This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
DotD - July 19 - [General Topic] Sexism, Misogyny, Tattoos, and Promiscuity
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm bringing this back, since the old one got locked before I got to participate.
July 8 - Should men be able to "opt out" of fatherhood?
This is a post I saw elsewhere that lead me to propose the question here. Feel free to take either side, this argument is just provided for context:
When two people have consensual sex, they are both taking the same risk of pregnancy. If that sex results in pregnancy, currently both individuals share state-enforced responsibility of any children created, but only one person, the woman, has 100% of the choice whether or not to continue the pregnancy.
I obviously acknowledge that it is deeply immoral to either force a woman to have an abortion, or to prevent her from having one. So the choice whether or not to continue a pregnancy MUST remain with the woman.
However, I believe that is antithetical to an enforced shared responsibility for that pregnancy.
I know too many guys who were trapped into fatherhood by women, and one in particular stilk pays child support for a child hes not allowed to see.
I think the only sensible conclusion is that would-be fathers should have a right to formally and legally state that they have no intention to be fathers, and that it is made clear to their partners, and legally .
The women would then retain 100% of the choice, but not over the man. Obviously the corollary is true, that failure to express this intention would bind the man to responsibility.
As a final caution; if you intend to argue that consent to sex is an implicit consent to fatherhood, than i shall say the same about motherhood, and demand that a strictly pro-life stance is taken by that person.
...
My argument is not so much to be implemented once a child is born, but once a pregnancy is discovered. My argument is that once a pregnancy is discovered, a woman must choose whether or not to become a mother, but a father does not have that choice. I would like to implement a legal standing whereby in the same timeframe that a woman has a choice whether or not to abort, the father has a choice whether or not to be involved. Obviously his choice may also influence the mothers choice. Should he choose in the negative (preferably having made a definitive statement of such earlier), i believe he should be able to sever his unwanted paternal rights.I don't believe a man should be permitted to make this choice outside the window of abortion. I aim to give the same choice to men as to women.
In addition, i feel very strongly for the need for official stances and contracts in these issues, and i have no intention of having them cover men who sleep around without consequence. I am not attempting to suggest a "get out of fatherhood" free card for man@#$%^s. Instead, most of my fears come from long and short term dating, where a broken condom or a missed pill can be a real sense of helplessness for the male, as i know personally.
If you disagree with my position, perhaps you can help me by reaching a more comfortable conclusion for men who have expressly stated a refusal to become parents, but whose legal standing to prevent such an event after unwanted conception is practically nil.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think that people who make a choice to have sex know that a child may be the result if there is a flaw in the birth control. I think that if you have sex knowing that then you by default have more responsibility for that child's existence than the old lady across the street, the family of 3 down the road or the young couple across town. So why should they be forced to pay for a child so that you won't be forced to, when they had less control over whether you had them than you did?
I think that children need to be cared for in both a financial and emotional sense, and if everyone who is responsible for their existence decides it's too inconvenient to provide it, then the choice will be that everyone else has to pay, or the child starves in the street. Either way, society and the child are less responsible for the situation where the child is created in the first place than the parents, and so the people whom it is most appropriate to make sure pay for that care are the parents.
I don't how people, knowing that sex is biologically what creates children, feel that they have absolutely no responsibility for the creation of a child just because they were hoping to not get pregnant. So many people want someone else to take care of them- the government should pay their bills because they don't feel like holding a job, the big companies should pay them because they did something stupid and got hurt, they slept through class and didn't learn basic math skills so companies should pay the same for unskilled labor as for positions that required 4-6 years of schooling. If you make a choice to have sex, and you have a kid, it's your responsibility to take care of it. Period. If you don't want to risk it, make sure you have birth control. If the birth control fails, it's still a choice you made to chance it since no birth control is 100% effective.
I think that people who want to "give up" their responsibility for the results of their choices, or feel victimized by the results of their own actions that they knew were a possibility going in, and want to pass the buck or the negative repercussions to someone else rather than have to deal with them are self-centered, have no sense of responsibility to other human beings to be fair or carry their own burdens, and are in general not people that I can deal with. I am not discussing rape here, because clearly this is about people who have made a choice to have sex, but what kind of person thinks that they have the right to demand that the collective tax-payers pay for the kids they created, or that the kids should die rather than become financial a burden on you? What kind of priority system are you working from, where you are more important than any other human being on earth, and the results of your actions need to be visited on everyone else rather than you?
