Facts do not materialize through repetition.

I often pass up the chance to post here because I don't see it as a forum with me in mind, especially when little powwows like this go on. But enough crossovers into the women's forum and the assertion that there aren't enough babies to go around without bothering to look at factors outside abortion and “level” the choice field by suggesting the repeal of abortion rights force me to reconsider this once.

On the issue of abortion and adoption, the AGI concluded (2002): "The estimated effect of abortion legalization on adoption rates is sizable and can account for much of the decline in adoptions, particularly of children born to white women, during the early 1970s. These findings support previous studies' conclusions that abortion legalization led to a reduction in the number of "unwanted" children; such a reduction may have improved average infant health and children's living conditions."

According to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Children’s Bureau 2001 estimates adoption was the goal in 126,000 cases in 2002. 50,000, or fewer than half (40%) were actually adopted. To be fair, only 13%, or 39,000 children entering foster care for adoption were under a year old, but children spent on average a year and a half in foster care.

Societal attitudes have changed with time. This also has affected adoption rates. In another AGI report two reasons young mothers cite for keeping the baby has to do with adoption itself.



In a pre-1974 America young mothers were not always suffered so much discretion with their illegitimate children. One could make the argument that Roe v. Wade and the Women’s Rights movement are the catalysts that relaxed pressure on young mothers to give their children up for adoption for fear of the alternative.





Nor is a demand for newborns uniquely embedded with the Supreme Court’s decision.



It has been said that we have waiting lists. Well, so do many other countries as a standard precaution. Despite China's criminal application of abortion it has a never-ending supply of female babies and toddlers waiting for adoption stemming from social pressures to give up the unfavorable sex for adoption.

As to the question at hand, yes, I believe fathers should be able to abort their financial obligations, including those who make irresponsible deposits. But don't ask me what's best for the child. As someone forgoing motherhood by choice I'd rather my tax dollars go to birth control instead of formula for bald-headed mistakes to begin with.

Now back to your regularly scheduled program of pretending you'll turn a trump card by leaving the last vestiges of the birth control onus at women's feet.

I understand what this thread is about. There are some people who are arguing that because women can choose to abort the pregnancy, men should have a similar path.

I've already explained how men have almost complete control. They're called condoms. I don't understand what your confusion with that statement was, or really even how you could possibly contest it. It's very simple: man put on condom - woman no get pregnant. Man no put on condom - woman maybe get pregnant.



Even with an abortion, that STILL COSTS MONEY. That is STILL a financial obligation! Furthermore, women have the ultimate right because it's in their bodies. The men willingly donated their sperm, which then became the property of the female. Ball lands in my yard, who's ball is it? I have no problem with women having the ultimate say because it's her body being used! I don't see how you can reconcile that with the position that men shouldn't have any obligations because... nature determined that females carry the child, and therefore have the ultimate decision? That makes no sense.



I don't know why you insist on blaming Roe V. Wade for something that is obviously the fault of nature. The woman has the ultimate say because it's her body being used. The men have little say, after a woman already becomes pregnant, because it's her body. If he doesn't like her decisions, that's really too bad. They should have discussed the possibilities before jumping in the sack. The man can take steps to prevent pregnancies, but after she is pregnant, it's her call, the way it should be. And yes, the man should be held financially responsible, should she choose to keep it, because it's in the best interests of the child.



Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. While the child is in her body, the woman's interests and rights usurp the child's, until the second and third trimesters. After it is born, the child is it's own individual person, and it's rights come before the parents. It's a simple concept.
And yes, in this great land we do have the right to abort, even if we and the man cannot financially support it. Unless I missed a meeting, abortion is LEGAL, the last time I checked.

DR:



Ummm... DR, in my opinion it was sexist, and I can label it that way because it's my opinion.



You don't have the choices because you're not the ones who get pregnant. I'm going to explain this one more time to you, and if you don't understand it after that, tough luck.

Women have more choices because women carry the child for nine months. It is women whose bodies change in a way that they'll never be the same again. It is women who miss working because of a pregnancy. It is women who breast feed. It is the women who do the overwhelming, vast majority of all work concerned with a very young child, and so yes, they get the overwhelming, vast majority of the rights and decisions with that responsibility. I'm sorry, I cannot take seriously anyone who is so deeply offended by nature's inherent inequalities that they feel that forcing a woman to be a childbearer on the whims of a male, or forcing her to abort on the whims of a male, just so they can exercise "equal rights." That's the only way both mother and father can have theoretical "equal rights," but in those "equal rights" the rights of the mother are violated in the extreme by forcing her to do something with her body for someone else.

So males will have to shut up, quit their whining, get to know the childrearing opinions of the women they sleep with, and wear a rubber. Is this fair? As fair as it could possibly get.

So, to add further to the inequity, you're going to compare nature's inequities with a court order?

I didn't realize that court orders occurred in nature.

Nobody is demanding that women get abortions or give the kids up for adoption. But if they do not choose to make a JOINT decision, we are arguing that they should follow through with that decision themselves. Their decision is final whereas a guy has no say in the matter at all.

This debate is being drug down to the "well, she should have kept her legs closed" level. Sheesh...

This is the question that was the subject of the poll.

Is it fair for men to be forced to pay child support for children they do not agree to have?

It is NOT, is abortion right. It is not is Nature unfair. It is:



SuzySteamboat:

I will remind you that, to pay child support one is talking in terms of Live births. There is but ONE party, and one party alone that is given the LEGAL right to decide if a LIVE BIRTH occurs.

