I have no children. I'm largely deterred by the unilateral control a woman has to control the parental phenomenon. A mans only control is to abstain entirely from sex in order to be 100% responsible. Birth control... yadda yadda. Risks to well being, etc..

My point on this issue:

Men should have the right to decide in the first tri-mester of any pregnancy they are party to, that they will either "YES" be responsible for the well being of that offspring, or that they will "NO" ... NOT be responsible for the choice ultimately under complete control of the woman (and rightly so), to go thru with the term of the pregnancy and bring a child into the world. Outside of rape, ultimately, a woman has the FINAL level of responsibility in choosing to conceive or risk conception, and currently, because of the lack of ANY RIGHTS WHATSOEVER for men in the way of a choice in the matter per current laws, current laws can be seen as CLEARLY in-equitable. A woman is basicaly in complete control of this matter outright, totally, and as is apparent to most men in this great country of ours, unfairly. When potential single mothers find themselves "unexpectedly pregnant", they know that they have complete control over EVERYONES life who is involved. This is something they know going into any sexual relationship as well.

I believe that the number of single mothers on welfare, and the undeniable existence of "predatory conception" for the social net's invoked, will be drastically reduced if not eliminated by incorporating this simple and above all FAIR idea I am putting forth.

If a man has made his mind up in the first tri-mester, he is bound to that decision. If he says "YES"... (there would surely be paperwork involved), then current social mechanisms would apply, if he says "NO"... she has made the choice to go it alone. Consciously. Period. Accepted all burden and cost related thereto, and rightly so, she would enjoy all the rights to the unilateral up-bringing of that child w/o the father having any rights whatsoever to that child.

This is not a cop-out mechanism for men alone, this is FAIRNESS being added to a currently unfair system.

You've covered a lot here. Exactly what is it you were looking to debate?

Specifically on whether men should have any say on their financial or social obligations generated by the conception and carrying to term of any pregnancy to which they are a party.

That if a man makes the clear statement within the first trimester that he will not bear any liability or obligations to that child once born, he becomes "free and clear" of any future related responsibility. And that a woman upon making the decision to carry to term said child, bears all financial burden, thereby relieving the state, and the man from said obligation. Conversely, if he declares his desire to "participate", he is forever inextricably obliged in the current manner to be fiscally and emotionally responsible for that child.

It may seem like an irresponsible and cruel stance but it actually injects a complete level of fairness to the "dilemma" faced by all adults involved in issues of pregnancy & subsequent financial obligation.

Correct me if I am wrong, but - in order for conception to occur - doesn't as man have to be actively involved?

At that moment of truth? Isn't a man's consent is crucial?

It is women who may not have ... input - forgive the pun - who may not be able to prevent a slip, who do not necessarily have control over the intricate events occuring during intercourse. Women are not really the ones initiating conception. In a literal sense, men literally "inspire" the conception process.

And this guy wants free reign?

This guy wants to be able to ejaculate in as many women as he wants and then - after the event or events- be able to say, well, na. not really interested in kids. - when it was he who did it!

Is this a joke?

jjirout

Firstly, men are far more likely to deny responsibility anyway. They are more likely to walk away, to not make child support payments, etc.

Second, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think women can get pregnant by masturbating...

quark, I'm scanning my biology resources and I'll get back to you on that pregnancy question.

I thought this thread was going to be about a father's right to prevent abortion. Perhaps in part it is but that isn't what my quick read revealed.

In my humble opinion we certainly don't need any more irresponsible father's out there in the world. If one is not able to accept the results of your actions when one is engaging in sexual intercourse, I suggest the method referred to by Quarkhead or the abstinence suggested at the top of the thread. In fact this point is one of the best reasons for frowning on adolescent sex.

If there is a baby out there in the world that is one's genetic offspring, there is a lot of responsibility that goes with it far beyond the meager cash ordered to be paid by a judge. And to be honest, the father who opted out of responsibility in the first trimester would be the one that was the poorer for his actions in the long run.

As for the "undeniable existence of predatory conception," I don't know what to say and I probably don't even want the better explanation of the point behind this concept.

Boy I am confused on this one. Genx what are you asking? If "HE" decides he wants to go forth and have a baby with some woman he got pregnant he will know in the first tri-mester? And I am confused where you get that if he decides at that point no he will not have any respondsibiltiy then what?
What about the woman? She thinks you are going to be supportive in this pregnancy by now and then you say whoa no I don't think so. That is one of the big reasons we have so many illigimate children and single moms. A man can't just say oh no I don't think I want this child now. Too late. That's why they have paternatety tests. It didn't take you 3 months to have sex with a woman but you want 3 months to think about if you want her to have it? I think it has to be the woman's choice. We don't need anymore people on welfare and it seems to me that will continue to happen if you suggest this.

I realize that the idea is guaranteed to be unpopular as evidenced by it not even already being "in discussion" or having apparently already been outright dismissed by society in general...

But I should elaborate just a little.

I only say first Trimester as a "deadline". I actually think that the discussion should take place before any pregnancy can occur. Obviously that is an even better idea, however, for some reason, it has always taken "2 to tango" as they say.

The idea that a man should abstain, extends to women as well. The mere fact that the woman has the option available to her for an abortion, infers the fair idea that a man can also have the right to make clear (ok.. up-front) that regardless of pregnancy or no pregnancy, he is not willing to raise any children, or that he WILL be there.