I'm not going to get graphic, but there are a large number of activities you can engage in, in the bedroom, that do not carry the chance of impregnation and still get the job done. If you are not sure that this person is someone you can trust not to poke holes in the condoms or lie about their birth control, maybe don't sleep with them or limit yourself to those other activities. If you absolutely cannot afford a child, then double up on birth control- pill and condom. I posted a lot of numbers somewhere in one of these threads that showed that even if you just go on the word of the women who were getting the abortions, the vast, vast, vast majority of unplanned pregnancies that are terminated are the result of someone not using their birth control the way they were supposed to (skipping pills, not using condoms every time), or not at all. Your laziness should not cost me money, and it should not cost a child their life, or quality of life.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
gnomerdon
However, I believe that is antithetical to an enforced shared responsibility for that pregnancy.
half the DNA of that child is from the father. I feel like it's shared responsibility. everything split down 50/50
I know too many guys who were trapped into fatherhood by women, and one in particular stilk pays child support for a child hes not allowed to see.
i wouldn't call it trapped, because they stepped on it. but the fact that the father is not allowed to see the child is wrong. father has the right to be with the child half the time, anything less would be a crime in my opinion.
I think the only sensible conclusion is that would-be fathers should have a right to formally and legally state that they have no intention to be fathers, and that it is made clear to their partners, and legally .
that contract has to be made before sex. and by then, the woman will be too offended to even allow sex to occur. it's the same as bringing up a a prenup before marraige. if she takes it the wrong way, she won't even marry, or maybe she will.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
To add onto my earlier statement, I have only had 2 partners where it would have been a possibility, but I did let them know early on, before we ever engaged in intercourse, that I was not someone who would ever get an abortion, and so if we had an accident there would then be a child. Their response was to be extra careful about birth control. You CAN have that discussion in a relationship, or as you are beginning a relationship so everyone knows where they stand. A little bit of adult discussion and pre-planning is how sex SHOULD be handled, and being irresponsible in consensual sex is no one else's fault but yours and your partner's.
Post by
gnomerdon
in my culture, there is no child support. straight down the line.
in a divorce
the daughters will go to the mothers
the sons will go to the fathers
and usually, the sons rarely see their mothers, and daughters rarely see their fathers.
it's just silent pain and sadness for the kids, but they'll pull through..
there are many men, who would marry a woman he love and accept her kids.
there are also women, who would marry a man she love and accept his kids.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I agree.
Why on earth would it be antiethical? If the father doesn't want to be a parent he should still be paying for the child, other way around for the mother. I don't really see how this is a question?
A woman (in the US) has 100% choice in the matter when it comes to aborting or abandoning the baby at birth for adoption. If she comes to the decision that she does not want or can't afford to take care of a child for the next 18 years, she has outs. A man, other than trying to convince the mother, does not have any legal outs. By US law and legal precedent , he is required pay child support (even in the cases where he was raped, but that's possibly a separate issue), no matter if he wanted to abort the baby or put it up for adoption. That's the inequality that the provided argument is trying to solve.
@ElhonnaDS
What are you thoughts on putting the child up for adoption? Should it be allowed, and if so whose decision is it?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
If the child is given up for adoption, if one parent is relieved of financial responsibility, then both are. If the mother abandons a child without going through the proper channels, she faces criminal charges. If a mother doesn't want a child, and a father takes it, then SHE has to pay child support. Child support does not only come from men.
In terms of a mother being the only person able to decide on an abortion, I agree that's unequal but I think that abortion is wrong in general, and so my response is more to stop abortion as a form of birth control rather than to say men have to have the option to dispose of their child as well.
The man and the woman both had the same amount of choice in the above situation- they both chose whether or not to have sex.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
If the child is given up for adoption, if one parent is relieved of financial responsibility, then both are.
My question actually is leading to the converse of that. If the father wants to put the child up for adoption because he can't afford to raise the child, but the mother chooses the keep the child (as she is allowed to under current laws), the father is forced to pay child support. The choice is effectively out of his hands. The mother on the other hand, has access to safe-haven laws which allow her to legally abandon the child at the hospital or any other number of legally defined entities. So the inequality isn't that one has to pay and the other doesn't. The inequality is that the mother is the one who has full say in whether both should pay to raise the child or neither should.