You want to argue about who is responsible for conception, knock you socks off. I will MORE THEN LIKELY AGREE WITH YOU that the female and the male are 50/50 owners of the conception process, yet that IS NOT what we are discussing.

Roe V. Wade CLEARLY made the right to allow LIVE BIRTH, or to stop a BIRTH from HAPPENING to the PREGNANT WOMAN.

That being the case, it is difficult to argue that a MALE should be forced to become a FATHER against HIS WILL, just as Roe V. Wade made it difficult to argue that a FEMALE should be forced to become a MOTHER against her will.

To argue, as some do, that FORCING men to be Fathers is somehow right, when the opposite is wrong is THE SEXIST point of veiw, not visa versa.

Red

Is it unfair for men to be forced to financially support children they do not agree to have?

Is it fair for the child to suffer financially because the father chooses not to support the children? It is the right thing and the only thing to do when men find themselves in a situation of a child they never planned to have. Do not punish the child for the actions of the father. The father needs to learn to be responsible for all the decisions he makes and do the right thing.




Should men be able to waive their rights to fatherhood, and by doing so, have
no financial obligation to the child?

It shouldn't even be a thought. By giving that option to men is just ignorant and selfish.

cgorham writes:



Please don't change the question.

Is it fair for the child to suffer financially?

Fair for whom? The child? Perhaps not, but we live in a system that is Governed by law. Laws of this nature are formed through equityand court proceedings, not emotion.

Is it right for the child to suffer financially? Absolutely not!, yet again, that is not the question. If it's NOT RIGHT, then why on earth would the WOMAN go through with a live birth.

Don't place this burdon on the Males shoulder when he get ZERO of the decision making process.

People of the more Liberal bent absolutely hate this subject, especially when the question is framed as this one is. They know that Roe V. Wade created a Monster waiting for it's chance to escape into the light.

I say this with all due respect, but what did you expect?

Should men be able to waive their rights to fatherhood, and by doing so, have
no financial obligation to the child?

I have the solution to this dilemma - get a vasectomy. No unwanted children, no chance of having to pay to support an unwanted child, no ethical decisions about abortion, and all the sex without all the responsibility.

There didn't have to be a child to begin with! That's why there's condoms! THAT'S the "decision making process" the male gets. When the female gets pregnant, no, he has no say. Tough luck, he already ejaculated inside the female and nature took it's course, what did he expect? Roe v. Wade did not "create a monster," it gave females what should have been theirs all along - legal control over her own body. Honestly Red, would you rather abortions be illegal, and every single pregnancy result in a child? I hope you do realize that'd only result in massively increased child support from fathers, seeing as how the women they knock up would no longer have the option of terminating the pregnancy.

And please, do educate us on what "people of the liberal bent" hate. Since, you'd probably know better than most, being a conservative.

Theres the basic problem isn't it.

"No, you don't need to use a condom, I am on the pill"

Four months later, "well, I was on the pill, I only missed a few"

So tell me again, what "choice" the "Father" had.

Oh, yea, A condom.

Then, he gets used to the idea of being a Father and......

I am sorry, I should have told you, I had an abortion months ago.

Now, can we discuss the rational application of the Law?

I made my suggestion earlier, but I suppose I should actually answer the question. There are two choices. Giving a man the right to force an abortion is absolutely obscene. Forcing adoption is closer to realistic, but even then he would have to have more say than the female in holding her rights to the child. So, the only answer is that either the irresponsible man pays, or the public pays (which it will undoubtedly do in other ways regardless). As a member of the public, and not an irresponsible man, I prefer that the man pays through the nose. Does this give women the power, maybe. I simply don't care. Don't like it, don't put it yourself in that position.

Is it fair for men to be forced to pay child support for children they do not agree to have?

It is not fair. But...

Is it fair that only women can carry a child, and give birth?
Is it fair that my input (as a man) to begetting a child is so easy, while a woman's is so difficult?
Is it fair that one child is born in a shack of twigs and mud while another is born a Rockefeller?

Life is not fair. We should strive to make it as fair as possible, to be sure, but this is a difficult issue. And what really makes it difficult is this: without ova and sperm, no pregnancy is possible; also, no matter what the various parties think about the pregnancy, it is the woman who must go through all the physical dangers and suffering of bringing a baby to term.

I can sympathize with Hobbes' story - it is frustrating because he must pay money and yet is unable to have influence. But I suggest that the better change in the law is not to let men off the hook, it is for our legal system to become more equitable in regards to custody issues. Once a child is born, both parents should be given equal footing regarding responsibility. There will be cases in which one parent would rather pay money and NOT share parental responsibility, and that may be for the best - such selfish egocentrics are often bad parents anyway.

I also, however, sympathize with Suzy. It is a fact that, even though our society has progressed greatly since the fifties and early sixties, today women are still saddled with the lion's share of parental and domestic duties. Even in homes where both parents work, women do the majority of both housekeeping and childraising. That doesn't seem fair either - but I reckon if we work hard on solving that issue - and on things like pay equity, and ensuring that career women will not find themselves out of a job because they have a baby, that the other issue will lessen naturally.

I don't know what the real answer is, but I have a pretty strong feeling that allowing men to abdicate responsibility for children they have fathered (unless it is consensual) is not it.

Why should men be have to have vascectomies? Though we do lose much of our good, intelligent genepool this way; after men realize how little choice they have after the sex act.... Why shouldn't women be forced to become sterile themselves?


There is more than one part to the question at hand. I know it really burns people who believe women should have all the rights and are too small to carry any of the responsibilities, but you might want to consider the woman's part in this issue as well as the "wear a condom" argument.

