Forced Fatherhood.

[SSY]

This is something I have been mulling over for a while now, and would appreciate the input of others.

Reproductive law, as I see it, is grossly unfair to fathers.

Roe Vs Wade, established the right of women to have sex, and not have children, even in the event of an unforeseen, unintended or otherwise unwanted pregnancy. Through either abortion or adoption, women have the right to escape motherhood, at pretty much anytime they feel like it, for whatever reason. From my tone, it may sound like I am against this, I am not. I believe it would be heinous to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, or to force her to support a baby she does not want.

If we contrast this with the position of males, we see a very different situation. Once a man has blown his load, it’s over. He is entirely out of the picture, and powerless to made decisions regarding the future of his ( would be ) children and his involvement with them. Should the mother decide she wants to keep the babies, the man will be forced to pay child support, whether or not he wants to be involved with the family. A woman can opt out of a situation like this by having an abortion or by giving the child up to adoption.  The man is given no choice in the matter after sex.

The two positions are completely different. A woman can have sex, with no risk of unintended families popping up should she not want them. A man has to take his life in his hands should he want to risk a bit of rumpy pumpy with he opposing sex. I do not believe the last sentence was an exaggeration, being forced to turn over a large percentage of your income for the next 20 odd years of your life against your will can be devastating for many men and their ( other, or new ) families.

Men seem to be shouldered with a solid 50% of the responsibility for children, when they have no choice in deciding the outcome or their involvement with the pregnancy.

This case is highlighted in the recent Dubay Vs Wells case, though there the issue is even worse for the poor chap involved. Matt Dubay was misled by his girlfriend, Lauren Wells, that she was a) sterile and b) taking contraception ( those two facts, when taken together would have rung alarm bells for me, but anyway ). After their breakup, he was informed she was pregnant and he was being pursued for child support payment. Even if he had not thought his girlfriend was sterile, I would support his choice to not be forced into fatherhood, but the additional circumstances make it even worse.

I am still waiting for a case where the woman has baby, puts it up for adoption, but instead the baby is given to the father, and he pursues her for child support. I do not hold my breath, mainly because in less than 50 of cases where children are taken from the mother, are fathers even asked if they want to provide care for the child, but that’s a whole other issue.

I believe this case also has implications regarding paternity fraud and contraception fraud, though again, they stray outside the realms of this specific discussion. More informative information can be found out by researching "male abortion", basically something that gives men the option to not be involved in families.

I would appreciate all your comments about this, what you think is right, wrong and necessary about current reproductive laws. Most of this stuff is Stateside, though UK law is not that far off with regards to the fundamentals as far as I know.

P.S. sorry it turned into a bit of an epic.

[joeactor]

Hey SSY,

Actually, I know where you're coming from.

Some friends and I were just discussing this over dinner last weekend.

In a utopian world, if we were able to raise the embryo to a viable, fully-formed baby outside of the womb, there would be more choices.  Or if the father could carry the child to term.  With these choices, the playing field becomes more even, and men's rights could be on a more equal footing.

But that's not where we are at.  At present, the mother must carry the baby to term.  And that isn't fair to the woman if she doesn't want it.  Conversely, it isn't fair that a man cannot choose to abort if he doesn't want to support the child, whereas women have this choice.  Maybe there isn't a fair solution as it stands.

As for child support, that's got inequities as well.  I think these could be more easily addressed.  The problem seems to be a biased view towards mothers vs. fathers.

Politically, it's a bear trap, and nobody want's to take on the issue... they would ruin their re-election chances and public image.

Who said life's fair?
JoeActor

[SSY]

I think there are more issues than that, which further entrench the current mindset and practice.

Chief among them is the state. If the dad is not going to financially support kids, then the state will most probably have to pick up the slack. This means higher taxes and hence lower chances of re-election, which is of course, the main thing any government is concerned about.

Further to this, there is the general perception in society of deadbeat dads. A woman who decides to not be a mother can give any number of reasons. Such as focussing on a career, not liking the particular man she fell pregnant by, and not wishing him to father her kids, not being ready to look after kids yeat, or not being able to provide them with the security they deserve. When a woman makes this choice, and cites one of the reasons above, she is more often than not seen as independant, strong, liberated.

