• Hello everybody! We have tons of new awards for the new year that can be requested through our Awards System thanks to Antifa Lockhart! Some are limited-time awards so go claim them before they are gone forever...

    CLICK HERE FOR AWARDS

Pregnancy and a Father's Rights



REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS
Status
Not open for further replies.

Johnny Stooge

Hawkguy
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
6,797
Awards
6
Location
Australia.
First off, just a little disclaimer so nobody misunderstands me: I fully believe that a woman has a right to do with her body as she wants and that no one has the right to impose anything on her.

A few years ago I raised a point in regards to a women's right to choose that we all sort of glossed over. Myself included. But I've seen others continue to raise the issue briefly around here and I've just recently read a few things elsewhere with people sharing the same sentiments, and that is what amount of say does a father have in relation to a woman's pregnancy.

I think we can all agree that it takes two to tango, and that if a woman does fall pregnant 50% of the potential child's biological material belongs to the father. And we use this to rationalise the concept of Child Support. That regardless of whether the father is involved in his child's life, he must pay for it until it comes of age. However, the decision to terminate, keep or put the child up for adoption lies solely with the mother. It is her and her alone that decides the fate of the child and whatever wishes the father has can be completely ignored.

So I ask you: if a mother can terminate her unborn child against the wishes of the father, is it fair to force a father to pay child support if he doesn't want to be a part of the child's life?
 

Dentim

A boy in a playsuit.
Joined
Oct 28, 2005
Messages
3,902
Awards
4
Age
33
From a technical point of view: no it isn't fair. Not for the father at least. But this world isn't fair to begin with.
It is my belief that both parties need to come to an understanding in a situation like this. If the pregnancy was unplanned (like, say, the result of a one night stand) and the father doesn't want anything to do with it, then I feel the mother needs to make a wise decision. If she wants the child and can support it herself, go for it. If she can't: abort it. (Do note, that I'm much more in favor of the father getting involved in the child's upbringing, as I can't even see myself being capable of the opposite)

There's another question that remains unanswered in this situation however, and that is what would be fair for the child, rather than the father or the mother.

Another note: I purposely ignored any and all religious or familial reasons that can sway abortion related decisions as that would make this infinitely more complicated.

tl;dr: If he wants it but doesn't want to be with the mother for whatever reason, child support. If he doesn't want it, better to abort.
 

Cosmic+Amarna

Phantom Gigaplex
Joined
Feb 10, 2012
Messages
1,044
No it is not fair. It would have to go to a court to be decided. If the father wants to keep the child and the mother doesn't, I think that he can take her to court to ensure that the child is born. I'm not totally sure if that's what actually happens but I think I recall such things, correct me if I am indeed wrong. It is unfair to force the father to pay child support if he didn't want to have the child but yet allow it to be suitable for a mother to terminate despite the father wanting to have the child.
 

Luap

sans 911
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
5,233
Awards
6
Age
27
Website
www.facebook.com
It's a double standard and is completely unfair.
You don't get a baby without a man ejaculating into a women. If it's consensual, then the ability to make decisions should be equal. With how abortion and child support works today, the man has zero choice on whether or not he wants to support a child and a women gets all the choices. If that's not gender discrimination, then I don't know what is.

Personally, I believe any issue that involves a child/fetus/whatever you want to call the result of an egg fertilized by sperm, if the conception was made through consensual sex, it's a matter of Parental Rights, not man's or women's rights.

From a technical point of view: no it isn't fair. Not for the father at least. But this world isn't fair to begin with.

I hate when people say this when it comes to politics. The role of the government is and should only be to protect the rights of it's people. It's role is to make sure that in everything that everyone involved has a say that is equal.

It's a true statement, but using it as a justification for failure is stupid.
 
Last edited:

Orion

Prepared To Die
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
20,385
Awards
10
If a man engages in sex while:
-Not under the cognition-impairing influence of alcohol or other drugs
-Not ensuring he takes protective measures
Then he is basically committing to have a child be born, and what that necessarily entails. There is literally no other way around it.