When 2 people "get together" they have both assumed equal risk of pregnancy by virtue of the function of said activity at a biological level, regardless of birthcontrol options available to either. There is not always a rational decision making process involved once a "threshold of drive" has been passed.

Right now, and rightly so in my personal opinion, the woman has complete control as to whether or not she will receive an abortion. It is her body. She made the decision to risk pregnancy in the first place. Period. Now that she is pregnant, she has a choice to carry and raise, or to not. That is unilateral control, and the fairness of it can only be offset by giving males the legal out, up-front.

I believe that when (not if) this type of law eventually comes to pass, there will be a LOT less promiscuity per women realizing that now, finally, they do not hold all the cards involved in the economics of procreation. I say "When" vs "If" because, unless abortion becomes illegal (I am opposed to revoking the availability of abortion), a woman will continue to have "all the power" over reproductive rights.

I am never advocating a mans right to prevent an abortion. As I say, I believe that "she" makes that decision. HE DOES however need to make his intentions clear at the (or before the) beginning, and once that is done, it becomes binding, whatever the decision. And this is FAR from ludicrous and FAR from irresponsible... I think it is quite the opposite. When 2 people "get to that point", they go into it KNOWING what will come of it and nobody gets "burned". That is a LOT different than what we have now.

This idea of predatory pregnancy is still not coming close to winning me over. Female headed households are among the most at risk households to be in poverty. The idea of trying to live high on the hog by having lots of children makes no sense in my world.

When my parents got divorced my mother worked hard to make sure my father got custody. She realized that we would be financially better off.

I have seen my step-brothers, my first wife, and my present wife all get the short end of parental financial support because they ended up in female headed households.

I realize you are thoughtful in this matter. But I think it is a disagreeable concept and not just because the visionary intellectual work has not already been trailblazed for me.

I think I understand what he is saying. If the woman decides to have the baby then the "father" is held financially responsible. If she decides to have an abortion the "father" also has no say in it. Am I over simplifying here?

So, using this as a base line if the father does not want the baby is the woman therefore "forced" to have it or sign a paper saying the father is NOT responsible in any way for her to continue with it.

Am I kinda on track here?

Darcaine

I'm a bit confused, it seems you are saying a man should be able to say, that if he gets a women pregnant, he should be able to say "I'm not ready to support a kid, and won't" within the first trimester he shouldn't care for the kid. I think this is kind of reasonable (though you as a MAN, should take responsibility) but only if it isn't necessarily needed (such as if the women makes more then enough money, has a new boyfriend/husband, etc....) also, on the abortion bit: I think women should ask the man responsible (if it was a voluntary pregnancy) if he wants to take custody of the kid, rather then sneaking off and getting an abortion.

I only read GenX_Futurist's first post and want to address what he's presented.

I agree to an extent; however, I see many problems in actually creating policy. First of all, if such a policy were to exist it would have to FORBID the man from ever participating in fatherhood in the future, if he chose to back out during the first trimester. If it didn't permanently exclude them from parenthood, I could see many men using this during the first trimester and later coming back wanting involved in the life of the child.

The biggest problem with this is that the child has to be born before a man can know it's his child. Guys have been using the "it's not my kid" crap to get out of this all along. Many times, it turns out that "it is his."

I don't think this type of policy would lower the percentage of single mothers. I think it would actually make more single mothers. A man's decision to not participate in financially raising a child, is not the single motivating factor when a women is considering her right to choose. Also, the decision the man makes in the first trimester could end a relationship between the mother and father that might not have otherwise ended. The women would be so upset with his decision (which would be made in haste) that she would not want anything to do with him.

I chose to have my child as a single parent. I also chose to not tell the father that I was pregnant because I didn't' want him to be involved physically or financially in my life. My son is 10-years-old and an extremely well-adjusted, well-fed child of a single parent without the assistance of the government or the father. Now, if you want to talk about father's rights -- you have every reason to jump all over that!

The only way I think a policy similar to what you are proposing would work is if the contract was written between two parties prior to the pregnancy. A "sex contract" if you will, which would only be enforceable if both sides kept their end of the deal (types of contraceptives used). This would certainly cause many people to not have sex! LOL Otherwise, I see no way for this to work.

There's something to be said for "You play, you pay." If you don't want the risk of having children, a vasectomy is the best solution. If you might want children in the future, adopt.

Do you realize how many abondoned or aborted babies there would be if something like this were to happen? Everyone should be accountable for their actions. Abortion should never have been legalized for woman. In doing so it took all responsibilty away from then mother and now we have kids in high school getting abortion after abortion and that is not right. I belive instead of allowing men to have the right to choose if he wants to be a father to that child or not, they should take abortion away from Mothers and make both parties responsible for that child. If people think they are grown up enough to be having sex they should also be grown up enough to take whatever responsiblity that comes with it. And for those women out there that get pregnant on purpose without the mans knowledge. You all just make me sick you are just selfish and out to get a paycheck, but in the same breath I can also say that men need to take a better look at who they are sleeping with before that commence with the actual act. Do you realize that with all this disregard for the possible children that could come out of having sex we are pretty much killing off our own future? Do you realize that when we are old our world is going to run by these abandoned and or Fatherless children? Look at the statisics, heck look at the world around us right now.

Stephanie Jantzen
www.milliondadsmarch.org

Please let me know if Stephmdm is a little off the subject here. I think this was about a father's right for parental rights not abortion?