A man making the choice ( not that he can, legally ) is seen as a dead beat, irresponsible, selfish, commitophobic or perhaps even worse, as needing to grow up.

But that's not where we are at. At present, the mother must carry the baby to term. And that isn't fair to the woman if she doesn't want it. Conversely, it isn't fair that a man cannot choose to abort if he doesn't want to support the child, whereas women have this choice. Maybe there isn't a fair solution as it stands.

The situation you describe is the one I offer a solution to, the woman is not forced to carry unwanted babies to term, and the man is not forced to pay for them, this to me seems like the fairest possible solution, though I agree, given the complimentry, rather than identical anatomies of men and women, some compromise is always going to be needed ( note, in the solution above, the man is still arguably worse off, as the he still has no say over whether the child is born, only his later involvment with it, shout it get that far ).

As for child support, that's got inequities as well. I think these could be more easily addressed. The problem seems to be a biased view towards mothers vs. fathers.

Agreed, but as I said above, the state has an interest in maintaining the unfair status quo.

I beleive we should strive hard to eliminate unfairness of this sort in society. Being denied rights simply becuase of the way you were born is repehensible in my eyes, when they are enshrined in law like this, it makes the situation seem horribly grim.

[VanReal]

I agree, on a point or two, regarding the lack of father's rights and how the system favors women, but have to say that a lot of that has to do with the fact that so many fathers over the past two decades or more have been absent, unsupportive, and pretty much worth little other than a pitiful excuse for a child support payment .  It is one of those "the bad apples ruin it for all of the others" deals and the ones that actually are stand-up and want to do the right thing get shit on.

On the adoption front I have to say that it is not that easy to just "give your baby up for adoption" without the father's consent or lack of responding.  Because of cases where the father was unaware of a baby even existing, finding out, and then ruining an adoption that had already been placed in the home adoption agencies are very careful about what they are doing there.  I know many people who have adopted both through the state agencies and through private adoptions and the fathers and/or husbands are in on it.  I also know several people who have given up their children for adoption and who have had their spouses adopt their children and all have had to jump through numerous hoops to include the biological father.  If there is a case where the woman doesn't know who the father is every effort is taken to locate the "responsible" individual in order to obtain signature including taking out newspaper and online ads with details of the encounter that run for months at cost and trying to locate the person through any information available.  (Sometimes this is rather difficult especially for those one night or otherwise brief encounters.)  Also, my son is a product of rape and when I tried placing him for adoption we had to send a letter to the biological father, he stopped the adoption but did not have to do anything to help afterwards.  So I know this argument is not a good one.  And yes, when the father gets custody the woman pays child support, my sister has for years and I have several woman at work that I payroll deduct for child support.

So, we come to the woman choosing to have the baby and then seeking and receiving child support.  Yes, I can see how this would chap the ass of the man that was careless or "duped" as in the current case, but unfortunately he had the opportunity to keep this from happening, he knows that this kind of thing does happen and I don't have any sympathy for them for being required to pay support.  If he wants to be involved he should at the same time include visitation and legal rights and involvement in the child's life.  That rarely happens though, they just bitch about paying support and then having nothing to do with the kids.  Maybe it's not fair, and he doesn't get to have a say on whether the child is born or not but he is aware of what could happen and is responsible for he drops his seedlings.  

Money is important but in the long run it's not important when it comes to the fact that two adults got together for hanky panky, now there is a baby, and two people are responsible for that.  The time to complain is when the woman takes his semen from him unwillingly.  When that happens I think he should be absolved. (That would be forced fatherhood.) Otherwise he needs to buck up and pay the piper, and be a father because that is important and we are seriously lacking in those.  My son is not warped or damaged because of the years we were poor, the months we lived in my car, or the fact that he got his very first brand new pair of shoes when he was nine, but he does have some minor issues from me having to teach him how to shave, how not to pee on the seat, and how to close the door and use lotion to keep from causing irrepairable harm to his dinga-ling.  I would have loved to have had the money and the means when he was younger, but more so I would have loved to have had help with things I know nothing about and for him to have had someone to talk to that wouldn't completely freak out about boy stuff.