However, I think there are very specific instances in which a man should be able to opt out of child support or fatherly care, such as the above instances. The drugs/alcohol one is problematic for obvious reasons, in that you could say it enables a man to get smashed and then knock a woman up with no consequences. However, it's still entirely possible (however unlikely) for a man to - while sober - begin drinking in a male-only environment, only to later find himself extremely drunk and not thinking properly, making his way to somewhere where there basically are women to get knocked up. I think it's wholly unreasonable to, in the above instance, tell the man after conception that he shouldn't have drunk, since he basically never had any intention whatsoever to engage in sex. In this sort of instance, where a man cannot be held responsible for his own decisions, I would think it at least partially fair for him to not pay child support.

The second sort of instance is in regards to contraceptives. If you cum inside a woman, bad luck - that is it. Try as you might to ensure that she's taking all sorts of contraceptives too, there's no real guarantee that she's done such, since no female contraceptives are externally visible, unlike a condom. If you don't want to become a parent, it is up to you to you as a man to try and prevent that. If, in spite of those preventative measures the woman still gets pregnant, then yes it's okay for you to not pay child support. You did your part of the transaction as safely as could be done, how you are forced to deal with unforeseen consequences depends on that.

While I might like there to be some sort of equality when it comes to how parents deal with potential abortions, I still think the mother's right to her own body and/or property trumps any corresponding rights of the man. If for some reason the woman does fall pregnant without the intent of the man, then he should at least have the option of a financial abortion - to not be expected to pay for that child in any significant way. What follows from that is hard - if you want to stay with the woman it's almost inevitable that you'll support the child. However, that the woman would bring an unexpected (and at least partially unwanted) child to term and want to raise it in spite of your objections would probably be a bigger concern than the technicalities of not-supporting a child while living with its mother, so yeah~
 

inasuma

i'm gonna be
Joined
Dec 28, 2005
Messages
1,289
Awards
23
Location
Indigo Plateau
First off, just a little disclaimer so nobody misunderstands me: I fully believe that a woman has a right to do with her body as she wants and that no one has the right to impose anything on her.

A few years ago I raised a point in regards to a women's right to choose that we all sort of glossed over. Myself included. But I've seen others continue to raise the issue briefly around here and I've just recently read a few things elsewhere with people sharing the same sentiments, and that is what amount of say does a father have in relation to a woman's pregnancy.

I think we can all agree that it takes two to tango, and that if a woman does fall pregnant 50% of the potential child's biological material belongs to the father. And we use this to rationalise the concept of Child Support. That regardless of whether the father is involved in his child's life, he must pay for it until it comes of age. However, the decision to terminate, keep or put the child up for adoption lies solely with the mother. It is her and her alone that decides the fate of the child and whatever wishes the father has can be completely ignored.

So I ask you: if a mother can terminate her unborn child against the wishes of the father, is it fair to force a father to pay child support if he doesn't want to be a part of the child's life?
I think so, yes. If we are going to let the mother have that much control, then the father might as well too. It's only fair. If the father wants it aborted and the mother agrees, then later gives birth anyway, why should he be held accountable if his thoughts were not even considered at that point?

I believe ideally the mother and father should discuss it and come to common terms.

Where this all gets confusing and unreliable is when the mother claims one thing over the other in court when it comes down to child support. "Oh, he said he would support it" when in fact he didn't want it. The flip side of that is the argument that he conceived in the first place, so it is his responsibility.

Blah.
 

Ehres

` dragon dance
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
6,298
Awards
3
Location
netflix probably
I don't know. I think it's a partnership thing but the credentials get a little sloppy if that one-night-stand didn't involve a condom which is more of a man's responsibility than a woman's since he is the one with the penis. To be extra careful she should also carry condoms but realistically if he knows there is a chance he's going to have sex (which could be any time, really) he should be taking that precaution. (Do men have any other forms of contraception other than condoms? Could be a blond moment here.)