I find this argument to be repulsive to me as a female.

Amazing how many times I've read, "That's why there's condoms" and such, in this, a debate forum?!

It makes me feel like I'm wasting my time. And, I agree with Red. Liberals seem to be the ones who particularly like keeping a woman in the victim role.

Not only can she not choose her mate, she cannot be relied upon to take the reliable and easy birth control offered.

Then, she cannot be trusted to make the decision to bring a child into the world or not, based upon the facts at hand. These being, a) the father doesn't want to provide for a child with me or the father is more than willing to provide for and parent this child with me. Or anything in between. Even though she has every choice available to her!

It is always the man's fault. This is why I changed parties. I found the liberal party to be very insulting to my intelligence as a woman. I found nothing hateful in Red's posts. But notice how you use the word "hate" so easily, as if it's second nature to use it to address anyone who challenges your ideas, then you call her a conservative "wacko".

You find this attitude in colleges all over the US and it is unacceptable to me. Now, back to the issues at hand....

This has nothing to do with liberals or conseravatives. I do agree that most liberals have a very hard time understanding that women have every right she could possibly have when it comes to her body. Yet they want to avoid anything to do with any sense of responsibilty that comes with those rights and instead want to keep it at some aging level of "he should have used a condom" as an argument in a debate forum.

First of all, we shouldn't write the according to the extreme minority of women who lie to their partners. I don't know how you feel about women, but I'm fairly certain the overwhelming majority of them do not lie to their partners about birth control. Second, it is still up to the man to protect himself! He needs to know the kind of person he's getting involved with! If he suspects she's lying, or even if he doesn't... I've got a great idea... COVER. UP.
PERIOD. I don't know why you seem to have such an adverse reaction to males taking responsibility for their own reproductive abilities.

Edited to address xild:



Cry me a river, build me a bridge. They're what work 99.9% of the time when used correctly - I don't understand what criteria you're using to form your "not the most reliable" opinion. They're easy to buy, fairly easy to put on, relatively cheap. Seems reliable to me.



No one has said anything about victims. All I've done is point out the laws of biology and explain the rights that should accompany them.



Please tell me when and where I suggested this. Yes, women can take birth control. But the man can wear condoms. There is equal responsibility in getting pregnant, and no one in this thread has said otherwise. The only difference between you and I is that you think males shouldn't have to worry about protecting themselves - not only from unwanted pregnancies, but STDs as well - and I think that they should.



I beg your pardon. I will quote red's post verbatim, you, know... the post I responded to?: "People of the more Liberal bent absolutely hate this subject, especially when the question is framed as this one is. They know that Roe V. Wade created a Monster waiting for it's chance to escape into the light."

Notice how he used the word "hate" so easily, as if it's second nature to use it to address anyone who challenges his ideas, and then you call her a liberal "wacko." I never, ever, ever called anyone on this thread a "conservative wacko."
Let's look at the debating skills you've shown so far: not being able to comprehend who said what, and putting words in my mouth. I am through debating the issue with you.

Is it fair that women carry, bear and raise children, and have that satisfying experience, while men work and work and die earlier than women?

I could go on. You are talking about things that cannot be changed. Natural facts.

That's not the question at hand.

Since Roe v Wade, and since the advent of many forms of unobtrusive birth control methods for women, methods that do not impinge upon a woman's enjoyment of the sexual experience, women have all the rights to choose. Men only have the choice of having sex or not.

This is not fair.

That being he case it is not fair to ask a man to financially raise a child when he had no choice, along with the mother, to decide whether or not to bring a child into the world in the first place. Unfortunately the laws of our land don't understand this either.

They do understand that women's choices are costing society a lot of money and this is why they go after fathers, and call them deadbeat dads.

The idea of a man's choice being, "he should have used a condom" doesn't cut it. We've already established that.

I appreciate your compassion but this is a brutal argument. Children are being brought into the world unwanted by both parents as if they were expensive toys for the churches and morality groups to play with. Left to her own, believe me, a woman knows, or can figure out, whether or not it is wise to have a child or not. She can make her own best decision and abide by it.

Those who appeal to us that a woman, since she has all those horrible innate childbearing responsibilities, should get all decisionmaking rights should not be determining also the fate of the men whose DNA can now be forceably taken to prove fatherhood because mothers who chose life cannot afford to give that child a decent life.

It's a good idea for men to "cover up" but condoms are not the most reliable form of birth control, nor are they the most pleasant. We don't know what the overwhelming majority of women lie about or not. Some lie, some don't, however, would be a fairly safe bet.

SuzySteamboat:

You keep bringing up condoms?

A condom is not very usefull in Childbirth. And it is "Childbirth" that frames this debate. What happens prior to Childbirth is mute, and was made mute by Roe V. Wade.

It is also been brought up that "men just want to go around having sex, with anyone they want without the responsibility of the act".

Not true as "the act" has little to do with whether a live child is born or not. It is actually the sole decision of the female to decide whether live birth occurs, thus binding the male, or does not occur in which neither is bound by "the act".

In a very practical sense then, the statement "it is females that want to go around having sex, with anyone they want, without the responsibility of the act" being closer to the truth".

All I can say, Suzy, is that it is this very attitude that causes the problem being discussed. Thank you for so eloquently proving my point. In fact, if you will check your history (and review Lesly's post here) you will see that this was much the same as the prevailing attitude towards women prior to Roe v Wade. I'm assuming that you would have disagreed with that sentiment then--why are you so vociferously in favor of it now? (wait, I'm trying to remember the word for this, starts with an H....)