I hear it daily and am so tired of hearing men complain about having their check garnished or having to write their monthly check, maybe they should have considered that torture before being loosy-goosy with their goody sack.

Now, if you want to talk about how good fathers that want to spend time with their kids and help raise them to be good adults get treated like crap by the system and by the baby mommas I am all for that because that does happen.  Or how women turn their kids against the fathers for no reason other than him not wanting to be with her.  And so on, because women are mean, spiteful, trashy, and stupid too.

Or maybe I am just bitter.  

[VanReal]

Chief among them is the state. If the dad is not going to financially support kids, then the state will most probably have to pick up the slack. This means higher taxes and hence lower chances of re-election, which is of course, the main thing any government is concerned about.

Um yes, this comes from taxes, so in other words it comes from people that pay those taxes.  Why should other people be responsible for taking care of another man's mistakes?  It's bad enough we pay for people to eat and sleep for committing crimes, and pay for lazy people that don't want to work, but we need to pay for people that made whoopy?  

There are a lot of other things this money could go towards, like taking care of people who really need it like the mentally ill and the medically disabled, for example.

[SSY]

Van

With respect, I think the position you hold is typical of many women, who are unsympathetic to the unfairness imposed on men, and as they stand to gain from it, really dont give a damn about changing it either.

In order.

Some fathers are shit, yes, agreed, but why should that mean poor Mr Dubay has to shoulder a massive financial burden? ( over $100,000, but probaly more as his payment will be increased as his wage is )

While I have never gievn up or accepted an adoption baby, i have to contend a few points you make about adoption. So called "safe haven laws" are enactwed in every state, "Safe Haven law, also known in some states as Baby Moses law, is the popular name for United States laws that decriminalize leaving unharmed infants with statutorily designated private persons so that the child becomes a ward of the state. "Safe Haven" laws typically let parents remain nameless to the court"

Easy as pie in that particular case. But regarding adoption in general, the mother is never faced with a situation wherby she goes upto the state, says " I want to get rid of my baby" and the state say "NO" or "Ok, but we are going to bleed you dry with child support payments". She has a way of absolving herself of responsibility that the man does not, this is my main point of contention.

My point about fathers not being sufficently involved in the adoption process was ancillary, though I still feel relavent to the general attitude towards fathers given by the law. It was based on a survey that found child support workers fail to contact the father in 56% of cases after the child is taken from the mother. I can have a go at finding this again if you want me to. i beleive the point stands in even in lieu of this survey, that women have a way of avoiding motherhood after pregnancy when men do not.

In the specific cases you mention, did the women paying child support specefically put the kid up for adoption, throug the state, or was the custody awarded in the more normal manner? I was only referencing the former, as i beleive it parallels the male position rather well.

The position you take in your next paragraph should be surprising to me, based on the heartlessness of it, though I have become anured to this attitude through countless recitations of it. You say the man should not have had sex if he did not want to be burdened with the support of a child. If you think this, then you should also be against abortion or adoption. I can already see you saying abortion is a special case, it concerns a womans bodily rights, but this still leaves adoption. She had sex, therfore, excluding the case of an abortion, she should be forced o support the child. This is not the case, nor would you argue it should be ( i'm guessing ).If she did not want to be forced into supporting a child, she should not have had sex in the first place. Why is it woemn get a choice after conception and birth, but men do not? Your position shows a clear sexism against men.

Raping men and forcing them to pay child support is so wrong, so obviously wrong, I offer it no further consideration. You go on to imply there are a multitude of crap fathers out there. I agree, there are, along with many, many crap mothers. How is garnishing the check of an absent, unwilling father going to solve the problem of rubbish fathers?

I'm so sick of generally misandrists acting like many men are incapable of being good fathers and that men should be expected to endure a horribly unfair regime.

With repect, I think you should seriously reconsider your position and the unbridled misandry in it. I am not surprised by this, as men seem to be the de jour target of modern society, but I admit, i was hoping for a more reasoned and balanced oppinion from you.