So how would you bring equality to that situation?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think that if a child is put up for adoption, and the child is adopted by a family, they are choosing to take over the financial responsibility of the child, and so are relieving the birth-parents responsibility. It's not that the birth parents are entitled to not be responsible, but that the adopting family's generosity in adopting a child is that they are covering the parents inherent responsibilities.
In the case that you refuse to raise a child, but not a case in which the child had to be taken from you for its safety or of a child created through rape, the choice for one parent to give up their parental rights should by default leave the other parent with custody unless they also want to give up their rights. In the case where neither parent wants to raise the child, the state should step in for the welfare of the child. But I don't think giving up rights = giving up responsibility. I think that both parents should be required to pay child support to the state for children who are being paid for by the system, until such a time as the children are placed with an adoptive family. I think that if one parent doesn't want their rights that's fine, but that should have zero effect on child support paid to the other parent. If the mother wants to keep the child, the father pays. If the father wants to keep the child the mother pays. If they both want to give it up, they both pay.
In the case that children need to be taken by the state because of abuse or neglect (assuming both parents are involved- if only one is the children would go to the other parent), I think that both parents need to pay child support to the state, and then to the adoptive family, until the child is a legal adult.
In the case where the child is given up for adoption because they were the result of a rape, I think that the parent that committed the rape should be 100% financially responsible for the child's support to the state, (or to the parent who keeps the child if they do decide to keep it), and should by default not be allowed parental rights. By 100%, I mean that a normal parent paying child support is generally paying for what the court decides is their half of the financial responsibility. In cases of rape, I think that they should be responsible for both halves.
My answer to the equality question is that the solution is that both parents should be equally responsible, and that means the mother should have more responsibility, not that the father have less.
Also, I think that in the current situation where many, many children are being created that no one wants to take responsibility for, I think that sex education, including education about contraception and the risks of sexual behavior on the rest of your life, should be mandatory in public schools. Teach people responsibility, smart prevention, and that if they have a child there will be no one else to take care of it. If you don't want your children to be taught sex ed for religious or other reasons, the you should sign a waiver that will keep them out of that class, and in which you accept joint financial responsibility for any child they have that they cannot meet the responsibility for themselves.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
@ElhonnaDS
I don't disagree with most of your points, but there are legitimate cases where parents (single or couples) cannot afford to raise a child. Blame their lack of responsibility in having sex or problems with sex education in the schools if you want, but it won't solve the immediate problem of a family not having the monetary foundation to sustain itself. Any solution you propose, other than an adoptive family being found immediately (which can be quite a long shot depending on where you are), results in either the parent\ or the child suffering. Responsibility is great, and I think many more people need it, but I think there are legitimate reasons for safety nets like safe-haven laws.
@EluraE
I don't think you're analyzing the situation fairly. Men and women both share equal responsibility in the initial choice to have consensual sex. That's not in question. It's in the choice to abandon the responsibility of the child after it is conceived or born that is not equal.
Post by
Gone
No I don't. On the flip side if a woman wants to give a child up for adoption and the man wants to keep it, she should have to pay child support just like he would if its the other way around.
Post by
Patty
Well, as some of you know, my dad's not been... great at this (he and my mother split when I was 8 and then infrequently paid maintenance and visited), so I guess I have a very biased viewpoint.
As Elhonna said, if you are responsible enough to
choose
to have sex that risks pregnancy, the consequences are yours. Assuming it's been consentual, and both parties are at the best possible mental and/or physical health, the child that may come along is their responsibility. Simple as that.
Personally, might it have been easier if dad had walked out on day 1 and had a legal reprieve? Possibly. The state support would have been substantially more than we got off my dad, making things easier on my mother. Would that have been better for me or my sister? Probably not, and certainly not in every way. We'd have been more better off financially and possibly my mother would be under less stress, but personally? I'd have had a hell of a lot of questions, and felt personal guilt for a parent not really wanting to be part of my life. It probably would have just kept eating at me. Ditto if I had been adopted and known it. I may have been perfectly happy, but with so many questions.