Yes, Quark, this is exactly the point I am trying to make. (FWIW--I am NOT in favor of men being able to abort their financial obligations--I voted it depends; I AM in favor of, as Quark states here, rectifying the root causes of the issue).

I think too much attention is being focused on the specific question as it was posed here. The real question, I think, is more like the following:

Given the level of financial obligation being imposed on the man, shouldn't he be given more equal treatment in all phases of the child's upbringing?

As I stated before, the stereotypes being employed currently are actually very defaming to women (woman as child raiser, man as supporter of family). It is somewhat surprising for me to see that many here who are so opposed to the issue being discussed are the very same ones who would, I think, be so adamantly opposed to the stereotypes that created it.

I believe that father's rights should be equitable. I am not opposed to discussing that issue, but this isn't a father's rights after-the-fact thread. I do not share with you the belief that an embryo is as much a person, and entitled to the same rights, as a newborn. If by "all phases of the child's upbringing" you mean while in utero, I would agree that he should have a say. That is the moral obligation of the mother, but could never be a legal one without proof of paternity.

This issue begins and ends with the balancing of rights for the child and his/her parents. Equity (as discussed before) is impossible...it's just a matter of who is on the receiving end of the inequity. If the father's fairness can only be acheived at the expense of his offspring, the father loses.

The sexist view of parenting is detrimental. Fathers are not given choices. They do not have equal footing for parental rights.

Children born out of wedlock belong to the women.

If a woman decided to have a child on her own and finds she does not have enough money, the government will support her. The father of that child who does not have enough money to support the child will be thrown in jail. One parent gets money and the other gets jail. Does it seem fair to you?

Divorces frequently result in mothers getting the majority of the contact time with the children and the father's are put the category of beholden to give money to the women as they can not be trusted to spend money in the best interest of the children.

And, the subject of this thread, women have the sole determination of continuing a pregnancy which puts the men in servitude to those women. The man is left as the stranger on the outs.

The law must be equal for all or it is unfair. There should be equal rights for the sexes. The minute I see an argument for how to handle this problem and the argument is based on ones sex, it is showing a bias.

Men and women both have control over whom to engage with sex. Both men and women should have control of their own bodies. Both should have the choice to decide whether they are ready to raise a child if a unplanned pregnancy occurs. Both should have the right to parent their children. Both should have financial responsiblity to raise those children.

Too many do not believe in equality between the sexes. Too many think it is nature, not laws, which cause these 'differences'. As with many things, separate but equal is anything but equal. Man makes laws. The rule of law should be equal. Nature will take care of itself but man has the choice to be fair in its laws and their administration, or not.

Well, Mrs. P, this is where I disagree--although I will admit that this is not what the specific debate question is focused on. Father's rights after-the-fact (or lack thereof) are exactly what is causing the financial abortion issue. If men had more equal rights there, they wouldn't be upset at having to bear the financial burden--making the issue being discussed, and all its supposed ramifications, go away. Men want the whole process to be more equitable--it is only because that is not the case that they then open up the question of why they should be held so financially responsible in the absence of any other authority in the matter. So, to me, regardless of the specific debate question, you can't discuss one without the other--in fact, doing just that is what led to the current situation to begin with.



I would agree with this statement, but point out that currently these rights are not equitably balanced. Currently, men are on the receiving end of the inequity. I just think the pendulum needs to swing back a little more towards the middle (and will admit that financial abortion is probably swinging much too far).

I can empathize with you on that. However, that's the price a man pays, when he
hooks up with a woman who doesn't respect him as the father of her child. Men
who find themselves in that position chose their parter. My brother
married, then divorced a woman who has been incredibly difficult to deal with,
in terms of making "mutual" decisions re: their son. She demands the sun and
moon, and doesn't do it amiably. But, he chose her, and now he is dealing
with the negative repercussions of that choice.

redliner


It's not that women necessarily want total control over childbirth. It's that
women are made to bear 100% of the physical burden of childbirth. Because of
that it is a woman's right to make the final decision.

When you say women don't want to take the ultimate responsibility, are you
talking about money? In many cases, that is the most a woman can hope to
get out of the father of her child. And, even with our current laws, it
is very difficult to enforce child support judgments. So, women ARE taking
the ultimate responsiblity. Deadbeat dads are a dime a dozen.

redliner


It was his choice to get involved with a dishonest woman, to begin with.

redliner


Again, where was he when she snuck away to have the abortion.
That type of scenario is about two people who have some major communication
problems.

ibelsd


Agreed. This is the deciding factor for me, as well. There is a way to avoid
this situation. So, men DO have control over this, but it is preventative
control. Thus, men should be held financially accountable for whatever
offspring they produce, by hook or by crook.

redliner


IF that is true, then those same females, who become pregnant, and
deliver a child, will have a rude awakening. And, quite honestly, money is but one
factor in successful child-rearing.

GraySeal


I agree with you, GS. If we, as men and women, would be more honest
about our intentions, and look for the same honesty in others, when getting into
relationships, we could avoid all of these issues. Maybe men should start looking
at what they are doing(or not doing) that is perpetuating the unfair
treatment of fathers.

That's the crux of the issue, doomed. There should be more easily enforceable legal equity, making situations such as what you describe more easily legally rectified. The law should support the man in such endeavours, as they are in the best interest of the child. Currently, they do not--at least not without huge lawyer bills, which is just making the problem worse, and, of course, taking away money that could be spent on the child.



