I was initially talking about Gen Xs commentatary in that men can choose not to be a father in the first tri-mester. Nothing there if I remember, was speaking about rape or drug induced, deliberate fraud, or deliberate deciet by the woman.

In the case of deiberate deciet, I believe the man should NOT be responsible, though, like MrsPigPen, Im not sure what that means to society. "in the best interests of the child" holds up, in a truly twisted way, but I see it as unacceptable. Im trying to think of a paralell situation, of something so grave being done to you and then being held responsable for it; I can find none at the moment. ( Maybe if you purposely addict someone to drugs against their will, or have sex with them while being HIV positive) It could by all means be prosecuted as a crime, practically a crime against humanity. Then, we would put a woman with a child in jail, not an effective solution. In truth, I have no solution to this problem, these things are so far out of my personal comprehension its like an alien planet.

I do agree with Author Musician, if we can reverse an already existing problem; that its a long time needed that we educate our youth to a much greater extent about sex, the distinction between each others drives and how to protect themselves in many areas.

Women and Men have sex and enter relationships for completely distinct reasons, especially in the onset. Both need to be better prepared to know what they could be in for.

That in itself is a huge topic, in that psychology plays a big part in Why a woman would want to get pregnant from a man against his will or why a male would rape a woman, etc etc etc etc...It would appear a total overhaul of our societal norms and mores be neccessary. EEK.

Sometimes I think our biology has not run parallel with our society and there is some catching up to do. The male biological urge to spred seed among as many females as possible yet have little or no responsability for those actions comes from tribal times, but currently is not meeting up with societies expectations causing stress in relationships and society. That is understandable. As far as women choosing unviable partners to have children with goes against the natural biology of the female in choosing a good genetic mate and family member. This I dont understand, except that somehow we got way offtrack. Possibly society is just to messed up to even consider fixing, and the chips will fall as they may, case by case.

Like at least one other responder said, this thread is a bit sickening.
My wife and son are educators, both teach 8th grade. They know many children from single parent homes, or dual parent where neither cares much about the child.
It is easy to see that their lives are more difficult. Children know when they are not "wanted", and being wanted is something that needs to exist before conception as well as throughout their childhood.
I was unwanted by one parent, and un-noticed by the other, but both were there and I did get fed, housed, and clothed. No love, but hey, who needs that?
GenX, you sound like an attorney, are you? And you also sound selfish. Not trying to be rude here, just trying to determine what your real complaint is.
Children are our future and we owe it to the future to either stay out of the reproductive process altogether, or to do it right. I think children do have a right to good parents, or at least one good parent. They have a right to be sheltered, not just housed and nourished, not just fed, and by all means loved. If you can't do parenthood right, get a vasectomy and place yourself on the bench. We don't need that kind of player in the game.
I think that the original question was not stated correctly, as it appears to be about the right of a man to have sex irresponsibly rather than about reproductive rights.
On the other hand, I could be all wrong. I am just a simple father and grandfather who has actually experienced the joy of children and grandchildren. For those who opt out of this wonderful experience, whatever the reason or method, you get my pity, whether you "want it" or not.

Sadly, the question IS formulated correctly. As the abortion reality demonstrates, women's reproductive rights ARE about the right to have sex irresponsibly. Abortion on demand means any reason, i.e., no standard of responsibility is required. A woman MAY have very good reasons for having an abortion, but she doesn't have to...

The reason I raised the subject of non-consensual conception is simply that its one of the most popular arguments offered to justify "choice." That our society currently requires men to meet the obligation of becoming a parent even when the condition is a result of criminal victimization, yet exempts women from the same obligations for any reason, is the issue.

The current schema of assigning legal parental responsibilities is flawed. This question illustrates one reason why its flawed. Allowing men to descend to the legal level of irresponsibility of women in this area is an idea that I can't get behind, but neither can the injustice of the current situation be ignored.

There are solutions, the biggest of which is to no longer allow women to use their children as a "get out of jail free" card in escaping responsibility, a situation which Artemise notes ...

If that's not an effective solution, are we left with the conclusion that leaving a child in the care of a "criminal against humanity" is effective

Good Day.

As it is, the government is having limited success enforcing child support and custody issues. I am not sure that more legislation will ameliorate the situation.

Certainly, a couple planning on copulating could sign something akin to a Pre-Coitus Agreement. Sounds pretty freaky to me. Makes me glad I'm married.

But as long as male and female let their glands supercede their intellects, there will be unpremeditated coitus.

I do not see an alternative to civil cases for each situation. It is not criminal to impregnate someone except in certain circumstances.