Abortion shouldn't be used as a form of contraception in place of the pill or condoms, but... well, accidents can happen. That's also why it's important to discuss any kind of options after conception before it happens. Essentially, maturity. One night stands are different to relationships, obviously, because you're not going to be talking about the ethics of a morning after pill or medical abortion. In that instance (and assuming there is no abortion), my second paragraph stands.
That said, I know that some women use children as weapons to either get back at fathers, or to keep them in their lives. In those instances, that's where you go through the legal channels that act as checks and balances, maybe file for joint custody, keep
evidence
of being %^&*ed around.
My basic stance is that whilst opting out of parenthood may sound great, it's completely unfair to the child and shouldn't be used to shirk your responsibilities. I suppose as a flat answer to the main question, I'd say no.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm actually quite surprised that the general consensus here is ending abortion and using gender-neutral child support laws, especially the former. The consensus has definitely shifted in this forum over the last several years. Overall, it's the only legitimately equal solution I could envision on reading this question, so I had hoped to hear a defense of a woman's right to abort in regards to this issue.
Post by
Patty
I'm actually quite surprised that the general consensus here is ending abortion and gender-neutral child support laws, especially the former. The consensus has definitely shifted in this forum over the last several years. Overall, it's the only legitimately equal solution I could envision on reading this question, so I had hoped to hear a defense of a woman's right to abort in regards to this issue.
Well, obviously in all circumstances, the woman's voice counts for more re: getting an abortion or not, considering that it's her body that will carry the child for nine months. I absolutely think the right to a medical abortion is just that, a right, but at the same time, it shouldn't be abused because someone prefers unprotected sex and didn't go on the pill and so just keep getting them. On the flip side, it shouldn't be rejected just because a woman wants to manipulate or get back at their ex (as happens in some cases).
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Patty
I'm actually quite surprised that the general consensus here is ending abortion and gender-neutral child support laws, especially the former. The consensus has definitely shifted in this forum over the last several years. Overall, it's the only legitimately equal solution I could envision on reading this question, so I had hoped to hear a defense of a woman's right to abort in regards to this issue.
Well, obviously in all circumstances, the woman's voice counts for more re: getting an abortion or not, considering that it's her body that will carry the child for nine months. I absolutely think the right to a medical abortion is just that, a right, but at the same time, it shouldn't be abused because someone prefers unprotected sex and didn't go on the pill and so just keep getting them. On the flip side, it shouldn't be rejected just because a woman wants to manipulate or get back at their ex (as happens in some cases).
I agree. And I really don't think it's common for women to get pregnant on purpose to "trap" a man, besides even if it happens, the man shouldn't have been having sex with anyone if he is not okay with the fact that a woman might get pregnant as it can happen even with birth control. And expecting a woman to get an abortion is just a horrible thing to do.
It's actually exactly what happened with my cousin. His on-off ex/mother of his child is... somewhat unstable, and keeps using the kid as a weapon against him. It
does
happen, obviously not very often, but it's still a possibility. That said, he's not handled the situation brilliantly at all.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm actually quite surprised that the general consensus here is ending abortion and gender-neutral child support laws, especially the former. The consensus has definitely shifted in this forum over the last several years. Overall, it's the only legitimately equal solution I could envision on reading this question, so I had hoped to hear a defense of a woman's right to abort in regards to this issue.
Well, obviously in all circumstances, the woman's voice counts for more re: getting an abortion or not, considering that it's her body that will carry the child for nine months. I absolutely think the right to a medical abortion is just that, a right, but at the same time, it shouldn't be abused because someone prefers unprotected sex and didn't go on the pill and so just keep getting them. On the flip side, it shouldn't be rejected just because a woman wants to manipulate or get back at their ex (as happens in some cases).
I agree. And I really don't think it's common for women to get pregnant on purpose to "trap" a man, besides even if it happens, the man shouldn't have been having sex with anyone if he is not okay with the fact that a woman might get pregnant as it can happen even with birth control. And expecting a woman to get an abortion is just a horrible thing to do.
I still don't see what "...the man shouldn't have been having sex with anyone..." brings to the discussion. The man is no more culpable than the woman in that regard. Whatever rights, responsibilities, and expectations arise from the mutual act of consensual sex, re: the child, should be equal. What point are you trying to make with that?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.