Men Want Say in Unplanned Pregnancy!

[Kidlicious]

I don't go for the child support is the right of the child. I think this is between tax payers and fathers. I don't think fathers should be obligated, but then if they weren't many would have too much incentive to not provide for their own children. For that reason I support forced child support, and not because I think that children have some inherent right.

[lord of the mark]

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.

If the child is adopted, then the child legally becomes the child of the adoptive parents, and she is no longer the parent. If no one adopts, I would think she still has a legal obligation. I presume that if she has resources, and yet allows the child, having failed to be adopted, to be in the custody of a govt social services agency, the agency would (or certainly should) have recourse against her resources.

I suspect this is an uncommon case, though, as infants are generally adoptable, and i suspect few women who have resources would allow their children to be brought up a social services agency.

[lord of the mark]

if you think child support is the right of the mother, rather than the child, you could simply have every woman you have intercourse sign a document waiving her right. IIUC such things have been tossed out in courts, which is why special legal provisions had to be made for artificial insemination.


"Artificial insemination and surrogacy contracts are serious undertakings.

Section 7613 of the Family Code recognizes artificial insemination of a mother, and deems the mother’s husband to be the father even if the father is not the biological father (use of donor sperm).

Generally speaking, no matter what the private arrangements are between two consenting adults, an agreement to waive child support will not be enforced if one parent seeks judicial intervention in establishing a support order. Even in a situation wherein the father was misled into believing the mother was using birth control, he cannot legally argue that the false representation by the mother was a fraud to avoid child support obligations (Stephen K. v. Roni L. (1980) 105 Cal.App3d 640). Sometimes, however, the identity of the legal parent is not clear."

[Kidlicious]

There's only legal obligation to provide for your child in certain situations. If you recieve welfare you don't have to pay it back. But if you're a father out of the home, and the mom recieves welfare you have to pay it back. Theoretically so would a women, but the fact is they don't go after women I think.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Spiffor

I'd just like to point out that even men who take precaustions in order to avoid pregnancy can get the woman pregnant. It can either be because of an accident (the condom breaks, the pill was forgotten), or because the woman lied to the man about her taking the pill. I know several examples of women getting pregnant despite the men's precautions. I don't see why the men should be forced to take care for 18 years of a child they took steps to avoid conceiving.

because its still his child. Whatever steps he took or didnt take, once the child is born, its his child.

I have read all of GePap's posts here, and I am still at a loss as to why he opposes men having a say during the pregnancy.

Because to force a person to have surgery performed on themselves against their will, would not only overturn Roe, but any doctrine of personal privacy or personal liberty in law.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kidicious
There's only legal obligation to provide for your child in certain situations. If you recieve welfare you don't have to pay it back. But if you're a father out of the home, and the mom recieves welfare you have to pay it back. Theoretically so would a women, but the fact is they don't go after women I think.

im not familiar with the govts rights vs parents re welfare law. Thats not whats at issue here, I think.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Why is she the only one with that choice?

I dont think she is. IIUC if she wants to put the child up for adoption, and the bio father wants to claim custody, he gets custody, and theres nothing she can do. Theres some issues of notification though - if theyre unmarried, and shes unsure, or claims to be unsure who the father is, or where the father is, I believe in most states his consent is considered waived. But thats been in dispute in recent years, IIUC. In any case, thats a seperate issue.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by snoopy369

"None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child."

That tells me all I need to know ... when it's a woman, it's "the rights of the woman" and not the rights of the child, but when it's a man, it's "the rights of the child" and not that of a man.

Nope. Both men AND women have privacy rights to their own bodies, including the right to decline an invasive procedure. Neither men nor women have the right to not support their own child. In the case where a child is being raised by one parent, the other parent has an obligation to the CHILD to share in the support. Regardless of gender.

Now if you want to complain about gender bias in custody assignment, that would be something different.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


im not familiar with the govts rights vs parents re welfare law. Thats not whats at issue here, I think.

Why not? The govt has a competing interest with the father.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by loinburger
I am surprised that you are attaching an inherent moral judgment to the act of sexual intercourse.

Nope. The connection between intercourse and fatherhood is a biological fact. The moral connection being made is between biological fatherhood and a childs rights. You can sever the latter, but only by changing the law, at least here in the states, and, I suspect, with negative consequences all around.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Why not? The govt has a competing interest with the father.

neither the mother or father appears to be eligible for welfare. I fail to see what you are talking about.

[lord of the mark]

in fact i think biology is at the root of this.

Intercourse is tied up with parenthood, (by a puritancial god, or by evolution, or both, take your pick). It was thought that science had liberated humans, esp men, from this connection. However women can, by their actions defeat this seperation, and reunite what god/evolution joined. I can see where this could be intensely frustrating. Especially when the law is that women have a right to control over their bodies, which to some extent means the link is still severed for them. However the law does not extend them that right for the purpose of severing the link - its only a byproduct of what is, arguably a more fundamental right. (if one doesnt believe its a fundamental right, as Ben and IS dont, they can make that arguement - but its unconnected with the custody issue)

[loinburger]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Nope. The connection between intercourse and fatherhood is a biological fact. The moral connection being made is between biological fatherhood and a childs rights. You can sever the latter, but only by changing the law, at least here in the states, and, I suspect, with negative consequences all around.

Changing the law doesn't change the moral connection, it changes the legal connection.

As I said, there's no point in basing the argument for child support in biology -- biology says that the man's role in reproduction takes a few minutes and a few calories to fulfill.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by loinburger

Changing the law doesn't change the moral connection, it changes the legal connection.

As I said, there's no point in basing the argument for child supportin biology -- biology says that the man's role in reproduction takes a few minutes and a few calories to fulfill.

however short or however few calories, it makes you the biological father. The only question is under what circumstances we should sever biological fatherhood from legal fatherhood, with its legal obligations. We sever in the case of artificial insemination. We sever biological fatherhood and/or motherhood in the case of adoption. We COULD change the law to sever them in this case. Im not convinced it would be a good idea, though. In any case its not the law now.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by loinburger

Changing the law doesn't change the moral connection, it changes the legal connection.

yes, well of course we dont have to legally enforce parents moral obligations to their children. Heaven knows, in a hundred ways we already fail to do so.