Ironic considering she's promoting a Father's Right's website in her signature line.



Oooops! I read the website.........it's not so ironic afterall!!!!

it's all about the legally binding stuff. Up front. I am surprised that it even matters as to when we can prove paternity when once a decision has been made that's all that matters. I'm in agreement that a lot of "woulda been daddy's" will regret the decision they made.. and perhaps not make the same decision later if they are in that situation.

I like 2 things about this idea.

One, I strongly believe that the "unwanted" or "abandoned" baby phenomenon would be reduced nearly entirely. People would be more "careful" about whether they can live with the guilt, or the hurt feelings BEFORE they get into the situation, simply because they have to make a binding decision for every "event", and since I am an optimist in my evaluation of the average conscience of the average person, I doubt that my view on this can be changed by any argument and especially any statistics. As soon as you take the room away to avoid being human about the situation, and you MAKE someone think ahead of time, you put a quantitative minimum on the amount of regard that has to go into the situation... Unlike what we have now. Right now, either party can just "disregard" the issue until later.. and generally they do.

Two, the male will finally have the same ability to decide "not to continue" any conception, accidental or otherwise. This is only about "fair" between the 2 people involved in the conception and doesn't extend into biomass rights or fetal rights, the legality of abortion etc. "necessarily", but what "policy" doesnt share borders with at least SOME other policies?

One intriguing caveate, this COULD have the added benefit to "pro-lifers" of strengthening their long-term stance depending on the "outcry", but I doubt it.

Your right about the fact that men would have the same options as woman. I just dont think that it should be an option for either side once the child is conceived.

What exactly do YOU think the subject is. From what I read the subject seems to be men having the same rights as women concerning pregnancy. Some men would like to have the right to give up their parental rights in the first trimester the same as woman can give up thiers through ABORTION. So please tell me where I have gone off the subject line.

If you read question presented for discussion (see detail at the beginning of the thread -- his first couple posts), he exludes abortion from the discussion design by including the first-trimester as a criteria. In other words, his discussion actually supports abortion as it relates to this particular issue because it allows for an opportunity for the women to make the choice based on the man's decision.

Your response simply throws the entire discussion out the window when the purpose of the thread was to toss around the possibility of a man to have a right to NOT be a father. You could argue that you don't believe a man has a right to NOT be a father; however, abortion is irrelevant to the argument as it's presented in this thread.

I personally chose to participate in this thread because it wasn't an "abortion" thread. If you'd like to include abortion as it relates to this issue, you might consider starting your own thread to present your own question for discussion.

So, Im not allowed to post my opinion on things that were posted after the first post? I didnt quite see that in the rules. The topic is men having the same rights as women on being able to give up their rights in the first trimester of pregnancy. My opion on this was as I posted. Neither party should be able to give up rights to a child that they screwed up and ended up having.

GenX is baseing his agruement on the fact that woman have abortion and men have nothing. So for you to say that you got onto this thread because it didnt have anything to do with abortion is silly.

If your going to debate about an issue you need to debate both sides of the coin, well atleast that is what I learned in debate class in High School.

Belive me, I feel that men/fathers should have all the same rights as women do. I just dont feel that men/fathers should have the rights that women should never have recieved.

I believe he used those references to abortion to explain the exclusions of the argument. Only he can clarify his intentions. I don't participate in abortion discussions so I won't be continuing if it's otherwise.

I'll admit, I'm a little bit unsure of the topic myself. Perhaps GenX_Futurist can clarify, so that we don't derail his thread.

I apologize about the fact that the nature of this thread lends itself to ambiguity. This subject is intended to be related NOT to the legality/availability of abortion, but to the fact that men are lacking the same ability women have to "opt out" of the rights and responsibilities of parenthood once a conception has occurred.

You can always argue that abortion is related, but it is not the core element of this discussion. I suppose I should chime in sometime in an actual abortion-focused thread, and avoid "sidelining" this discussion by discussing the viability of the discussion itself.

If the sheer audacity that this can even be a discussion gets to you too much, just remember that truth is stranger than fiction.

Works for me. Thank you for clarifying, and please carry on.

The area of debate you have started, GenX_F is narrow but a good example of prejudice against men as parents in our society today.

My opinion:

A woman should notify the male when she first knows she is pregnant. There are four scenarios which could take place.

1) Neither the woman or the man wish to have a child.
2) The woman does not want a child and the man does.
2) The woman wants a child and the man does not.
3) Both want a child.

If a woman wants to have an abortion, she should be able to. It is her body and the man should not be able to force her to maintain pregnancy.

If a woman wants a child, she should not be able to force the man to provide for it against his wishes.

If a woman wants to put the child up for adoption and the man does want the child, he should be considered the parent upon birth.

If both parents want a child, both should have equal access and financial responsibility.

------

That is my summation of fair treatment for both parties.

Currently, males have no status as a parent upon conception. Males can be saddled with all financial responsibility and no access to the child. Males can be notified many years after the birth of the child and be held responsible for past bills. Woman are given a free ride in the eyes of the law. This is due to the stereo-type of a single woman being abandoned to raise a brood of children. The laws presume this is the case with each woman and man. It is time for the law to presume both parent are worthy and equal unless proven otherwise.

I have not dealt with the problem of woman notifying the male. I can not see how you can force a woman to tell the truth. Then there is the scenario where the male finds out years later about the birth.