Ibelsd, exactly how do you propose that men avoid this situation? You, yourself, could easily be in the same boat--would you then feel the same? Most people don't get involved with someone thinking about the worse things that could happen--if that were the case, no one would ever get involved. Yet, 50% of all marriages end in divorce--is that solely because men are ignorant (all right, don't answer that ). I am all for men taking precautions, and for sharing the burden if those weren't taken. But that burden shouldn't be borne without an equal sharing of the parental authority. Women here are oft repeating 'my body, my choice'. Well, what about 'my money, my share of authority'?

When a greater percentage of fathers step up to the plate to be
responsible parents, interested in being a part of their children's
lives (in every aspect), we'll see a shift in the courts. As it stands,
you are in the minority. So, talk to your bruthas!

Except in very rare cases this is not true. I was able to get some help with daycare for my first daughter which would have cost half my income (which was $6.50/ hour at that time) but other than this assistance, the governement did not "support" me. In that case, had I been earning a living wage I would have not qualified for that assistance.

I have never heard of this happening. I have heard of the man having his wages garnished (but by law cannot be garnished more than 1/4 of his income no matter how much back child support he owes), but not jail. Do you have any documentation to back this up?

Well, can't really argue with that . As I pointed out in a prior post though, there is a 'chicken vs. egg' aspect here. One of the reasons men are sometimes so quick to avoid the issue completely is because it is just a financial commitment--they know in advance they won't get farther than that. This is partly what causes them to avoid the situation. So, hopefully, the courts might start to rectify the situation first to help get the ball rolling (in fact, I do think that's currently happening, albeit, like most things, slowly). FWIW--this should also remove any last vestige of excuse for the 'dead-beats' to hide behind.

If you didn't have a child, perhaps your wage would have allowed better living. While $6.50 an hour isn't going to get you a house, a car, or many luxuries, I have lived decently on less. Of course, I was single and didn't have children to attend. I wish people would step away from the living wage rhetoric. Here is a newsflash... if you make $6.50 an hour, think twice before having unprotected sex, particularly if you are unmarried. This is all just so much nonsense. Abortion will never be a mandate and neither will adoption. The only option is forced financial obligation. I would like to see the courts more liberally excercise their ability to place children in the homes of responsible fathers if the mother is not as fit rather than only if she is deemed unfit. Even better would be to force a shared habitation between the two unwed and irresponsible individuals who bungled it all; for themselves, some unfortunate child, and the rest of us who tend to pay a good portion of the burden. But, when those very same people complain about a living wage, my hair stands on end and I wish to yell at the top of my lungs. By what right, I would like to know, do these people have the right to claim anything?

jenreiatter, for documentation I offer me. The mother of our children had a home that was paid for a minivan that was paid for and money to live on of over $50,000 and year and qualified for earned income credit. I made $20,000 that year, did not have a home, paid $17,000 in child support and was put in jail when I could not no longer pay ordered child support.

In Illinois, the guidelines call for up to 50% of a person's income to be demaned for child support. This is just a guideline. (one child: 20%, two children 25%, three children is 32%, four children is 40%, five or more is 50%) was many years where I was paying 60 to 70% of my income in child support.

I started a group called Family Law Reform. I have been contacted by dozens of people with problems. Some others had similar problems with unreasonable monetary demands.

I also offer you as documentation. You were able to get monetary assistance. A noncustodial father can be put in jail if they go to court claiming they are unable to meet their financial obligations. If you want any more documentation, contact a family law attorney and they will confirm this.

[QUOTE]Obviously there is some confusion here. This is a debate over Child Support. Child Support, under the common form, requires live birth and has little to do with conception.

"They have almost complete control over whether a woman becomes pregnant"

Would you mind explaining this?

Do men control ovulation?

Do men control whether a women faithfully takes birth control?

Do men control, or have any rights to determine whether an abortion is the right course of action?

The answer to all of the above is a big NO!

Men have "almost absolute control"

Please explain?[/QUOTE]

I understand what this thread is about. There are some people who are arguing that because women can choose to abort the pregnancy, men should have a similar path.

I've already explained how men have almost complete control. They're called condoms. I don't understand what your confusion with that statement was, or really even how you could possibly contest it. It's very simple: man put on condom - woman no get pregnant. Man no put on condom - woman maybe get pregnant.

If the woman is going to let the man have sex with her without a condom it is her fault to unless she is raped which is a different matter altogether, so that no condom excuse does not fly.

[QUOTE]Your logic is illogical. It sounds like you are saying before the child is born it is the woman's but after it is born it is both their child's. Either the child is both of the parents or its not. You say the man should be careful, well the woman should be smart enough to only sleep with a man who will support her. I know the woman has to deal with carrying the child for nine months but she knew the risk when she laid down so that is no excuse to say she is the only one who has a voice in the matter. Some women use the "it's my body excuse", but it is not about your body. It is about the life of the child and unless having that child could result in your death you have no right to abort, unless you and the man can not financially support it. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. While the child is in her body, the woman's interests and rights usurp the child's, until the second and third trimesters. After it is born, the child is it's own individual person, and it's rights come before the parents. It's a simple concept. [QUOTE]
Legally the child is not a person until it exits the body, but you know that it is alive before it leaves the body, and therefore once it gains life you lose your right to bring harm to it

And yes, in this great land we do have the right to abort, even if we and the man cannot financially support it. Unless I missed a meeting, abortion is LEGAL, the last time I checked.[/QUOTE]
According to the law it is your choice until the third trimester but that does not mean it is right. I am looking at it from a moral or ethical view.