I digress. The point I'm making is that even if she tells him she doesn't want to use a condom, there's really no way she can stop him from doing so. This applies to one-night-stands and relationship/casual sex. And even then if he doesn't use a condom, it should be his call to pull out just before he ejaculates (though of course sex sans condom is stupid if you aren't willing to face up to the implications (and though you can of course get pregnant before ejaculation)). I just feel that there's little to no excuse when it comes to one-night-stands, that both parties play some part in blocking that pregnancy but ultimately simply because the male is (most of the time) the one who has the physical upper hand during sex, the use of a condom lies with him more than her.

A woman should, of course, take her own precautions and if she doesn't use at least a condom then she's being irresponsible, too.

Given all necessary precautions are taken and that you both aren't stupid enough to not use protection and sit there scratching your heads like a pair of Neanderthals when a baby comes into the equation, there should be a slight chance of pregnancy. And if that happens, then of course both man and woman should logically sit down in a healthy environment and discuss the situation.

There are many variables but if it was an accident (pill not working, split condom, whatever) then it's on both their heads and they should both work together on the keep/abort issue. If what Cosmic says is true, he could indeed take her to court if he felt so strongly on whatever decision he decided to make. But it's sort of difficult. Just because he wants something doesn't mean what she wants is totally irrelevant. Eh, idk.

tl;dr

use contraception
if not youre both guilty and you both should pay
if so then be civil about it
 

The Conquerer

The Bloody Warrior
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Messages
4,706
Awards
3
Location
Michigan
No, it's not fair. Child support should only be enforced if to have the baby was the original shared consensus. Unbeknownst to the man, the woman decides to give birth and raise the kid, she can't reasonably expect him to want to be in the child's life.
 

Luap

sans 911
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
5,233
Awards
6
Age
27
Website
www.facebook.com
While I might like there to be some sort of equality when it comes to how parents deal with potential abortions, I still think the mother's right to her own body and/or property trumps any corresponding rights of the man. If for some reason the woman does fall pregnant without the intent of the man, then he should at least have the option of a financial abortion - to not be expected to pay for that child in any significant way. What follows from that is hard - if you want to stay with the woman it's almost inevitable that you'll support the child. However, that the woman would bring an unexpected (and at least partially unwanted) child to term and want to raise it in spite of your objections would probably be a bigger concern than the technicalities of not-supporting a child while living with its mother, so yeah~

The thing with a financial abortion is that the mother still gets to be a mother. With an actual abortion, the father doesn't get to be a father since he has zero say.

If a mother doesn't want a child she is pregnant and a father does want the child, then why not have the mother have a financial abortion than an actual abortion? The father pays for the whole pregnancy, then when the child is born he assumes full responsibility for it's well-being. The mother can just go back to her life without responsibility for it.

I don't know. I think it's a partnership thing but the credentials get a little sloppy if that one-night-stand didn't involve a condom which is more of a man's responsibility than a woman's since he is the one with the penis.

Uh, if a person can wind up having sex at any time, shouldn't it be the women's responsibility to be on the pill, or some other contraceptive, just as much as it is for a man to be carrying condoms?

It's also both people's responsibility to say no when there is no condom.
 

Dentim

A boy in a playsuit.
Joined
Oct 28, 2005
Messages
3,902
Awards
4
Age
33
The thing with a financial abortion is that the mother still gets to be a mother. With an actual abortion, the father doesn't get to be a father since he has zero say.

If a mother doesn't want a child she is pregnant and a father does want the child, then why not have the mother have a financial abortion than an actual abortion? The father pays for the whole pregnancy, then when the child is born he assumes full responsibility for it's well-being. The mother can just go back to her life without responsibility for it.



Uh, if a person can wind up having sex at any time, shouldn't it be the women's responsibility to be on the pill, or some other contraceptive, just as much as it is for a man to be carrying condoms?

It's also both people's responsibility to say no when there is no condom.