You also do not mention which parts of my post you agree with, I would be interested to know.

With regards to your last bit. The same could be said about foster homes and orphanages. Why the hell should I have to pay for people that give their kids up for adoption? Those parents are free from responsibility to provide, why only them?

[Hitsumei]

Ah, the dead-beet dad, society's forgotten hero.  

What you describe is largely, and remains a remnant of an evolving system, and is unlikely to remain the way that it is. As both men and women become closer and closer to equality of autonomy, and as abortion becomes more, and more of an accepted practice, and not a moral dilemma, the father having no say seems less and less fair.

I would not support changing the system at this time, as there is still a heavy amount of emotional pressure on young women to not abort, and many are even denied this possibility by their religious beliefs, or from fear of repercussions from their family. Women also on average lack the autonomy men posses. There are increasingly more situations where it would appear unfair that the system is how it is, but the system is a blunt instrument, and can give no exceptions.

When it becomes as easy for a woman to abort, or support a child as it would be for a man to say "goodbye, not my problem", and stop calling, or meet the child's financial needs is when it will become fair to allow a man to take no responsibility if he should decide that he doesn't want a child early enough in the pregnancy -- this isn't sarcasm either, I do think such a time will come -- then I think that the law needs to be changed to allow a man to claim no responsibility, but not before.

[Hitsumei]

Van

With respect, I think the position you hold is typical of many women, who are unsympathetic to the unfairness imposed on men, and as they stand to gain from it, really dont give a damn about changing it either.

Ah, but let me guess, your gender in no way tends to bias you to one side, that kind of thing only happens to us emotional, and irrational women.

[SSY]

I disagree.

A woman can easily get an abortion, a previous girlfriend of mine took the morning after pill a scant 3 hours after a somewhat terrifying accident ocurred. No question asked, we phoned a family plnning clinic, got some directions and hopped on a bus. More serious procedures can be booked with a 3 day lead time.

If a woman's family prevent her from having an abortion, I would say that is more an argument for freeing her from the clutches of a controlling household, rather than pressganging a male for the next 20 years of his life. As for religious beliefs, the point is, the abortion is available, they are not prevented from doing it, they choose not to do it. Even if we were to indulge this, they can still give a baby up for adoption.

I would like some backup to your statement about women lacking autonomy, as far as I can see, a woman is just as free as a man in todays society ( more so in some cases ).

Your last paragraph makes very little sense to me. You say that is easier for a man to naff off than it is for a woman to get an abortion, I agree, this is indeed the case. But I fail to see how this translates into an argument for placing men at a massive disadvantage to women with regards to reproductive rights. If an abortion was a massive, dangerous, serious medical procedure, I might agree. As it is, I think the experience of having an abortion pales in comparison to the injustices men face.

To clarify, under my proposed system.

Both want a kid, great go for it.
Both dont want a kid, fine, dont go for it.
Man wants, women doesn't, tough luck buddy, you cant have your baby.
Woman wants, man does not, fine, but dont expect the man to pay for your choices.

The fact of the matter is, women can control their involvment with a pregnancy and subsequent upbringing of a child, men cannot, this is unfair on men.

As to your last point. Yes, being a man has made more aware and more receptive to concerns about the issues men face. No where did I state women were more irrational or emotional, but it's nice you can have such a vivid imagination.

[Hitsumei]

I disagree.

A woman can easily get an abortion, a previous girlfriend of mine took the morning after pill a scant 3 hours after a somewhat terrifying accident ocurred. No question asked, we phoned a family plnning clinic, got some directions and hopped on a bus. More serious procedures can be booked with a 3 day lead time.

If you notice, I did not say that it was mechanically difficult, I said that for many it is morally and socially difficult. This is different, and I think clearly undeniable.  

If a woman's family prevent her from having an abortion, I would say that is more an argument for freeing her from the clutches of a controlling household, rather than pressganging a male for the next 20 years of his life. As for religious beliefs, the point is, the abortion is available, they are not prevented from doing it, they choose not to do it.