DR:

[QUOTE]Ummm...Suzy, you really need to get your facts together before labeling an argument as sexist when you clearly don't know the facts.

Here's the tale of the tape from womensissues.com[/QUOTE]

Ummm... DR, in my opinion it was sexist, and I can label it that way because it's my opinion.

[QUOTE]Only 8% of pregnancies happen because of complete irresponsibility, but you want to blame men completely and hold men equally accountable.

The statistics clearly show women exercise the choices we men don't have. [/QUOTE]

You don't have the choices because you're not the ones who get pregnant. I'm going to explain this one more time to you, and if you don't understand it after that, tough luck.

Women have more choices because women carry the child for nine months. It is women whose bodies change in a way that they'll never be the same again. It is women who miss working because of a pregnancy. It is women who breast feed. It is the women who do the overwhelming, vast majority of all work concerned with a very young child, and so yes, they get the overwhelming, vast majority of the rights and decisions with that responsibility. I'm sorry, I cannot take seriously anyone who is so deeply offended by nature's inherent inequalities that they feel that forcing a woman to be a childbearer on the whims of a male, or forcing her to abort on the whims of a male, just so they can exercise "equal rights." [QUOTE]That's the only way both mother and father can have theoretical "equal rights," but in those "equal rights" the rights of the mother are violated in the extreme by forcing her to do something with her body for someone else. [/QUOTE]

If you choose to have the baby you are doing it for yourself so how can you say your rights are violated, and what do you meant by vast majority of work?

So males will have to shut up, quit their whining, get to know the childrearing opinions of the women they sleep with, and wear a rubber. Is this fair? As fair as it could possibly get.


You make it sound like it is the man's fault if you get pregant. It takes two people to get pregnant, and the same way the man knew he might stuck for 18 years, the woman knows she might be stuck for 9 months so if she is going to take the risk that is her fault also.

Simply put. yes the man should have to pay, but my complete idea will lead to another argument that I dont have time to post

Um, Hobbes? Women would still get the overwhelming majority of control, even if you went by "my money, my share of authority."

Edited to add: This is my final post to this thread. I would like to rehash my opinion, perhaps state it in a clearer way than I first did, and then I'm out of it.

Both man and woman have equal responsibility when they have sex. The woman can be on birth control, and/or the man can put on a condom. Should this fail, the woman will become pregnant with the man's child. This is his child, there is no possible rational way he should be able to abandon it should it be borne. The woman may not be able to handle a pregnancy emotionally or financially, and may choose to abort. I don't see why the father would have a problem with this, seeing as how, if he practiced birth control, that shows a lack of a desire to be a parent. The female may choose to give birth. These are her options and her options alone, because she cares for the child inside her body for nine months.
I'm disgusted by the number of grown men on this thread who believe it is moral, should even be legal, for a man to abort any and all responsibilities as a parent because nature gave the female control over what to do with the child for those nine months. There are people on this board who think "to hell with how well off the child would be with only one parent's financial and emotional support, THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY MONEY TO SUPPORT THEIR OWN CHILDREN." They do not care about what is best for the child, all they are concerned with is "men's rights" as a parent. These people are why I am leaving this thread; there is no meaningful debate I can have with them.
I do not feel sorry for about men who shell out thousands of dollars a month in support for their own damn children. First of all, the mother has to shell out much, much more. Second of all, once a child comes into existance, both parents should have the maturity to put aside their own wants and needs and sacrifice for the child. No one in the world "forces" a man into parenthood. He accepted the responsibilities and risks of his actions when he had sex. Everyone knows that, sometimes, just sometimes, pregnancy results from sex. The male should not under any circumstances be able to terminate his responsibilities just because the woman has to carry the child for nine months, and so ultimately gets to decide its fate. If he didn't want a child, he should not have put his seed into the female's body. He should have covered up. It's that simple.
The reasons why women have ultimate control over what happens inside their bodies is just that: it's inside their bodies. Once the child is born, both parents have an obligation to provide for that child the best they can. [i]At that time, it should not be about what's "fair" for the father. It should be about what's best for the child. That is all I have been trying to argue on that thread, and I have nothing but contempt for those who think otherwise.
Have fun.

One must open the door before one can pass through it

This thread IS NOT about who is responsible for conception. If we need to argue about how we conceive, or do not concieve, or the thousands of ways one may attempt to avoid conception, then this discussion becomes a joke.

The question in the poll is:



As in my very first post I stated I voted "In some circumstances" NOT in ALL circumstances. I wanted to clear that up.

Fisrt, for a man to be "Forced Financially" I assume we are talking about two seperate ideals:

1. Married men. Should they? YES, most often. Should they be financially responsible in all cases? NO!

2. Single men. Should they? NO (remember this is about "force")

If a FEMALE is not to be FORCED to become a Mother, then in an equitable society, the opposite MUST also be TRUE, or you have a lack of equity!

Again, Row V. Wade set this as the norm, not me, and not "MEN". IT was called "equality", and maybe it was, yet this equality also CREATED an inequity, that being that, after the initial sex act, the female has complete control over the birth of offspring, and the male has none.

Do you disagree with what I just wrote? How could you in any legal argument deny this as a fact?

Some will say that MEN refuse to "step up to the plate" financially, without being "forced". Where in earth does that have a place in this debate?

Men can easily say that, since the female refused to terminate the pregnancy, and she is the ONLY one with that right, then she is RESPONSIBLE, as outlined in Roe, for that act (or inaction), NOT the man.

