The Right of the Man to Choose...

[mr.guy]

Fundamentally, it's an unequal situation (females can give birth, males can't),

Wrong. Fundamentally, while women can give birth, males can impregnate a barnful of women within one term of pregnancy; no woman on the planet can rival the amount of children a man (for his part) is able to produce. If biological inequity is to be part the argument, best we work with an accurate factsheet, no?

 

[evearael]

And the male can knock up all those females and run for it, taking absolutely no responsibility for the lives he helped create. Men shouldn't be able to dodge their responsibilities and neither should women. That means both should take equal roles in the life they both create and BE PARENTS! Child support is not just a means to extort the unwilling parent... it is meant to replace, however poorly, the prescence, love, guidance and emotional support of the second parent. You chose to create a life, you choose to accept the natural consequences of it. If you don't like it, DON'T HAVE SEX! Or if that doesn't sit well, discuss things like babies and STD's BEFORE having sex.

 

[mr.guy]

And the male can knock up all those females and run for it, taking absolutely no responsibility for the lives he helped create.

That already happens. What's your point?

Men shouldn't be able to dodge their responsibilities and neither should women. That means both should take equal roles in the life they both create and BE PARENTS!

So, putting any children up for adoption is now off the table, right?

Child support is not just a means to extort the unwilling parent... it is meant to replace, however poorly, the prescence, love, guidance and emotional support of the second parent.

This assumes that all instances of child support would somehow be abolished. How'd you get that idea?

You chose to create a life, you choose to accept the natural consequences of it. If you don't like it, DON'T HAVE SEX! Or if that doesn't sit well, discuss things like babies and STD's BEFORE having sex.

The "wise up like me, world" argument. Should note that infantcide among plenty of species (including ours) is quite natural; is this among the 'natural consequences' you would leave open?

 

[evearael]

I am merely emphasizing that this is an issue of responsibility before biology. We all know sex causes babies. I believe that anyone engaging in sex should be open to having a child with that person, or at the very least agree beforehand to adoption. I am not hostile towards adoption, but it's pretty crappy to grow up knowing your parents didn't love you... I would never abolish child support, and I'm a bit confused how that could have been deduced from my comment as to its purpose. Also, just because it exists in nature does not make it ethical. Plenty of species commit rape, so is that okay now too?

 

[mr.guy]

I am merely emphasizing that this is an issue of responsibility before biology.

Which is neither here nor there. Irresponsible sex is not the issue. While it's noted that you believe that more premeditation is required before engaging others sexually, the issues at hand are focused on what happens after such acts; your plea is chronologically misplaced in this thread.

 

[evearael]

I believe that targeting the causes of a particular problem is alot more productive at actually solving it, than merely dealing with the aftermath.

That said, I fundamentally disagree with the idea of emancipation for the man or woman. Although, if we design some sort of legal contract that both parties can sign prior to sex that would delineate the course of action in the event of children, you could get your wish. If you disagree whether or not to keep the child, the disinterested party could insert a clause that effectively washes his hands of them.

 

[finalfrogo]

I suppose this pertains to this question: Who owns the child, the mother or the father, or both?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Right to emancipation?


The legalities behind this issue is not to punish the fathers for forcing them into a position that they do not want to be in. The government is protecting the child's right to security. If the government were to allow a clause in it's books for a man to say "bye-bye" to the kid, it leaves the child in a much more vulnerable position than otherwise.



This argument isn't really about punishment in the first place. It's about inconvenience for the father. His life is not ruined because he is held accountable by the government to financially support his offspring (which the minimal amount is usually enforced, and it is feeble anyway). But the life of the child is much more likely to see harm if the father wins emancipation.




I personally think this is a poor stance - the fathers who only think about their own well-being and not about the well-being of the child. This is where the government gets it right. They are protecting the lives that can't defend nor support themselves.





Peace,
Mystic

 

[pdoel]

It's about inconvenience for the father. His life is not ruined because he is held accountable by the government to financially support his offspring (which the minimal amount is usually enforced, and it is feeble anyway). But the life of the child is much more likely to see harm if the father wins emancipation.

I personally think this is a poor stance - the fathers who only think about their own well-being and not about the well-being of the child. This is where the government gets it right. They are protecting the lives that can't defend nor support themselves.

But see, it's not as black and white as you make it sound. I hear women bashing men all the time, and acting as if most men walk away from such responsibility. Unfortunately, the truth is, there are many men AND women who shirk the responsibility.

We always hear the argument that it's the woman's decision because she's the one who deals with the 9 months of pregnancy. Well guess what, 9 months of pregnancy is NOTHING compared to the care it takes to raise a child to adulthood! As if it's a cake walk once those 9 months are over!