I think GenX has addressed an interesting double standard about legislation toward gender. A woman has the right to terminate pregnancy or to keep the child. This is a choice that a woman can only decide for herself regardless if the male partner wants the child to be born. The man can not dictate over a woman's body. Yet a man does not have the choice to terminate pregnancy, it is not he who is pregnant. However legislation requires the man to be an active provider for the child whether he wants to be a father or not. If motherhood is a choice shouldn't fatherhood be one too? Also, how much government control should be geared toward individual's reproductive rights and personal lives?

Damn! I had a cogent and well-argued reply, then I hit the back button by mistake and lost it all!

Never mind, I'll try again.

I think I'm right in my understanding of your proposal in that it only really comes into play when a woman wants the child but the man doesn't. Where neither parent does, it's not really a problem unless anti-abortion campaigners get their way; and you've been at pains to point out that you don't want to interfere with a woman's right to an abortion if she doesn't want a child, even if her male partner (even if only sexual) does. (So your proposal doesn't give a man full reproductive equality with women because, in a disagreement, he can't either force an abortion or prevent one. This is fair enough, because until men can carry children ourselves that's not on the agenda, so let it pass)

So, the only time your proposal really comes into play is when a man doesn't want children and a woman does.

The first flaw I see in this is a mundane but problematic one - I know plenty of men who are now happy and caring fathers who categorically denied that they wanted kids beforehand, and weren't sure right up until birth whether they would be happy with it (never mind the first trimester). They changed their minds after (or during) the birth. You proposal is that any decision the man takes in the first trimester would be a binding one, which to mean anything would have to imply that it would be binding on both mother and father, so many fathers would fall foul of your proposal because they changed their minds during the pregnancy (or even the early childhood of their kids).

Secondly, and more importantly, the exercising of your proposed right to deny fatherhood not only affects the father and mother, who can discuss the matter, but also the child (who cannot). And, unlike in abortion, we are not talking about a theoretical child, but a real, living, breathing one, that can ask questions? I know it's not a legally defined right (in terms of having it's own constitutional clause), but is not a fundamental principle of Western societies the idea that the exercise of one person's rights should not infringe the rights of another person without their consent? And is it not also a commonly-understood fact that a child has the right to both parents? And does not a new right to deny fatherhood infringe the right of a child to a father?

The way I see it, the law as it stands implicitly understands this principle - child support payments are the price you pay for not being there. They are the compensation you pay your children for your choice not to be their parent. Giving the man a get-out clause from parental responsibility of any kind removes that right from the child. Not only does that require a big political and social change, it sets uncomfortable precedents. Will adopted children only be able to seek out their mothers when they reach the age of majority? Will the children born under your law be prevented from ever seeking out their fathers, or just until their 18th birthdays? Will their mother even be allowed to tell them who their father is, what he does, or where he lives? Will the father be allowed to take out a restraining order against his children that prevents them from visiting or telephoning him before their 18th birthdays, or forever?

There are a whole host of such issues that arise from your proposal, and I don't think you've thought beyond your initial (arguably, rather selfish) proposal that fathers should be allowed to let themselves off the hook if they want to carry on behaving like teenagers (even if they are teenagers).

I disagree Julian, a child does not have the right to have a father figure. Like wise, the child does not have the right to have a mother figure either. The child does however require a parental figure until emancipation. Take for instance if a pregnant mother had a committed male partner who died before the child was born. If the child had the "right" to a father then the government would be required to substitute a father figure for that child. Don't you agree that this type of state sponsored communion is extremely intrusive?

I understand the problem with your first proposal but this is to adopt an understand that the father has a choice much like the mother for the duration of the first trimester that the father does not want to be a legal parent to the child. The mother, given this time, has the choice to terminate pregnancy--this is her choice. If the biological father decides later on that he would like to participate as a father figure if the mother chooses to have the child and allows the father's contributions is it the duty of the government to deny him this?

Just to push a double standard of the law...if a mother decides not to be a parent despite the opposition of the father and terminates the pregnancy can the father still pursue some form of child support retribution from the mother for the child that he was denied? For what the law currently stands accordingly is that if a biological father decides not to be a legal parental figure, and yet can not force the mother to abort, the government can still require the father to pay child support.

I think good question is what rights does an "individual" have to reproduction according to our legislation?

And still I ask how much control should the government have upon our reproductive rights and personal lives?

[QUOTE]

I suppose, in the interest of fairness, I should point out that a mother has a certain amount of time to reconsider giving her baby up for adoption, once it enters the world. A truly analogous situation would be to allow the father to terminate his parental rights (but this would require a contractual agreement) during the first trimester, but reconsider after the birth ....if he is willing to participate actively in the raising and support of the child.

Gee, And here I used to think putting on a Trojan was a big deal.

Fisherman51, Please try to be constructive in your posts. One liners don't leave much to build on.

The realistic assumption giving the above limitation would be to extend the "life" decision to the "financial" burden.

One of the problems with the "woman's right to choose" arguments is that, by default, the woman is making a choice for the father as well.

In the above (assuming abortion is legal):

a. abortion is chosen, or the baby is taken to term an given up for adoption (neither is held financially responsible). By assumption, abortion is chosen (since the decision is against pregnancy, not really against motherhood).
b. same scenario as a. except that the father can make the decision to raise the child. This scenario has been played out many times, where the mother gives up her right to custody, whether that is to the father or to a grandparent
d. the easiest, since both accept the responsibilities of parenthood.
c. is the stickler that Gen X is trying to address.