DO I THINK WE SHOULD REPEAL CHILD SUPPORT LAWS. ABSOLUTELY NOT!, But that is not the question up for debate is it?

FYI: I paid child support for more then a DECADE, 2 1/2 times greater then my court order said I should. Lets NOT stereotype all non custodial males as "deadbeats" please. Some of us took our roles pretty dang serious!

I think all this talk about women taking responsibility by taking birth control is missing one thing: most birth control is really intrusive, esp. the pill, the shot and norplant. The others (diaphram, the sponge, the rhythm method) are somewhat unreliable. From what Ive read... Where as a condom is as reliable as the pill when used with spermicide, and properly. So, Im with Suzy on this...If a guy doesnt want to deal with the problem of having to care for a child he never wanted, then he should use a condom. Or not have sex.

I dont think its an entirely fair solution, but until the time men are taking pills that screw up their hormones to not have a baby, OR dealing with a nine month pregnancy, then they will just have to deal with things how they are. Life isnt fair.

Kimpossible:



If you were writing the above in 1964 I think you would be 110% correct.

In 1964 there were two moments in time that defined a Fathers responsibility to a child.

1. The sex act that resulted in conception.
2. The live birth of the child.

But this is 2004 and a third defining moment was placed in the mix.

1. The sex act that resulted in conception.
2. The moment of decision in which the female decides whether to follow through with the pregnancy or not.
3. A live birth.

Prior to Roe, your case for birth control methods had a very strong impact, after, it means almost nothing.

If I were to get a woman pregant I would help as much as I could. My disagreement is not the financial issue. My issue is the lack of control I have after the woman is pregnant. If the woman is pregant it does not matter if I want the child or not, and if she decides to abort despite my opposition I cant do anything, however if she wants the child and I dont think I am capable of raising a child then I am stuck in a bad situation. I think abortions should only be allowed if it will put the child in very bad conditions once it is born, or the mother might die during the birth. Once the woman is pregant the man has just given up financial freedom assuming he will be the one paying child support and the woman has just given up her body for nine months.

Birth control is in one way or another harmful to women health-wise. It can cause exessive bleeding, sterility, internal scarring, cancer, blood clots and hormonal imbalances. Men dont realize this. Condoms do not have adverse effects.. Ashame that they are male inhibitive for pleasure.
Our parents knew the result, you use a condom or you did the right thing, marry and raise your kids.

But lets put this thread to use in all fairness and consider what society will become:

If we go by this thread upon that which is "Fair" , which basically means fair to the male gender, in choosing to opt out of parenthood, we shall have a society of bastard children with only one parent to care for them because of women who choose not to have abortions. (when its an option)

First off, abortion would have to be non-debatable across the board, religious right be damned. The work force would have to include paid time out for pregnancy, child care, an entire new set of social laws and welfare for pregnancies and the time it takes to grow, birth and deliver, or have pregnant mothers and children starving on the streets. The other option being, women not having sex without contract in order to ensure children being taken care of. This was a given in our parents day. Women can certainely start withholding sex.

In this utopic day of freedom for females and men having no responsability nor accountability either economic or otherwise, single women who get pregnant will raise all children alone. Initially there will be hardship, but women will bond as they do. Fathers then become only sperm donars, not needed otherwise or only seen as such. Children out of wedlock will be raised and supported by mothers alone, and there will be many, but women will get smarter about who they have sex and desire to have babies with, so only the best genetic males will get any sex at all. This is a great disadvantage to having male input in a childs life, but no big deal, we will cope, its already a problem.
Males will be selected, used and discarded, since there is no other purpose for them, more trouble than they are worth. After all, why cook meals and help along in life a male that has no desire to support his offsping? Women will bond and thrive in communities, because they will still have careers and still make good money, but also because we are the gatherers and nurturers. The male is further ostrazized having no reason or purpose but as sperm donar. Yes, females will effectively get it together, and no fat, nor balding, nor lazy, Ugly, weak slob of a man will ever bed down with a woman or have the chance of getting her pregnant or that she will ever love him. WHY after all? He does not desire to provide, his use is then nil. Females in community can provide all that is necessary except sex and sex will be granted only for the fittest and best genes

Most of you just dont get it. As well as you desire a healthy, attractive, and genetically child bearing female whether you know it or not, men just dont have much to offer if its not security, a healthy gene and a way to support a family. Thats your attraction on a base level, because most of you are not ' oh-so-hot'.
You want to start talking fair about female pregnancy, most of you are lucky a woman would even consider having sex with you, nevermind having your babies, face the facts. Its just a female gene that gives us blindness about you, and you know it.
If you start talking about non-responsability for children what use do you have? You will become obsolete, non-necessary, so be careful what you wish for. Feminism has already made the male relatively marginalized except by the sex and ability to provide a better life. Lose the 'better life aspect' and a female will just have sex with the hottest males she can find and you are out of the picture.

Allowing a person authority over their own bodily integrity is not analogous to allowing a parent to forego his/her responsibility to his/her own children.

Artemise makes a very good point. If a man could arbitrarily leave any time his girlfriend of the hour became “knocked up”….because, “Hey! She has the choice to undergo an invasive procedure and have it sucked into a sink! That’s fair! Who cares about that new kid! I didn’t want it anyway…” It would effectively be the same as taking an ugly pill.

Men want their woman to be beautiful for the same reason that women want their men to be intelligent and productive…that biological instinct to reproduce. Men would rapidly lose their appeal under this new “equitable” system. In fact, I doubt that I would have ever married or had children myself under this “fair” policy (though I am very happily married). What’s the point in taking such a risk? It’s a very dog-eat-dog proposition.

