The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Freeper on July 22, 2010, 11:14:18 AM
-
apples and oranges (354 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul-22-10 12:10 PM
Original message
Should fathers have the right to opt out of caring for a child ahead of time?
Brown University professor Frances K. Goldscheider thinks so. She writes:
A recent study of reasons noncustodial fathers give for not paying child support indicated that 25 percent either were not the father or did not want the child to be born. An additional 23 percent indicated that they had the responsibilities of a parent, but no rights: They were not allowed to visit, much less have input into the decisions that parents are normally called upon to make vis-Ã -vis their children.
It seems clear that gender equality will have to be achieved in the family. This means that men will have the same right to decide whether to assume the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood that women have and that they have equal rights to custody. It also means that the rights and obligations of both parents to support and care for their children will be enforced with equal stringency.
For such equality to be achieved, however, men need the right to a "financial abortion" - to be notified by the mother as soon as she knows about the child's existence, and to decide reasonably quickly whether they want to undertake the legal rights and responsibilities of parenthood - or not. Women who do not notify the father of their child should face penalties - perhaps for violating his civil rights. Likely there would be chaos for a while, but in a society otherwise highly based on choice, our current obsession with tracking men down and punishing them for fathering a child with high support judgments feels much like the punishment "wayward" women were treated to when they bore an illegitimate child.
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/Op-Eds/...
I think it's a good idea. Men should not have to go to jail for a child they did not want in the first place!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8794367
FLyellowdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul-22-10 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. Men should not have to go to jail for a child they did not want in the first place?
Edited on Thu Jul-22-10 12:12 PM by FLyellowdog
Then they should keep their pants on.
Try suggesting that women should do that and we wouldn't have to worry about abortions then all of DU would throw a huge fit.
If they were truly pro choice then men would have a choice as well would they not?
-
uncommon (307 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul-22-10 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
2. No. Use protection, use your brain, and accept that once you implant something in another sentient
human being's uterus, you are just going to have to deal with her decision.
Ok that clarifies it only the woman gets a choice.
-
This has always been another of my arguments against abortion. It treats the parents of the child dramatically different.
-
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul-22-10 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. Does the same go for abortion? Don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex?
His body, his choice - should he have to work for 18 years, using his body, if he does not want to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
arbusto_baboso Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul-22-10 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. YES! Equating abortion to a man taking responsibility is jaw-dropping.
Edited on Thu Jul-22-10 12:27 PM by arbusto_baboso
What the hell is wrong with you?
Yeah because expecting the man to be responsible while the woman can get off scott free is such a lame argument. :mental:
-
arbusto_baboso Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Thu Jul-22-10 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. What the hell is wrong with you?
I'm guessing he/she's not familiar with The Straight Story :rotf:
-
Hello_Kitty (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-22-10 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. Yes. A child is a distinct human being and entitled to support from both parents.
A fetus is part of a woman's body. That's why she gets the right to choose.
I think this qualifies as an oxymoron. :mental:
-
I think this qualifies as an oxymoron. :mental:
The mental gymnastics they do to justify abortion are really heartbreaking.
-
The mental gymnastics they do to justify abortion are really heartbreaking.
Not to mention the theory that women deserve "more equal" treatment than men today. :whatever: Orwell would LOVE the Dims these days.
-
The woman always has the choice of giving the baby up for adoption. Many folks would pay good money for a healthy child.......
I, for one, don't think it's right to saddle a guy with child support payments if the couple is not wed at the time and/ or the baby cannot be definitively proven to belong to that father. There have been some instances where a male has been required to pay support for a child that was not his. That said, if it IS a man's child and the couple can't agree on the outcome, the man should be able to have some leniency.
-
This is a tough one. I agree that there is some inequity built into the way things currently sit, but I believe that it comes down to a man acting like a man...if you contribute to a new life, you are on the hook for their care. In other words, keep your pants on unless you are willing to live with the consequences.
-
The woman always has the choice of giving the baby up for adoption. Many folks would pay good money for a healthy child.......
I, for one, don't think it's right to saddle a guy with child support payments if the couple is not wed at the time and/ or the baby cannot be definitively proven to belong to that father. There have been some instances where a male has been required to pay support for a child that was not his. That said, if it IS a man's child and the couple can't agree on the outcome, the man should be able to have some leniency.
My husband's stepsister fooled everyone when she got pregnant in high school. Everyone (including the boyfried and his family) believed the child to be the boyfriend's. Only when the child was over 1 did she come clean about the real baby daddy (who later died at a very young age). But I attended the baby shower. I was 16 or so. I dated my husband in high school. Her boyfriend's family bought all of this stuff. Stroller, high chair, clothes, etc. I am pretty sure she didn't return any of that stuff to them. And I can't imagine the shock and heartache it caused. It actually almost caused my mother-in-law and my stepfather-in-law to divorce. CRAZY.