The assumption is that, since it "takes two to tango" the father should automatically be responsible financially, as well as parentally. How is that fair to the father? If the woman is given the choice to "opt out" of pregnancy (and, by extension, out of motherhood) why isn't the father given the same choice, such as scenarios b or c?

He wants to know why the father cannot "opt out" of fatherhood, since the mother is given that choice. In essence, the father is bound legally by the decision that the mother makes.

If we accept the "woman's decision" argument, we should also accept the "father's decision" argument and allow him to opt of of fatherhood, both financially and parentally.

Grey Seal, whom you are quoting here, agrees with you in his post. Who are you addressing?

I, too, agree. I would change one thing about Gen X's proposal, however. A woman can choose adoption, and later decide to keep the baby instead.
I would suggest that a truly equitable situation would be to allow the man the choice to terminate his role as father during the first trimester, but give him the opportunity to reconsider (for a short, predetermined amount of time) after the child's birth. On the surface, I don't advocate forcing anyone to become a father any more than I would advocate forcing someone to become a mother.

The problem with all of this is that once the child is born, society might have to pay for its care. By allowing the father to abandon his financial responsibility towards his offspring, his subsequent offspring might cost taxpayers a lot of money. I don't know what the answer is to that one, realistically.

I think something here was missed by all. If men dont want a baby, put on a condom, everytime. The premise of Gen X commentary is that he would like to have unprotected sex, then blame the woman for an unwanted pregnancy and bow out, in the first trimester no less, CLAIMING MALE VICTIMHOOD to being a father. FALSE. You have the means to prevent the situation. It is continually mentioned here the womans right to get pregnant and choose to have a child without male consent. A bogus arguement, when a man can prevent pregnancy for the most part by wearing a condom. In this case there are no victims, only volunteers.
If you are intimate, you know the consequences, these are children we are talking about, we are not sires and sows but adult humans, we know what it means when we have sex.

In a case of a broken condom, both parties are responsible. Abortion is not an option to all women, based on religious, concience, health or other issues. Formulating opinions based upon the idea that abortion can be used as a form of birth control, the womans ability to terminate a pregnancy after the fact, therefore the mans option to 'bail out' is totally unacceptable and I am suprised at so many references to such a thing. I am Pro-choice, but there is a real debate about the morality of it ,ongoing, and constant political and financial obstacles to getting abortions. Its not getting a pedicure for gods-sake.

I am convinced by this discussion that our society is depraved and psychologically/mentally ill. By all reason these things should be discussed before a pregnancy is in the picture, but obviously we are talking about Roosters being able to spred their seed without consequence and women bearing the brunt of their biology, poor male victims of women trying to make them pay for putting their penises in and pretending they didnt know what would happen, and, hey, fuggedaboutit. While, all along we dont teach children sex education to protect little girls from this very problem. This whole discussion is really sick. One part is about female physiology and the other about defence of irresponsability, based on female physiology upon which she is forced to teriminate, a horrible process that society in general condemns, or possibly lose all support, all around, the woman loses. Golly, I think Im going to convert to Islam.

Its time to step up to the plate. If you dont want a baby and you dont trust your partner, wear a condom and stop blaming women for your lack of responsability in YOUR drives and decisions, or superficial sexual encounters and their results. If you take responsability, we can stop manipulating you through sex, and you can stop the blame game, a good thing overall.



No way. I would NEVER have a relationship under these circumnstances, I would run from any man who presented me these theories, and any woman who would is psychologically damaged, or certainley will be afterwards.

I think it's a great idea for that very reason! This puts everyone's intentions out at the get-go. It's a wonderful screen for honesty. The man can be forthcoming with the,"I just want this relationship to be about sex. I'm not staying if you get pregnant." The woman is free to not get involved with said man. Less time wasted for everyone. No pleading 'double standard' in the event of a pregnancy, either.

Most of the responses objecting to GenX's proposal are based upon inadequate or even erroneous assumptions. I'm going to deal with three of the errors in this post, assumptions that fly in the face of legal and physical reality.

The first is the assumption, offered near the beginning of the thread, that a man's consent is necessary for conception to occur. The reality is that men do not always consent to participating in conception. To be clear, we have to differentiate between both "legal consent" and actual, physical consent.

That legal consent does not always occur is obvious in that women can, and have, gotten pregnant when they have been guilty of statutory rape. Statutory rape is legally defined as sexual activity with someone who cannnot, due to moral and/or intellectual immaturity, give consent. So, legally, statutory rape is one example of non-consensual insemination.

Another example involving legal consent involves fraud and/or deceit. Fraud and deceit violate the tenet of "informed consent." Now, I want to be clear that I am speaking of deliberate and wilfull actions here. The guy who assumed that she was on the Pill is simply an idiot who can't claim he was deceived. In contrast, the woman who assures the man that she has had her tubes tied when she hasn't, claims to be on the Pill when she isn't, deliberately compromises the integrity of a condom, etc, has engaged in fraud and/or deceit, and has deprived the man of informed consent. Ergo, non-consensual insemination.

Finally, a third example of non-consensual insemination is a blast from the past, updated by the wonders of modern pharmaceuticals. In Genesis, Lot's (?) daughters, lacking husbands and wanting children, got Papa drunk and then while he was blotto, "had their way with him." Today's version would be even simpler. Slip a guy a mickey of Ecstasy/roofies or whatever along with a nice boost of Viagara, and voila he "standin tall" and out of it at the same time. The physical problem of insemination is overcome, and he doesn't have any choice in the matter. Again, non-consensual insemination.