There is of course a flip side to this sentiment, but I don't think expressing it will add anything to the debate.



...which, of course, is exactly the issue.

Again, however, I am not arguing for financial abortion. I understand the negative impacts that would have. However, I fail to see why the root causes of the issue are being given such short shrift here (is that really a word? Oh well, I'm going to go with it... )

That is assuming he will indeed follow through with financial support
for his child. And, the sad point is that financial support, while it seems
to be a huge thorn in the sides of men, is such a small factor in what
it takes to raise a happy, well-rounded child. Yet, men don't even
want to commit to that.

There are a ton of fathers out there who have better things to do than
raise their children. Note the following statistics:

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home



It is not that simple. Ask any mom out there. The easiest part of child-rearing
is pregnancy. The hard part comes when a human being is brought into the
world. With no father around the child is at a huge disadvantage. And, all
for what? So a man can retain his freedom from any responsibilities?
That's selfish and wrong. And, any man who puts his own needs before the
needs of his child (whether he wanted that child or not) is a COWARD!

It is not fair that men should get off so easily.

The stats just given by doomed planet:



Fatherlessness is, IMO, the greatest problem of our times. It should not be encouraged. That is why I oppose payments to woman who choose to have children out of wedlock. You subsidize something you get more of it. Fatherlessness does not need to be subsidized.

Now when it comes to divorce I have to switch my stand. When a couple gets married they are morally, and most likely legally, binding themselves to share the assets and liabilities that they incur during the time of that marriage. Sadly, marriages do not always last forever.

What kind of bizarre logic is this? I agree that fatherlessness is a huge problem. What I don't see is how you justify punishing the woman for this. Instead of placing the focus on the fathers, you punish the mothers. What's being subsidized in this is not the 'act' of fatherlessness (the act of leaving the woman and child behind). What is being subsidized by payments to out-of-wedlock mothers is the sad result of the fathers leaving. It seems to me you are partly thinking with the presumption that welfare causes poverty - of course, grist for a different mill, but notably a highly subjective way of interpreting data.

The greatest correlation for people living in poverty, is being raised in poverty. This correlation is much higher than that with welfare reception. Perhaps a more logical conclusion is that payments to mothers without partners are the best bet for avoiding poverty in their children.

Of course, in the preceding I have been assuming you were speaking of government payments. Perhaps you were referring to payments made by the father. In that case, your position seems beyond incorrect, and actually quite bewildering. Fathers being forced to pay child support are not subsidizing fatherlessness - they are paying a price for their abandonment.

Any father that must be forced to provide for their children is not much of a father to start with. The problem of fatherlessness harms children at all income levels. There is a difference between couples uniting in marriage, having children, and later breaking up, and woman who intentionally bring children into an unstable environment. To subsidize these women with either government payments or government forcing the unwilling father to make payments is simply subsidizing irresponsible behavior.

Sadly, we are not all created equal. Biology has placed an excess burden on women. They bear the children. However, they have control of what happens to the pregnancy after the moment of conception. The male does not. The woman has the right to choose, we should not subsidize the wrong choice.

It is of note that the statistics given by doomed_planet are from current laws which demand support from disenfranchised fathers. The solution, which is to put men on equal footing with women as far as parental rights will be a step towards improving those numbers not creating them.

Giving men say in parental responsibility, and giving them equal rights, will remove the marginalization of men, not create it. I do not see any logic in the arguments given which say otherwise.

Currently: women can make the decision to have and raise a child on her own and demand the male give her money to do so.

The change: women can make the decision to have and raise a child on her own but can not longer demand money from the male.

If you are a woman who only sees men as "money" I can see the logic in men losing any of their importance. If you a person who believes men have much more to offer (nurturing, guidance, support, decision making, play, interaction, money) this change is improving the status of men in child rearing. Men should not any longer be legally considered to be primarily sperm and money provider but legally considered to be parents just as important as mothers and entitled to equal rights in their role as a parent.

Giving men choice will improve their status, not detract from it. Women who see men as inferior parents are currently able to put men out of the picture. At least with the change, the men will not be forced to support such women.

Gray Seal, what are you talking about? This thread is not about spousal support, it is about CHILD SUPPORT. Fathers are not supporting the mothers, they are supporting their own children! Ooh how horrible.
Furthermore, as statistics go, fatherless situations are primarily not because the mother "put the father out of the picture," but because the father left. Do you care in the slightest what is best for the child?

I know, I said I would get out of this thread. But your post boggled my mind

Child support is the legal term for transfers of money from one parent to another. As with many legal terms, it is an inexact word when used in other context. There are many ways to support a child and the transfer of money from one party to another is not the only way nor does disagreement with these transfers imply any lack of desire to support ones child. Getting lost in the semantics of spousal support, child support seems to be a tangent which is not the crux of this discussion. Giving emotional value to the legal term "child support" is a distraction from the problem.

Correcting the current situation of excluding men from the decision to have a child will not fix all things, including the situation where a parent leaves a family. This change will apply to the situation where women "put the father out of the picture" but as you point out, it will not correct the situations where parents leave a current family.

So we should be subsidising the "right" choice instead? The logical endpoint of this would be state funding of abortions, then? Or even compulsory abortions for women for whom the state disapproves of their being pregnant? Either option would cost far fewer tax dollars than welfare payments to single mothers, so if that's all you're worried about what would be the problem with state-funded abortion on demand?