Your disagreement with their moral stance, and your lack of compassion for their social situation is not a legal argument.

Even if we were to indulge this, they can still give a baby up for adoption.

Not without the father's consent -- and then this becomes a problem for the state, which is just an attempt to hand the problem off to others, that actually had absolutely nothing to do with it; oh Czar of what is fair -- so the idea that the woman have this option to her that the father has no say in is false. Similarly a woman can allow a man to not have to take responsibility for the child by freeing them of the legal responsibility.

I would like some backup to your statement about women lacking autonomy, as far as I can see, a woman is just as free as a man in todays society ( more so in some cases ).

Women tend to earn less money for the same jobs, and even those women have recently surpassed men in educational achievements in several fields, they still do not land the highest positions in those fields, which grant greater levels of autonomy. Here is an article about the difference, and here is an article about the educational achievements.

Your last paragraph makes very little sense to me. You say that is easier for a man to naff off than it is for a woman to get an abortion, I agree, this is indeed the case. But I fail to see how this translates into an argument for placing men at a massive disadvantage to women with regards to reproductive rights.

They don't have equal positions with regard to reproductive rights, because they don't hold equal positions with regard to reproduction.

If an abortion was a massive, dangerous, serious medical procedure, I might agree. As it is, I think the experience of having an abortion pales in comparison to the injustices men face.

Your opinion is noted, but your personal evaluation of what matters most is thankfully not how laws are made. I personally prefer the system of taking everyone's values into consideration.

To clarify, under my proposed system.

Both want a kid, great go for it.
Both dont want a kid, fine, dont go for it.
Man wants, women doesn't, tough luck buddy, you cant have your baby.
Woman wants, man does not, fine, but dont expect the man to pay for your choices.

I did not have trouble grasping your position on the issue.

The fact of the matter is, women can control their involvment with a pregnancy and subsequent upbringing of a child, men cannot, this is unfair on men.

Men can control it. They can either be extremely careful with their contraception, and opt to take the risk, or not have sex with a fertile female. The evil women can't get babies out of them if they do not freely comply -- women raping men isn't something I hear about very often.

As to your last point. Yes, being a man has made more aware and more receptive to concerns about the issues men face. No where did I state women were more irrational or emotional, but it's nice you can have such a vivid imagination.

Then what was the point of your statement unless you didn't think that it was also true of you? That's like a leper pointing out all of the other lepers in the leper colony.

[rlrose328]

The choice of what to do about pregnancy and the resulting birth should be made before sex has been had, don't you think?  If we're talking about a willing, consentual act, with or without birth control (since all have some rate of failure), fertilization can take place.  Period.  

However, I agree with the issue of a man's right to bear children.  Why should he be on the rope to pay for a child he never intended to create with the woman?  She DOES have the choice of abortion during the pregnancy.  The choice lies completely on her side.  What if the man wants the baby but the woman doesn't?  Too late, it's gone.  Choice forfeited solely because he doesn't have a womb?  Not right.

I have no solutions (as always), but it's a great debate.

[Will]

Fathers force fatherhood on themselves when they have sex. If you have sex, you are making the decision to put yourself into the role of parent should your prophylactic fail. And if you're not wearing a prophylactic and don't intend to have children, you might be an idiot.

Anyway...

Because men and women are biologically different, there are never going to be woman linebackers on the Raiders and fathers won't have the same parental rights until a baby is born. Is it fair? Probably not, but we have to design laws for the way things are not the way we wish them to be. If some day women are able to have the burden of childbirth replaced by some technological solution, like growing the fetus in an artificial womb, the law might change. For now, a woman has to go through 9 months of pregnancy and then childbirth. Men do not.

[VanReal]

Van

With respect, I think the position you hold is typical of many women, who are unsympathetic to the unfairness imposed on men, and as they stand to gain from it, really dont give a damn about changing it either.

Understood, please let me know when I am going to start gaining from it.  