Now that any illusions about whether or not a man can participate in conception without his consent have been dashed, we can move to the next error, specifically, that it is the "fact" of consent that justifies enforcing the obligations of fatherhood upon a man. The Kansas Supreme Court, in finding a 13 year old boy who was a victim of statutory rape, responsible for child support, believes otherwise. It has specifically stated that the boy's lack of consent did not matter. Other courts have made similar rulings involving proven fraudulent behavior on the part of the mother. (Understand, if the violation of truth is irrelavent to matters of justice, we're in a bad way.) The justification always proferred is that of "to bad for you, but the 'best interests of the child' dictate that you are responsible."

The third error is the assumption that a man should have no say in what happens before birth, because he has no responsibility. This is the flip side of "I have to carry this kid for the next nine months, so its my choice." Unfortunately for those making this assumption, the law in most, if not all, states clearly places prenatal obligations upon the father. A man is legally obligated before the birth to provide both for the unborn child's AND mother's pregnancy related medical expenses. Failure to do so can result in imprisonment, i.e., the gov't is prepared to use any level of force necessary, up to and including lethal force, in order to compel one individual, always a man, to serve another.

These, folks, are the "facts on the ground." For many of you, its time to realign your assumptions with both the physical and legal reality. You may be able to make valid arguments against GenX's proposal, but you can't do so based upon the above shattered assumptions.

Forgive me but, your arguments are THE most marginal.
Statatory rape, a woman compromising a condom, or claims tubes tied, and most ridiculous, a women getting her father drunk to get pregnant. I dont believe any of us are debating within the realms of the Jerry Springer Show or biblical events 2000 years old.

The 3 most common lies (a satire): The check is in the mail, Im sorry I got stuck in traffic and Ive had a vasectomy.

The previous posts rely on a premise that women are just out there trying to get pregnant by any screwed up loser on the planet, or a child father, as in the above.
I suppose by these discussions, women who want to get pregnant IE: cant find a suitable male and choose someone who doesnt want a baby; will lie to do it and then try take him for everything he has. Pin parentage on some unwilling jacko.
The point is, if hes a loser, who wants sex from her but nothing more, WHY would she CHOOSE to bear his child? Most likely its co-dependancy and a lack of education, so we are talking about two defective people. Both parties are equally disenfranchised, and in effect, need therapy.
I feel more likely, with the males who have entered this discussion, we are talking about predators who would try to portray themselves victims. A worse case scenario, because there is no love involved, but extreme selfishness and hedonism to the point of sacrificing the truly innocent, a child of ones making.

Normal healthy people, with normal healthy relationships, talk about these things, plan, trust, and deal with unexpected circumnstances. Its the predators that wish to have relationships with damaged females then claim no responsability for their own actions, that get drawn into courts about child support. Its males who have no connection with their offspring because of their own selfishness, that get court orders to pay or go to jail, bearing of course, exception to the rule.

Yes, there are extremes. Women do decieve, men decieve, people will treat you only as you allow yourself to be treated. All of us are responsible for our actions.

Ive got some words. Ethics. Depth. Judgement. Responsability. Being a Man in its real sense, not a whiny victim of your penis for your whole life. Just a thought.

I always thought it would be interesting to have been a fly in the wall in Lott's house and see what REALLY happened there. Events took place over 2000 years ago have a way of changing in the telling. Especially during a time when all children (especially daughters) and wives were considered to be property.

GenX, you're wise to be careful. I have made it over 50 years without getting entangled in unintended children, and let's just say I've been lucky because I've not been completely careful.

However, my sigoth (who has had a hysterectomy and has the scar to prove it--hint hint), Lydia's kid did get pregnent in her teen years on purpose. Her partner, a complete idiot with no sense of direction or ambition, is now in prison. He wants no part of the child rearing. So, in a sense, he decided exactly what you're suggesting--the mother takes on all responsibility. His price was to purposefully get nabbed in a major robbery, and poof! No responsibility. No freedom, either. I think he enjoys his chains--some folks are like that.

So the mother thought Lydia would take on the responsibility, but no, that wasn't the deal either. When the daughter heard that from Lydia, she wanted an abortion. We negotiated her out of that decision, and now, almost ten years later, and after helping to get daughter through college plus giving lots of moral support along the way, the grandkid thrives.

I believe a better way to handle sex, relationships, and children is within our means as humans. I believe we can do much better than we have been, and that this way involves a big attitude change in our society. Actually, it involves a set of attitude changes.

First off, let's get real about sex and sexual drives. We know that young men get the drive a lot stronger and a lot earlier than young women. I'd propose that we allow professionals to help ease the tension and teach what this is all about. That would, if handled right, eliminate backseat conceptions that lead to shotgun weddings, really big babies claimed as premature, and crummy marriages that end in divorce and family destruction.

Granted, that may be asking too much of our tender psychies at this point in time. But then, this point in time will move forward, so maybe future generations will master the technique that has been practiced in older, tribal societies. I'm talking about older women in the tribe actually doing the nasty with the young men, to teach and guide these boys into manhood.