I understand what you're getting at, but I take it women who don't want the child aren't going to be willing to go through childbirth either.
 

Ehres

` dragon dance
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
6,298
Awards
3
Location
netflix probably
Uh, if a person can wind up having sex at any time, shouldn't it be the women's responsibility to be on the pill, or some other contraceptive, just as much as it is for a man to be carrying condoms?

Er, I never said it wasn't? My point was that the 'default' protection is condoms, and when you're having sex the one you automatically think of first. "Got a condom?" "Yeah/No." Responsibly the woman should have the coil/injection if she's sexually active and wants to minimise the risk of pregnancy and should take just as much flack for a resulting pregnancy as the male if she did end up pregnant. What I was trying to say, if you'd please understand, was that not all contraception has 100% chance of working so you should double-up as it were, and with condoms specifically it should be more of a man's responsibility.

I understand what you're getting at, but I take it women who don't want the child aren't going to be willing to go through childbirth either.

I agree. While a woman's desire for pregnancy/non-pregnancy has always been predominant historically it's not as easy as flipping the tables and giving the male more rights than the woman vis-a-vis the infant and getting his way the majority of the time. Personally I think it's sort of irresponsible to say that just because a man decides he doesn't want it, he won't have to contribute in any way, shape or form. That's not constructive and morally it doesn't settle well since it deprives in some part that blameless child of some form of resource. It's a difficult issue.
 
Last edited:

Alaude Drenxta

\+The Devil's+/ .{Advocate}.
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
7,306
Age
32
Location
My house?
Actually, if done before the second trimester, that scale may be off you may have to fact check me, a biological father can disown legal rights and obligations to the child, at least in my state in the US. While quite irresponsible and ludicrous, the option is there, most useful for times when a man has been tricked into conception, which is far more common than it should be.
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2012
Messages
3
Age
32
Location
WHY DO YOU WANT TO FUCKING KNOW?
I was raised in a old fashion family,meaning we don't accept unexpected pregnancies. I recall one time my father beat my sister after she told him she was pregnant.I didn't have any sympathy neither;she deserved it for being a whore. If my daughter ever came to me with the news that she was pregnant I'd slap her across the face. Having a child at 17 shows me that you're irresponsible as a human and not capable of rational thoughts. We don't also believe that "fancy" medical science-and we usually perform an abortion with a coat hanger. Girls shouldn't be having unprotected sex,scratch that,they shouldn't be having SEX PERIOD! Women should only remain faithful to only one man and their job is to make sure the home is nice and tidy. Women should also not leave the boundaries of their home and should be home all day watching over the kids and cooking dinner for their husbands.

Women do not deserve equal rights as men until they've proven they are capable of getting their legs closed.
 

theirlosthearts

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2011
Messages
476
Awards
2
Location
Someplace looking for people's love ♏
lol troll

I think that both the father and the mother should both have a say in what happens with their kid. The problem is, disagreements happen, and people don't like compromise. From a legal standpoint, it is easier to just let the mother have full control since she is the one who will actually give birth. It may not be fair, but it works better for a legal system than equal rights.
 

XIII Heartless

Head Mom In Charge
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
13,786
Awards
2
Location
Somewhere with headphones on d-_-b
Website
profile.myspace.com
I had this discussion the other day after this issue came up with a friend. He wanted to keep the child, but she didn't, so she aborted it. I don't believe it's fair in the slightest that, in a case such as this, she was the only one who had any say. Women are generally pretty quick to hit us men with the "it takes two to make a baby, so man up and be a father/accept the consequences of your actions" speech when the man tries to back out of the situation. There are no such expectations of the women, however, to "step up and be a mother" and to take responsibility for her part in the situation. It's a double-standard if ever there was one.
 

Ehres

` dragon dance
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
6,298
Awards
3
Location
netflix probably
^ The difference is that a woman is morally obliged to stay with the child even if she doesn't want it. A man can easily walk away because the mother, more often than not, is always there as the primary parent in such relationships.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top