Just wanted to add that she had to leave our school. We went to a private Christian school. If you got pregnant or impregnated anyone, you had to go. She did leave and graduated top of her class. She was smart in a way. But obviously not so much in another way.
-
It might sound crazy...but if a guy wants to permanently opt out, sign legal papers to that effect...then let him.
Give the child and the mother a chance to find someone who is worthy of them....and keep a worthless piece of crap from ruining some child's life because he's incapable of stepping up to his responsibilities.
-
It might sound crazy...but if a guy wants to permanently opt out, sign legal papers to that effect...then let him.
Give the child and the mother a chance to find someone who is worthy of them....and keep a worthless piece of crap from ruining some child's life because he's incapable of stepping up to his responsibilities.
I agree. Fix 'em and forget 'em.
-
It might sound crazy...but if a guy wants to permanently opt out, sign legal papers to that effect...then let him.
Give the child and the mother a chance to find someone who is worthy of them....and keep a worthless piece of crap from ruining some child's life because he's incapable of stepping up to his responsibilities.
The problem I have with that is that a child (especially in this circumstance) needs all the support financially it can get. A deadbeat dad will probably always be a deadbeat dad, but the money that is garnished from his check can really help a child. It is a yucky situation when it ends like this though.
-
The problem I have with that is that a child (especially in this circumstance) needs all the support financially it can get. A deadbeat dad will probably always be a deadbeat dad, but the money that is garnished from his check can really help a child. It is a yucky situation when it ends like this though.
Only if he works.
A shitty father leaves a lasting impression....and often can do irreparable harm. Wonder how many abusive fathers were forced into parenthood?
Financial help can be obtained elsewhere.
-
If the mother can opt to cut the father out of the process when it comes to abortion...since it's a "women's issue"...I don't see why the sperm donor can't opt out of the care of the kid.
Especially when DNA tests these days after the fact are showing that a lot of people that THINK they are dads...and paying support like they are the father..really aren't.
-
DNA testing should of course be done if there is any question of paternity, especially if one is to be held financially liable for the child. Those cases where it's determined that the male is not the bio father but has been forced to make payments should be overturned.
Mother nature has placed an inequity on the situation where the female is the child bearer. I guess it's normal that another inequity is in place to balance that one, namely that the male bio dad is mandated to support financially. There is a lot to fix in this situation. I look at it from a position of personal responsibility. If you chose to take an action, you chose to deal with the consequences.
-
Hello_Kitty (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-22-10 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. Yes. A child is a distinct human being and entitled to support from both parents.
A fetus is part of a woman's body. That's why she gets the right to choose.
It didn't get there all by itself. No wonder these people want graphic sex ed started in kindergarten..... they're still confused as adults.
I've always wondered how these libs, who want the laws re-written to absolve us all of any personal responsibility for our actions, who want to wipe away any possibility of consequences, have overlooked the baby daddy in the scheme of things. Just wait until one of their precious liberal male offspring knocks up the daughter of a bible-thumping anti-abortion family. Then, all of a sudden, they'll be legislating abortion rights for men.
-
It didn't get there all by itself. No wonder these people want graphic sex ed started in kindergarten..... they're still confused as adults.
I've always wondered how these libs, who want the laws re-written to absolve us all of any personal responsibility for our actions, who want to wipe away any possibility of consequences, have overlooked the baby daddy in the scheme of things. Just wait until one of their precious liberal male offspring knocks up the daughter of a bible-thumping anti-abortion family. Then, all of a sudden, they'll be legislating abortion rights for men.
This is a problem that I have struggled with for years.
It seems that a woman who is pregnant is just as responsible as the sperm Donner.
So why does the woman have the right to kill the baby and the father have no say. Say the father wants his child, he stated the process, why is he now considered not the parent of said child until it is born.?
To me when a woman becomes pregnant and the child begins to grow, that child is not any way or form a perment part of a woman's body. The baby who has a heart beat and a forming brain is now using the woman's body to grow.
Too bad for the woman, their body's are just doing what they are suppose to do. Anyone with a problem with woman complaining about this need to take that up with GOD.
Lots of scenarios here, you have a daughter that has spent thousands of dollars to become pregnant--finally she conceives and for a few months is wildly excited----then she miss carries.
On the other hand you have a son who wants to become a father, he is excited to find he will become a Dad, then finds the mother of his child has aborted his child.
My question is when do both parents parents of a fetus gain the rights as a parent.?