Along these lines, I think professionals should also help young women to understand what young men are all about, plus what is going on with the young women's bodies, emotions, yearnings and desires. If we can mature enough to be completely honest with the kids and allow what nature demands to happen within controlled and safe environments, then the kids, as they grow into mature adults, will be able to make better choices for all involved--their mates, their children, their parents, and society as a whole.

I know I'm dreaming here and talking Utopia. Eh, I can't help it: I'm liberal. I grew up guessing what the heck was going on, and any texts that talked about it openly, including scholarly works, were considered dirty! In addition, there were all kinds of head games going on in relationships. What, that's a better way? I don't think so.

Anyway, the legal matters would become moot if both young men and women could get the guidance they need from mature, professional, sensitive, and wise adults. I do concur that your proposal would give fathers more say over both relationships and possible children from relationships, but what a tangled web this becomes!

Guess I am asking for a lot. Nevermind. Be careful, be very careful. It's a jungle out there

I agree that there is a double standard, but it isn't one that's rectifiable, as far as I can see. I don't imagine any of the men complaining that the father is liable for medical bills of the pregnant woman would actually want to be pregnant, themselves, and have the situation in reverse. Nature is inherently unfair.

I would find it very hard to believe that even the most adamant pursuer if sexually reversed inequality really thinks that women have the good deal in reproduction and rearing.

Marginal in what sense? In the sense that they don't happen, are fanciful flights of my imagination? Or marginal in the sense that because they challenge cherished paradigms and would demand change if true, so they should be pushed off to the margin so they can be ignored?




The statutory rape example is not marginal, unless you consider the Kansas Supreme Court to be "marginal" and the Roman Catholic pederasty scandal "marginal." The deliberate deception of one partner by the other is not marginal, unless you consider deliberate deception in order to foist parenthood on an individual and then bring the police powers of the state into play to be "marginal." The utilization of drugs in order to facilitate non-consensual sex is not marginal, unless you consider drug rape, rape will sedated in the dentist's chair, and the like "marginal."

Are they marginal simply because they are rare? If so, then you still have to engage them because, rare or not, the injustice that occurs is real. Of course, it could simply be that you only consider these events "marginal" when they happen to men?



No, it doesn't rely on the premise the women are behaving in such a fashion, it acknowledges the simple fact that some women do, and both social mores and the legal system overlook their misbehavior. As for premises, the three points I make simply illustrate that the premises you are using are flawed. You haven't established why my rebuttals are erroneous and the premises they attack are true.



Was that just a drive-by ad hominem attack? Was I, and the other men here, just insulted? Or perhaps merely marginalized


The rest of your post doesn't deserve a response, especially given its closing.

The purpose of the Lot illustration is to show that women have been drugging men for sexual advantage just as long as men have been doing it to women. The development of Viagara simply makes it a much more effective strategy. Whether it has resulted in any increase of frequency I can't comment on, nor am I claiming that nefarious, evil women are behind a massive epidemic of drugged, involuntary fathers. I'm simply saying that it does happen, contrary to the premise that all fatherhood is consensual.

There are four options we can take to the issue of sexually predatory drugging, which is a violation of the victim's reproductive rights.

1] We can overlook it completely.
2] We can ignore it when it happens to women, and punish it when it happens to men.
3] We can ignore it when it happens to men, and punish it when it happens to women.
4] We can punish it when it happens to anybody.

Take your pick.

Many elements of it are rectifiable, if only by replacing the term "women's reproductive rights" with "human reproductive rights."



What about all the "magic of pregnancy" and the "joy of life quickening within" and all the other romantic notions of pregnancy? Women (warning: generalization alert) need to make up their minds whether pregnancy is a blessing or a curse, and then stick to their story. This is why the complaints about single mothering sound so hollow when the actual facts are considered: at least where divorce is concerned, women are the one's choosing to place themselves into single parenthood twice as often as men place them there...

Anyhow, whether men would choose to switch places with women is irrelavent, simply because as you've noted, it can't happen. What is relevant is that the premise that men should have no reproductive rights pre-partum because they have no pre-partum responsibility is demonstrably false. Another justification for denying men the same pre-partum reproductive rights as women needs to be proferred.





Millions of women who extol the joys of motherhood as the most fulfilling thing they've ever done raises serious doubts about that proposition.

Why can't motherhood be considered both a blessing and a curse?
Is a soldier, who believes himself 'blessed' to serve in the military contradicting himself when he finds war conditions unpleasant? Do those who either refuse to serve or cannot serve for physical reasons hold the right to condemn him for expressing his opinion on the matter? One can simultaneously feel both 'blessed and cursed', and it doesn't mean that their complaints are 'hollow'.

Motherhood is not for wimps. I challenge you to find one, single mother 'who extol the joys of motherhood as the most fulfilling thing they've ever done' who doesn't agree with that.

Editted to add:
I am very curious what you mean by this one. Are you suggesting that a man has authority over a woman's body because he impregnated her?

Editted (again)to add:
I didn't realize you had a couple of other posts above the last one. This reminds me of an urban legend. You know, like the one where a pretty woman picks up a guy from the bar, drugs him, and takes him to a hotel room? In the morning he wakes up with a sign on his chest saying 'don't move, call 911' because his kidney had been stolen. Do you know why there's no such 'legend' about serial women drugging men for purposes of coerced pregnancy? It's even less believable than the kidney story.