But, as to the responsibility. The sad truth is that there are many people, male AND female who lack the responsibility. Whether it's the financial responsibility, the care, whatever. Too many stories of crack babies being born, parents (mother or father or both) dumping babies in dumpsters, or abusing the children, or locking the child up in a closet. There are men who walk away from a pregnant woman, and women who have babies just to get a government check.

There are WAY too many holes in our system for such things.

I would like to see responsibility really become a key factor in all this. I'd like to see some type of government requirement of BOTH parents going through some type of counseling before making the decision of aborting the baby, or the mother deciding to have it against the father's will, etc. I'd like to see both people forced to accept some responsibility for the child they created.

 

[Sunstone]

The courts have consistently ruled that both parents owe a duty to the child to support that child. This is pretty much settled law.

 

[Druidus]

Look folks, I'm not saying that the man should get away scot-free with no ties to the child. All I'm saying is that men shouldn't be bound by the female. Lets say the female gives birth, and the male wants to put the child up for adoption but the female wants to keep it. The male automatically has to pay child support even though he suggested adoption as an ethical option. If the child is put up for adoption, it is safer than in a family where both parents are obviously not yet mentally mature, and are likely unable yet to provide for themselves alone, let alone a child. The male is being more responsible, knowing that they cannot yet adequately support the child. Even in this situation, however, the male is forced to abide by the whims of the female, paying child support in a situation where another more viable option exists. If the female doesn't want to put the child up for adoption, fine, but why should it be expected that the male pay for a child because of a decision he had nothing to do with?

It's hard right now for me to articulate exactly what I mean, but I hope that did it.

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

No, I certainly see your point. But, correct me if I'm wrong, the woman can want to put the kid up for adoption but the man can decide to keep him/her. Now, if, in this situation, the woman doesn't have to pay child support, then I'm with you 100%. Things need to be changed if that's the case.

But if it works the same both ways, I honestly don't have a problem with it.

 

[Druidus]

But if it works the same both ways, I honestly don't have a problem with it.

Equal unfairness is still unfairness. I know that life is unfair, but we should still strive for fairness.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

But see, it's not as black and white as you make it sound. I hear women bashing men all the time, and acting as if most men walk away from such responsibility. Unfortunately, the truth is, there are many men AND women who shirk the responsibility.

Of course. You're absolutely right. There are women whose perceived perogative in life is to torture and punish men however they can, and women who also leave babies in dumpsters or decide to abort their baby late-term if the state lets them.....that is reality at the moment. The reality is that there are men who do, in fact, walk away from this responsibility. The argument, I thought, was that men should be able to walk away from the responsibility. That is the argument that I part ways with.




There is a difference between debating what does happen and what should happen. I don't believe that women should be able to abandon their babies on a park bench or a dumpster without criminal charges brought against them. I also am personally against abortion, too (although that is a different topic). I am also against a women who abandons her child in the care of the child's father or with another guardian for a certain length of time without some recourse against her, too. Abandonment proves negligence on the part of the parent. Therefore, I am against the mother or the father abandoning the child without some legal recourse against him or her.

We always hear the argument that it's the woman's decision because she's the one who deals with the 9 months of pregnancy. Well guess what, 9 months of pregnancy is NOTHING compared to the care it takes to raise a child to adulthood! As if it's a cake walk once those 9 months are over!

I'm sorry. This is kind of preaching to the choir, here. No counter-point on this one.

But, as to the responsibility. The sad truth is that there are many people, male AND female who lack the responsibility. Whether it's the financial responsibility, the care, whatever. Too many stories of crack babies being born, parents (mother or father or both) dumping babies in dumpsters, or abusing the children, or locking the child up in a closet. There are men who walk away from a pregnant woman, and women who have babies just to get a government check.

There are WAY too many holes in our system for such things.

I'm not really following you on these points-for-consideration. Can you please offer an explanation on how these horrible crimes against children support the argument for a father to claim emancipation from his child(ren)? If that is your point?

I would like to see responsibility really become a key factor in all this. I'd like to see some type of government requirement of BOTH parents going through some type of counseling before making the decision of aborting the baby, or the mother deciding to have it against the father's will, etc. I'd like to see both people forced to accept some responsibility for the child they created.

I applaud your passion, but I see the government doing the best they can on this side of a freedom-based Constitution to legislate having both parents taking responsibility for the child they created. Having counseling provided by the government does not provide any type of guarantee that a father and a mother will take responsibility for their child. According to the current standards there is more than one way for a parent to take responsibility for a child:



1) Providing shelter, food, protection, and a means to an education for the child in the custodial parent(s) household.
2) Providing financial assets from a non-custodial parent that support the immediate needs of the child, in the form of money and/or health insurance.



This is the best the government can do under our current provisions. I support this ideal, whether the non-custodial parent is the biological mother or father. If one or both parents willfully shuns the responsibility for the child, negligence is proven, and either that negligent parent should have rights taken away, or they should be correctly penalized (based on the amount of negligence) for the sake of the child.





