Men Want Say in Unplanned Pregnancy!

[lord of the mark]

didnt mean to dans you - windows ate my comment.

[Spiffor]

No problem

However, I don't see why only the woman would be empowered to make the decision about adoption (= the decision about supporting the born child or not), when her decision clearly engages the responsibility of both parents.

[lord of the mark]

I think the problem is because the abortion debate is misconstrued. In fact its debate between two rights - the fetus right to life which the state wants to protect, and the womans right to privacy, dignity, and control over her body. Pro life vs pro choice, IOW. Instead its framed as if it were about childbearing as the natural consequence or punishment for sex, vs a right of women to be free of that punishment. Pro responsibility vs pro sex, I suppose. That may be the way many react to the debate, and what motivates many on both sides, but its NOT the legal argument, and IMHO its not the moral arguement either. Peoples right to sex would justify the taking of life, if there were not a right a to personal privacy and dignity involved - nor would the very desirable notion of being responsible for ones actions justify denying the right to control over ones body, if a life were not involved.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
No problem

However, I don't see why only the woman would be empowered to make the decision about adoption (= the decision about supporting the born child or not), when her decision clearly engages the responsibility of both parents.

I agree that men should have input into adoption - IE that a woman shouldnt be able to put her child up for adoption without the fathers consent (assuming he offers to take custody) when the couple is married of course the input is equal - when theyre not married, my impression is the law is evolving. But thats not the case being argued here.

[lord of the mark]

"Fathers' Rights in Illinois Adoptions
The Putative Father

A Putative Father is the alleged father of a child, either identified by the birthmother or unknown, who has not legally established his paternity of the child. A Putative father is not a legal father. A Putative Father must take legal steps to establish his paternity in order have any right to receive further notice of an Adoption proceeding or to have standing to contest an adoption. In Illinois, a Putative Father must register with the Birth Father Registry in order to receive notice of a pending adoption wherein he has been named as a Putative Father.

A biological father, or alleged biological father becomes a party whose consent to adoption is required if he has been informed that he is the father of the child, and:

marries the mother,
lives with the mother and supports the child,
establishes himself as the legal father by filling a parentage proceeding, or
Registers with the Illinois Putative Father Registry AND initiates a parentage proceeding.
A Putative Father may consent to the adoption of an unborn child by signing a Denial of Paternity and Consent to Adoption. Such a consent is irrevocable once signed and his parental rights may be terminated thorough court order prior to the birth of the child. A Putative Father may also consent to the adoption of an unborn child by signing a Declaration of Paternity and Consent to Adoption. Such a consent may be revoked at any time prior to the child's birth, but becomes irrevocable once the child is 72 hours old.

A legal father may consent to the adoption by signing a Declaration of Paternity and Consent to Adoption or by surrendering his rights to a licensed child welfare agency.

Depending on the circumstances, it may be wise to also make "Unknown Father" and "All whom it may concern" parties to the adoption proceeding. Following publication of legal notices in accordance with statute, the parental rights of all unknown fathers can be terminated.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
hypothetical

A man wants to have a child and the woman does not. The man claims to be sterlized, but isnt. The woman gets pregnant.

She doesnt believe in abortion, and carries to term. The man requests custody, and gets it. He then sues the woman for child support.

IIUC, under current law, shed be obliged to pay it. So NO violation of equal protection. None whatsoever.

The plaintiff here resents that the woman has a right to terminate, but wont. Too bad, since the right to terminate doesnt exist to protect him from this, but to prevent state violation of a right to privacy.

women pay child support all the time... (of course, not as often as the other way arround)

JM

[Fake Boris]

The key problem here is that someone has to care for the child if it is born. Technically, if men had the right to deny responsibility for the child, so should women.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Spiffor
No problem

However, I don't see why only the woman would be empowered to make the decision about adoption (= the decision about supporting the born child or not), when her decision clearly engages the responsibility of both parents.