Some fathers are shit, yes, agreed, but why should that mean poor Mr Dubay has to shoulder a massive financial burden? ( over $100,000, but probaly more as his payment will be increased as his wage is )

Yep, kids are expensive, and there are limits so the custodial parent is responsible for 20% for one child in most cases.  Just like taxes the more you make the more they take.

While I have never gievn up or accepted an adoption baby, i have to contend a few points you make about adoption. So called "safe haven laws" are enactwed in every state, "Safe Haven law, also known in some states as Baby Moses law, is the popular name for United States laws that decriminalize leaving unharmed infants with statutorily designated private persons so that the child becomes a ward of the state. "Safe Haven" laws typically let parents remain nameless to the court"

These actually happen outside of the court altogether and are established to keep mothers from plopping their babies in dumpsters.  In this case the child becomes a ward of the state and neither parent is held responsible due to the safe haven act, so the father would benefit as well.

Easy as pie in that particular case. But regarding adoption in general, the mother is never faced with a situation wherby she goes upto the state, says " I want to get rid of my baby" and the state say "NO" or "Ok, but we are going to bleed you dry with child support payments". She has a way of absolving herself of responsibility that the man does not, this is my main point of contention.

Actually this does happen, I have a 17 (almost) year old at home now that is evidence of the fact that if the father says no to adoption you have no choice.  He does not even have to say "No, I want it" all he has to say is "No, I won't agree to it."

My point about fathers not being sufficently involved in the adoption process was ancillary, though I still feel relavent to the general attitude towards fathers given by the law. It was based on a survey that found child support workers fail to contact the father in 56% of cases after the child is taken from the mother. I can have a go at finding this again if you want me to. i beleive the point stands in even in lieu of this survey, that women have a way of avoiding motherhood after pregnancy when men do not.

This is interesting and is a problem, I must mention that if things are bad enough to take the kids from their mother (and believe me social services let it get pretty bad) and the father's aren't around it's probably pretty difficult to contact them....where are they?  This is kind of totally different because these are already high risk households and usually begin with an absent father so apparently he's either off the hook already and/or not interested.

In the specific cases you mention, did the women paying child support specefically put the kid up for adoption, throug the state, or was the custody awarded in the more normal manner? I was only referencing the former, as i beleive it parallels the male position rather well.

Actually, if the child is adopted neither of the birth parents are responsible for any child support so that's a win-win for both, or truly all four parents.  These were cases where the father was awarded custody through the court and the mother was ordered to pay child support, so it does happen.

The position you take in your next paragraph should be surprising to me, based on the heartlessness of it, though I have become anured to this attitude through countless recitations of it. You say the man should not have had sex if he did not want to be burdened with the support of a child. If you think this, then you should also be against abortion or adoption. I can already see you saying abortion is a special case, it concerns a womans bodily rights, but this still leaves adoption. She had sex, therfore, excluding the case of an abortion, she should be forced o support the child. This is not the case, nor would you argue it should be ( i'm guessing ).If she did not want to be forced into supporting a child, she should not have had sex in the first place. Why is it woemn get a choice after conception and birth, but men do not? Your position shows a clear sexism against men.

That is not what I am saying at all and abortion and adoption are always good alternatives to having children you don't want and raising them as such.  I am not saying that the fact that the man doesn't get to make the choice of abortion or require adoption is right, what I am saying is that is the way things are, and men know it, they understand that women get pregnant sometimes, often when least expected, and that they will be responsibile financially for it when she chooses to have it.  So, boo-hoo that he feels it is unfair, it's life and he knew the risks and potential for making a baby.  It's like any other comlaint about things that aren't fair, I am kind of like, "so what".  Now if you are mentally unable to understand that having sex with a women can cause a pregnancy then I would feel bad for them, but other than that I don't.  Both people have to make choices at the time that the "zygote goes nova" and the fact that men's options are limited is a simple fact of biology. If my son made me a grandmother today I would not be thrilled and it would take me a while to absorb that but it would be his problem and his financial responsibility, he knows about condoms and he knows that he produces sperm and he has seen many a baby and pregnant girl, so he is not absolved simply because he would have prefered she have an abortion.

Raping men and forcing them to pay child support is so wrong, so obviously wrong, I offer it no further consideration.