Peace,
Mystic

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Look folks, I'm not saying that the man should get away scot-free with no ties to the child. All I'm saying is that men shouldn't be bound by the female. Lets say the female gives birth, and the male wants to put the child up for adoption but the female wants to keep it. The male automatically has to pay child support even though he suggested adoption as an ethical option. If the child is put up for adoption, it is safer than in a family where both parents are obviously not yet mentally mature, and are likely unable yet to provide for themselves alone, let alone a child. The male is being more responsible, knowing that they cannot yet adequately support the child. Even in this situation, however, the male is forced to abide by the whims of the female, paying child support in a situation where another more viable option exists. If the female doesn't want to put the child up for adoption, fine, but why should it be expected that the male pay for a child because of a decision he had nothing to do with?

It's hard right now for me to articulate exactly what I mean, but I hope that did it.

I'm sure it is hard for you to articulate exactly what you mean. I put two of your statements in bold because they seem to totally contradict each other. I'd like to see how a father can take responsibility for a child by not providing shelter, food, insurance, education, or any types of money. Isn't that allowing him to go "scot-free"?



Can you reconcile those two statements, Druidus?





Peace,
Mystic

 

[Druidus]

Can you reconcile those two statements, Druidus?

Yes, I can, indeed, reconcile these "conflicting" statements.

The female decides she wants to keep the child, which would likely be a poor decision for the child. The male decides that he would rather put the child up for a adoption, so that the child can recieve a better life than if he kept the child. However, the female's choice takes precedent. If she want to keep the child when adoption is a more viable choice, she should take the responsibility for the child, not the male. Likewise, if the male wanted to keep the child and the female wanted to put it up for adoption, he should take responsibility for it, not the female. However, if they keep the children and one of the partners eventually leaves, that partner should most definately have to financially assist the family he left behind.

But just because the female makes an irresponsible and poorly explored choice (to keep the child, rather than place it for adoption), the male should not have responsibility for the child, unless he willingly takes it, because he offered the more viable solution of adoption. The same should be true of the opposite, if the roles were reversed. If one partner makes a foolish choice, and keeps the child before both partners are fully ready for such responsibility, the other partner, regardless of gender, should not be bound by the foolishness.

When, clearly, the best solution is adoption (where the child can find a better environment and more mature and responsible parents) and one partner refuses to see that, they should not be able to force unasked burden on the other partner, who recognized the mature and responsible thing to do is place the child for adoption.

Remember, I'm applying this rule equally, to both sexes. If the female wants to place the child for adoption but the male wants to keep it, the female should not be subject to the foolish whims of the male.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Ah, I see.




I fully support the promotion of adoption agencies. I see your heart is in a good place for the welfare of the child regarding this option.



I think that ultimately I disagree with your stance that requiring a father to pay child support somehow binds him to the mother. I see it as requiring him to be bound to his child. Child support is the entitlement bestowed to the child, and not to the custodial parent. Somehow I think that is the core of our disagreement, maybe?





Peace,
Mystic

 

[evearael]

Perhaps revamp the system so that child support checks go directly to health insurance, and so on, for the child, bypassing the other parent?

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Since it appears that this thread is going to take off here, I'll throw in my two cents. If someone makes a child, the woman doesn't have the right (IMO) to abort it to avoid the responsibility. Likewise, the man doesn't have a right to not pay for the survival of the child.

If a person takes out Mr. Happy to play, then he also has to be willing to accept the consequences. He's obviously old enough to understand responsibility and shouldn't be shielded from his own decisions.

Ahh what a wonderful Puritanical concept. Lets punish them for having sex. Lets make sure they pay and pay and pay for the sin of having sex.

B.

 

[Booko]

What if the female want to put the child up for adoption, or abort the child? The male has absolutely no say in this decision. Even if he wants to keep the child, he can't if she doesn't want to. She's not bound by his decision, why should he be bound by hers?

If the woman wants to put the child up for adoption, the father should get first dibs. I think it's a rip that men have no say here.

otoh, if she doesn't want to carry the child to term, I'm not keen on that idea, but the reality is that NONE of you men will ever have to suffer those consequences for your bit of fun.

When you share the burdens of pregnancy equally with women, then you get an equal say. And when it's YOUR body carrying the child, then you call the shots with no input from the women.

So no...if the woman doesn't want to carry the child to term...tough cookies for you, men.

btw, I view whether sex was unprotected or not as completely irrelevant to the issue, since the only "safe" sex is no sex at all.
I should oughta know. I was on the pill, never missed one, and got pregnant...twice. Who woulda thunk it? It was no problem for us, as we were thinking of having kids anyway. They were sorta "accidentally planned."