As noted by LoTM, a man, if he knows the child is his and wants to keep it can stop an adoption, and probably ask for custody.

These guys are not asking for men to be able to have a say if they want a child and the woman does not. They are asking for men to have their responsibilities waved if the woman wants the child the and biological father did not, or had no interest in the child. That is a different set of objections.

I think LoTM made things clearer by pointing out the man is paying CHILD support, meaning, he is taking responsibility for his biological offspring.

And the mother certainly also has responsibilities to bear as the mother-unless she surrenders them by giving the child for adoption, but as stated earlierif she were to do that, these fathers who had no interest in the child anyways would be freed of their responsibility also.

And for Loinburger:

I put moral weight on responsibility, not sex itself. Sex as an act has consequences, consequences known to the parties before they undertake them. I expect people to be upfront and upright and bear the responsibility of their action, be it sex, smoking, driving, whatever.

[Shi Huangdi]

Then I'd have to ask, LoTM, from where does the government get it's right to compel one person to support another for a period of 18 years? I can't imagine that the Virginia legislature would, for instance, have the right to mandate you pay me $10,000/year for the next 7 years, though I'd have to check with one of the forum lawyers.

Where does the government get the right to compel support for a child?

[GePap]

The same place they get the right to compel you to pay taxes,or not muder people.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Women can opt to give the child up at birth and nobody's going to be demanding she support the child for the next 18 years.

This is about an unplanned pregnancy, not about an unwanted one. There is a slight difference.

The mother could have an abortion if that's an unwanted pregnancy.

Your suggestion is akin to "Men can decline paying support and get a judgement made against them."

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
This is about an unplanned pregnancy, not about an unwanted one. There is a slight difference.

No, this matter is about unwanted pregnancy. A pregnancy that is unwanted by the man, and wanted by the woman.

I know men who unexpectedly had their partner become pregnant, and who accepted the untimely pregnancy. Unsurprisingly, their reaction to the news of pregancy was fairly different to the men's who definitely didn't want a child with their partner.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GePap
I put moral weight on responsibility, not sex itself. Sex as an act has consequences, consequences known to the parties before they undertake them. I expect people to be upfront and upright and bear the responsibility of their action, be it sex, smoking, driving, whatever.

Than, I don't understand why you're pro-abortion. Pregnancy is a very well-known consequence of sex. If the women (except the ones who are raped) become pregnant, they have to bear responsibility for their actions, i.e. accepting to have vaginal sex with a man. Those who choose abortion just waive the responsibility they have incurred with their actions.

[Spiffor]

To explain my position:

I consider birth-control (both contraception and abortion) to be the best thing to come out of the 20th century, because it finally freed women of a servitude that lasted millions of years: the act of sex (a basic human need) meant that their body and their future didn't belong to them anymore.

To me, birth-control freed half of mankind more effectively than the philosophy of liberalism, which is already an immense human achievement.

Thanks to birth-control, we can now staisfy our basic human need (sex) without wrecking havoc in our individual future. I personally have to thank birth-control for being free now (instead of having to get a daily bread for one or two children, as I spent 2.5 years with the same girl), and I have to thank birth-control for not having to spend my life with a girl who doesn't love me anymore.

This freedom, I have it because my ex and I were in agreement. However, had she suddenly flipped out wrt childbearing, I'd have been a prisoner of her choices. I don't understand why my sexual freedom should depend on someone else's, while her's only depends on herself.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Than, I don't understand why you're pro-abortion. Pregnancy is a very well-known consequence of sex. If the women (except the ones who are raped) become pregnant, they have to bear responsibility for their actions, i.e. accepting to have vaginal sex with a man. Those who choose abortion just waive the responsibility they have incurred with their actions.

Originally posted by loinburger
The question of responsibility has no bearing on the legality of abortion. Otherwise we'd ban heart bypass surgery because the patient failed to exercise and eat a healthy diet, or we'd ban leg casts for novice skiiers who went down the expert slopes.