

Forking out maybe $180,000 for a human life to be adequately supported is small potatoes.

That's real easy to say when you're not the one forking over the money. Even easier when you were the one that wanted the kid in the first place.
Not so easy when you didn't want the kid and you don't have a spare ten grand to give away every year.

You're saying if a man doesn't want a kid today,(but maybe in ten years he'll change his mind), that he should not be responsible,

That is exactly what I'm saying. Because that's exactly the choice that a woman is allowed to make.

even if the kid is born and this man is the father?

No, he should be required to sign away his rights before the child is born.

Just because he doesn't want it?

Yes, of course. After all, it's okay for a woman to abort "just because she doesn't want it".

My guess, fatherhood would fall from the face of the earth, and some mother's eventually would do the same, and the human race would go to hell in a handbasket.

This is flat out ridiculous.

 

[rivrrat]

False.

We all have choices, and having sex and knowing the consequences of the sex act (just because you don't like the consequence)doesn't mean you can toss responsibility. Women have all the say because they are taking all the risks. Forking out maybe $180,000 for a human life to be adequately supported is small potatoes.

Yes, they have all the say. And I propose that they still should. No one is saying anything to the contrary. Rather, what we are saying is that men should also have a say in their own lives. No one is proposing to remove any choice from the women.

You're saying if a man doesn't want a kid today,(but maybe in ten years he'll change his mind), that he should not be responsible, even if the kid is born and this man is the father? Just because he doesn't want it? My guess, fatherhood would fall from the face of the earth, and some mother's eventually would do the same, and the human race would go to hell in a handbasket.

That's a bit dramatic, methinks. Why would the human race go to hell in a handbasket because neither men nor women would be having children they do not want?

Maybe you have not read my posts, but what I have suggested is that IF a man makes his denial of parenthood wishes known during the time period that a woman can still have a legal abortion, THEN he should be released of obligations and the woman can then choose to raise the child on her own, have an abortion, or give the child up for adoption. There is no going to hell in a handbasket involved.

 

[misterman]

Unless you're a woman, then it's fine to have sex knowing the consequences and toss the responsibility. :roll:

Yes, it IS fine. Because its not a kid yet, and there's no responsibility yet. It's preventing the birth of a child, just like birth control. (Unless you are pro-life, which is fine - but an entirely different issue).

 

[misterman]

That's a bit dramatic, methinks. Why would the human race go to hell in a handbasket because neither men nor women would be having children they do not want?

Huh?

They WOULD be having them, and then tossing them aside.

Allowing fathers to abandon children certainly won't prevent unwanted children, it will increase them, dramatically. Unless, of course, women realize they will get stuck with the kids all alone and refuse to have sex without legal assurances. You know, like marriage used to be.

Guys, this whole thing is just going to get you laid less.

 

[misterman]

Yes, they have all the say. And I propose that they still should. No one is saying anything to the contrary. Rather, what we are saying is that men should also have a say in their own lives.

They have all the say they need. Once they have kid, it's too late to decide they don't want a kid.

 

[molten_dragon]

Yes, it IS fine. Because its not a kid yet, and there's no responsibility yet. It's preventing the birth of a child, just like birth control. (Unless you are pro-life, which is fine - but an entirely different issue).

Then it should be fine for a man to legally give up the child before it's born, since it's not a kid yet and there's no responsibility.