If Men have no rights to their child before birth, why do they find themselves responsible after birth.??
And another question, why do insurence companys cover the wifes pregnancy on their coverage if the insurer has no say about in the life or death of their child???
-
And another question, why do insurence companys cover the wifes pregnancy on their coverage if the insurer has no say about in the life or death of their child???
Are there insurance policies that cover abortion?
I really don't know, as I've never had insurance maternity benefits...so I don't know what they cover or don't cover.
-
How about when the mother decides she really doesn't want kids decides to split? Who speaks out for those fathers?
-
How about when the mother decides she really doesn't want kids decides to split? Who speaks out for those fathers?
Kind of weird here, I watched a program that had a big dispute on how how DOGS are treated under the law
Some Judge program---Oh Well.
The Plantiff complained that her show dog , female was in the back yard when neighbors Mutt jumped the fence and nailed her.
When they found out she was pregnant the owners of the show dog took security film that showed her rape to court.
The owners of the show dog did not get her aborted but waited for her to deliver.
Somewhere down the line the poor show dog died in the delivery but the 8 pups survived.
So who owns the Pups, the mother died and the Mutts family sued for posesion of the pups.
The owners of the mutt said the owners of the female were at fault for allowing their dog in heat to be unsupervised outside.
The owners of the show dog said as the Pups were born from their dog, they were theres.
This is kind of like humans, a woman decides to abort her child but for complications dies but the baby lives, can the father of that child take custody as it is now in fact HIS?---Do the parents of the dead woman have any right to that child.?
-
This is a tough one. I agree that there is some inequity built into the way things currently sit, but I believe that it comes down to a man acting like a man...if you contribute to a new life, you are on the hook for their care. In other words, keep your pants on unless you are willing to live with the consequences.
It is a tough one. I'm with you, maybe for some of the same reasons. Emotionally it hits me as it hits you--"a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do," style of thing.
I think there's a good biological argument to be made for treating men seemingly unfairly unfairly in this situation, as a general rule. Men can--potentially--produce 1000s of offspring in a lifetime. It does matter whose bodies are the biological baby factories. The fact that each time a woman wants a baby she must go through approximately 9 months of getsation places limitations on the potential number of offspring that women can produce in a lifetime--their bodies simply can't withstand 1000s of births.
Which is why we don't hear, except in the odd case, about "deadbeat mothers"; and after all, which is the bigger societal problem? Genuine deadbeat fathers or genuinely coerced-into-financial-responsibility fathers? This is a rare a case where anatomy is so important it beats most considerations of fairness to the individual, when crafting public policy.
-
Kind of weird here, I watched a program that had a big dispute on how how DOGS are treated under the law
Some Judge program---Oh Well.
The Plantiff complained that her show dog , female was in the back yard when neighbors Mutt jumped the fence and nailed her.
When they found out she was pregnant the owners of the show dog took security film that showed her rape to court.
The owners of the show dog did not get her aborted but waited for her to deliver.
Somewhere down the line the poor show dog died in the delivery but the 8 pups survived.
So who owns the Pups, the mother died and the Mutts family sued for posesion of the pups.
The owners of the mutt said the owners of the female were at fault for allowing their dog in heat to be unsupervised outside.
The owners of the show dog said as the Pups were born from their dog, they were theres.
This is kind of like humans, a woman decides to abort her child but for complications dies but the baby lives, can the father of that child take custody as it is now in fact HIS?---Do the parents of the dead woman have any right to that child.?
Animals are bought and paid for possessions. Pups would belong to the owner of the female dog, unless contractually obligated to give pups to the male's owner.
Natural father's rights supercede stepfather or grandparents' rights. I believe those rights have been determined through appealate court level. DAT would know for sure.
-
DNA testing should of course be done if there is any question of paternity, especially if one is to be held financially liable for the child. Those cases where it's determined that the male is not the bio father but has been forced to make payments should be overturned.
Mother nature has placed an inequity on the situation where the female is the child bearer. I guess it's normal that another inequity is in place to balance that one, namely that the male bio dad is mandated to support financially. There is a lot to fix in this situation. I look at it from a position of personal responsibility. If you chose to take an action, you chose to deal with the consequences.
By the same token, the woman (unless raped) has CHOOSEN to take an action...to allow one natural parents 100% of the control over the life of the child, and the other 0%, cannot be justified by 9 months of carrying the child and the birth. There is no justice at all in the current situation that allows women to kill their children freely, while men not only have no access to birth control as definitive as "the pill" but also have absolutely no say in the results of their choices.
Once a child is started, neither parent has any MORAL right to kill that child...or to use that child for income purposes.