It can, its simply that many women are remarkably selective about which one they choose to highlight, as it suits their purposes. To claim societally imposed benefits at the cost of another person based on the "burdens" of motherhood without simultaneously considering the benefits is dishonest. A simple economic analogy would be "it cost me 200 dollars to do this, so you have to pay me the 200 dollars." Yeah, but what was your Return on Investment? What did you get out of it? Many women are remarkably silent on the subject when they're attempting to extract the $200 from men....

A simple question to be asked: are you better off or worse off as a result of the experience? If you're better off, and I'm partially responsible, are you going to share the good fortune with me? Of course not, because the benefits of motherhood are unfairly restricted by Nature {hmmm, would that be Mother Nature?} to mothers. Then where is the justice in demanding that I share the burdens with you? This is the ethical trap of the "my body, my choice" position when combined with demands for fatherly assistance.



No argument from me there.



No, I'm not even addressing the issue of whether or not abortion should be legal, nor whether the father's consent is required to obtain one. I am, however, puzzled that supposedly liberal women here continue to insist on a position that reduces to a woman having authority over a man's body simply because he impregnated her. Such an unbalanced notion cannot be sustained in a conception of equal reproductive rights, i.e. "human reproductive rights."

Your strawman (or would that be strawwoman, or perhaps strawperson) indictment of the drug scenario as not even rising to the level of an urban legend fails on two points. First, passing a law against involuntary organ donation in hotel rooms wouldn't be wrong because of its never happened. It may be unnecessary, but it would still be a valid law. You appear to be arguing that because the drug scenario hasn't occurred, its okay if it does. The second reason your strawman fails...



http://www.nzdf.org.nz/update/messages/1805.htm

Do women commit rape?

http://www.sfwar.org/facts/brochles.htm

So, we have established that both men and women can be victims of drug rape, and that women do, in fact, commit rape. The only question remaining is can women rape men leading to conception? As noted earlier, in the past such an attempt would face significant physiological challenges, rendering it improbable, but not impossible. Since Viagra became available, the only thing preventing it from happening is the angelic, superior moral nature of women.

So, when, not if, society is presented with a legal case of drug'n'Viagra rape of a man by a woman leading to conception, you'll have the opportunity to revisit this...

Or you can simply acknowledge the current reality and make your argument for unlimited male reproductive responsibility and unlimited female reproductive authority and rights without resorting to flawed, erroneous premises.

Personally, I think the reason nobody has yet to make such an argument is because they can't without blatantly and consciously violating their own sense of justice, and the perceived moral and economic benefits they would lose by doing so would be too great. So, they refuse to acknowledge the reality.

Here's the simple formulation: If a man is victimized by a woman via non-consensual sex and conception, should the man be obligated to be a parent?

Turn the question around. If you get a different answer, then justify the difference without violating the tenets of equal protection under the law, aka the 14th Amendment.

Suggested reading:



http://old.smh.com.au/news/0102/17/review/review2.html

I have made no such argument. Find it, if you can.



No, the man should not be financially indebted to a person who subjugated (possibly drugged) him for the purpose of stealing his sperm. I don't think you'll see much of an argument on that point here. Maybe on Jerry Springer.

I agree that there is a double standard, but it isn't one that's rectifiable, as far as I can see.

i.e, "yes, I acknowledge the double standard, and we shouldn't change the double standard because we can't." You're making the argument without resorting the the flawed premises I have pointed out. Congratulations. Of course, simply saying "that's the way it is, and we can't do anything about it" is a remarkably unprogressive stand.



Not just Jerry Springer, but also in the courts of America. Please see the Serpico case referenced above, and most significantly, how the appeals court overturned your argument, "in the bests interest of the child." Here, most of the posters have avoided answering the question by refusing to acknowledge that it can happen. Since I've proved that not only can non-consensual conception occur, but it has, do you think they'll change their tunes about what should be?

I don't.

On a related note, should we distinguish between drug induced non-consent, statutory non-consent, and fraud non-consent? If so, why?

One can simultaneously disagree with something and see no resolution. I am making no argument in FAVOR of ‘unlimited male reproductive responsibility and unlimited female reproductive authority’, flawed or otherwise. I will, however, now qualify WHY I don’t think the situation can be remedied.

I previously stated that I believe the male should be able to terminate his obligation as a father, if there is a contractually binding agreement made at the onset. This, obviously, is no panacea. (I hope I don’t now have to explain why this is no panacea).

Gen X proposed that a man should be able to terminate his obligation as a father at anytime during the first trimester. Basically, under this policy the prospective father could simply ‘wish it all away’, and that would be the end of his obligation. The woman would certainly have a LEGAL choice to terminate the pregnancy during this time, but it isn’t the equivalent.

The man, under that proposal, would have absolutely no obligations to the subsequent children he conceived. That would be a burden to the taxpayers, when the responsibility should lie with the parents, if possible.

Also (to use your favorite example) a truly malicious female who practiced ‘drug induced non-consent’ or 'fraud non-consent' would be unaffected by this policy. Such a person would conveniently wait until the second trimester to inform the future father.

The people who WOULD be adversely affected are a lot of taxpayers, honest (and perhaps antiabortion) pregnant women, and the subsequent offspring. The people who would remain unaffected (or benefit) would be the fraudulent women, and (not intentionally deceived) men who wished to elude financial responsibility as fathers.

So, again….. I agree that there is a double standard, but I see no way to remedy it, realistically.

mrspigpen,



Right! Act realistically, think idealistically