If a man is determined to "spread around his inheritance," he should be aware of the consequences. If a woman wants to take the risk of conceiving a child whose father is a good lover but a jerk, she should be willing to experience the consequences. If a man wants to be a father involved in the child's life, I think the woman should at least give him a chance to talk to her.

In the case of nonconsensual sex, criminal law takes precedence.

Please dont try to make this more sickening than you already have by blowing situations out of porportion. I was responding to your cases of drug induced rape against men or boys, for the possibility of pregnancy, which I am sure there may actually be one or two in the entire nation. A ridiculous arguement to waste and defer attention to in this forum, but since you seem to think it worthy, its criminal, just as rape against women. Yes, put them in jail and their kids too. Are you happy now?

As Elpeth noted: In the case of nonconsensual sex, criminal law takes precedence.

Over and done, now that weve solved those two cases, on to the actual thread which pertains to a greater majority.

If I understand you correctly, you are asking if it would be equal to a woman's right to abort or raise to give men their own "opt out" clause?

If that's the case, I seriously see where you're coming from.

If a woman becomes pregnant, feels it is a mistake, perhaps will not gain custody (as unlikely as that is...) she just kills it. Or she can raise it, and force thousands of dollars out of the father over the next twenty years.

If a man sires a pregnancy, feels it is a mistake, perhaps will not gain custody (no way in hell, unless he can prove the mother is completely unfit to be a parent), he has no options. If he kills it, he's charged with murder. He can't raise it unless he can prove the mother is an unfit parent (oddly enough, wanting to kill the unborn child doesn't make you an unfit parent).

So, to make things equal, in this case, it would seem that:

A. Men should not have to be parents (emotionally or financially) if they chose not to be - just as women have that choice.
B. Men should have a right to force Abortion at any time a woman would.
C. Men should have a right to raise a child that the mother does not want - which would basically require the end of abortions without the Father's conscent. (I can hear the femenists screaming now...)

However, your position that men should simply be able to "opt out" during the woman's abortion window would seem to be fiscally fair, though still ignoring the greater inequalities involved.

-Robert

As I've noted, criminal law does NOT take precedence. With that in mind and noting your previous sarcasm, please clarify your position: Do you think it should take precedence?

No. Put the mother in jail, terminate her parental rights, forever. I fail to fathom your twisted desire to punish the kids for the mother's crime, unless there is some other reason you keep linking the mother to the kids. Oh, I know.

They're her kids, period. Except when its time to pay for them, then you're gung-ho for enslavi, er, involving the father. The possibility that a woman could entrap a man is one that you're unwilling to truly face. What, does it offend your sense of feminine moral superiority? Does it make you "sick" for a man to say "my body, my choice!"?

These are simple questions of justice:

What basis is there for having different reproductive rights and responsibilities for men and women?

What basis is there for holding that force or fraud relieves women of any responsibility, but not men?

How is the cause of equality advanced when there is a heirarchy of rights, with women's right of "choice" at the top, below that the child's right to support, and last, men's right to ?? What?

To make this conversation even more fun, here's another chink to consider:

Women who cheat on their husbands, but the courts rule must continue to support (read:give the mother money) even though the children are not theirs.

-Robert

"My body my choice begins" when you decide to put it in. Weve been through this previously. If as a male you do not want children, you have the choice of condoms or abstinance. Men are not, as you would like to play it, victims in this scenario. You have choice before the fact.
Either party may use available contraception, making both partners responsible.



Abortion being legal does not include ALL women, since many are against the practice for personal or religious reasons, therefore the legal ability of all women to have abortions does not cover all women, hence impossible to legislate mens reproductive rights based on the LEGAL availability of women to abort.

Many legislators and our sitting President are against abortion and would have it abolished if possible and are actively working against legal abortions, hence leading that ALL men pay for their children, desired or not. So better get your condoms on and start taking reproductive rights from the start.

Abortion is not equal to contrception, but has farther reaching implications, in cases such as serious birth defects, mongoloidism, rape, incest or threat to the mothers life.

If we deemed that because any woman can (legally but possibly not morally) opt out, therefore any father who didnt want a child can also 'opt' out, it would create an impossible burden on individuals, society and the courts, not to mention the children.


Bikerdad, your pounding this debate from the point of female criminal intent/ male rape for the express purpose of pregnancy and basing your arguement there is just too ludicrous to be worth going over time and time again. Lawmaking in a country as large as ours cannot be based on such few cases. I suppose they will have to be taken one at a time and precedent set then. I think its been answered to the best of anyones ability.
Fraud: Are you claiming lack of male responsability to make desicions about sexuality? to THINK before the ACT, then blame the woman for fraud? It wont hold up in court. Humans lie to each other all the time and judges now ask, "why didnt you take care of yourself?"