That was kind of my point, the above would be the only way that a man would be forced into father hood.  Other than that he is a willing participant and therefore responsible for his actions.

You go on to imply there are a multitude of crap fathers out there. I agree, there are, along with many, many crap mothers. How is garnishing the check of an absent, unwilling father going to solve the problem of rubbish fathers?  I'm so sick of generally misandrists acting like many men are incapable of being good fathers and that men should be expected to endure a horribly unfair regime. With repect, I think you should seriously reconsider your position and the unbridled misandry in it. I am not surprised by this, as men seem to be the de jour target of modern society, but I admit, i was hoping for a more reasoned and balanced oppinion from you.

No, I actually said that there are a lot of good fathers/men out there that want to do the right thing and they get shit on.  I also said a lot of women are crap as well.  I am not pro-mother or pro-father or anything like that.  And, I know that there are a lot of good men out there, most of them being trampled by women that are pieces of shit.  So believe me I am not saying "men suck" and "women rule".

I am just saying that I don't really think it's wrong to make men responsibile for their children, whether they intended to have them or not.  Much like a person that smokes two packs of cigarettes a day is responsible for his cancer, he knew the risk, one day it happened, now he has to deal with it and the financial and physical burden his actions caused.

You also do not mention which parts of my post you agree with, I would be interested to know. With regards to your last bit. The same could be said about foster homes and orphanages. Why the hell should I have to pay for people that give their kids up for adoption? Those parents are free from responsibility to provide, why only them?

I agree that men often get the raw end of the deal when it comes to family court matters. I agree that women are often manipulative and shady in their behavior with men.  But, I also believe men are smart enough to know this and should protect himself rather than claiming he was sucked in by the "I'm sterile" line. I think too many people have kids with the intent to get a pay check and not enough to enjoy the child. I just don't agree with the whining about it.

I need to clarify some things here though that are wrong.  No one else pays for children that are adopted other than the adopting parents.  If you adopt a child that child becomes your's just as if you had given birth to him/her.  You are responsible for all expenses, health care, and college, etc.  Tax payers do not pay for children that are adopted and the biological parents do not pay anything for the child, in essence they are absolved from all responsibility, and rights of course.  So, you should be very pro-adoption since it means that the unwilling father does not have to pay child support or have anything to do with the child he did not want.

Both want a kid, great go for it.
Both dont want a kid, fine, dont go for it.
Man wants, women doesn't, tough luck buddy, you cant have your baby.
Woman wants, man does not, fine, but dont expect the man to pay for your choices.

This is pretty much how it is now.  Do you know how difficult it is to get men to pay child support when it's not an ex-husband or documented father?  You make it seem like every father out there is paying child support....hmmm, feel the need for some research.


I'm sorry if you think I am heartless and am not thinking this through or am proclaiming "I am women hear me roar!"  I truly am not, but it just burns me up when people don't take responsibility for their actions, no mater what they are, and this one even more because the person that really gets hurt is the kid that no body really wanted to begin with.

[liveyoungdiefast]

I am a male who thinks males have no right to have any final say in what the woman does with a pregnancy. Very simply because, if a man could tell a woman to abort a pregnancy, millions of people would be outraged. Men can't force abortions or force births.

[Tanker]

As I read this thread I was, of course, thinking of reproductive freedom and what it means. I came to the conclusion that while reproductive freedom, within some certian bounds is a good thing, what it really means is female and only female reproductive freedom. It seems like a double standard to me. If a man takes all reasonable precautions or is diliberatly misled I don't think he should have any responsability for a child he did not want and in the case of contraception tried to prevent.

If a man tried to force a woman to have a child he wanted and she didn't there would be a public out cry for his deplorable act "HOW DARE HE impunge on her reproductive freedom", but it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to do it to a man makes little sense.(being that this is an atheist forum I'm not going into the "wifely duties" or other church inspired arguments) If she wants to keep and raise a child against the fathers wishes that great but he should NOT be responsable for that child. On the flip side the man should not have any say in how the child is raised or any contact that the mother does not want.