Father's Rights? Men Want Right To Turn Down Fatherhood

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by ViperDragon, Mar 10, 2006.

  1. Spartan-117

    Spartan-117 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Posts:
    1,813
    Trophy Points:
    161
    Likes:
    +0
    It's an interesting one certainly.
    When it comes to sex, both the man and the woman have equal choice when it comes to using protection. (So, if you don't want a child be sure to use protection.)
    However when it comes to everything after that the man doesn't get much say.
    If a woman wants to abort/carry the child he has no legal say in the matter.
    I'm sure there are plenty of men who have either lost a child or had to pay for one they never wanted because of this.
    So on one hand this gives men more control and if it goes through then it will make everyone stop and think twice about not taking proper precautions. On the other hand there are probably plenty of deadbeats that would jump on it straight away.
    There would need to be some sort of system in place where a father registered his desire to turn down fatherhood long before birth and both parents would need to go through mediation of some sort to look at all the options. If he does eventually turn down fatherhood then he loses all other legal rights such as access etc.
     
  2. TSFC

    TSFC Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2002
    Posts:
    1,181
    Trophy Points:
    161
    Likes:
    +1
    I'm all for it. Why? The children.

    I know two unwed mothers who are fighting for child support as we speak. The kids have to watch the parents fight and bicker and scream and yell. The kids have to wonder why mommy and daddy hate one another, and why they fight over them. The kids have to wonder why daddy disappears, reappears, etc.

    Why? All over a measly check biweekly that barely pays a phone bill. The fathers even *offered* to sign over all rights. Even stated they would never bother the mothers or the children ever again.

    I said to both mothers "You're sick as hell from lack of sleep and all the fighting. You're working and paying for the kids as it is now. You're not getting anything out of the father but a fight because he keeps quitting his jobs just so he doesn't have to pay. Is it really worth your health and the kid's mental health to do this for $50.00 a week? Seriously?"

    "YES! THAT MOTHERF**KER KNOCKED ME UP AND HE'S GONNA PAY! ONE WAY OR ANOTHER DAMNIT, HIS ASS IS GONNA PAY! YOU CAN'T DO THAT TO ME AND GET AWAY WITH IT."

    Catch the point in there? "ME" not us, ME. It's not about the kids. It's about the cash, and what can be done with it. It's usually never about the kids (although some mothers actually do care, which is rare from experiences I've seen) and it's always about paying back the man and getting his wallet. Now there are some circumstances where the fathers and mothers do not fight, it just didn't work out. In those cases, I'm all for the man paying, but I'm also for him having equal rights and fair visitation and vice versa.

    Now I also asked "If it wasn't about the money, if you knew that was taken care of, but you just wanted him in your child's life because he's their father, knowing all you do...would you let them still be around?"

    Mothers: "Oh no. That son of a bitch is lazy, I don't want MY kids seeing that kind of life. I want them to stand up and be real adults, not like their father. Plus they need a better man in their life."

    So I said "Ah, so no visitation, nothing else to do with the kids, but pay his share."

    Mothers: "That's right. At least pay for your end of it, but no. No way will I let them be a part of the child's life. Too bad of an influence." Followed that up with "So, then it *IS* about the money, not the kids."

    Mothers: "You're a male, of course you'll side with him. Fuck you."

    I've come to learn this...anyone can be a father, but it takes a real man to be someone's daddy. No matter how much you pay, no matter how much you give or change, you're either someone's daddy or you're not. You can't make the guy step up and be someone he was never meant to be (same applies to women who lost custody to the men) no amount of legal wrangling, wallet raping, and using the children as a bargaining chip will make a person become something they don't want to be from the beginning.

    It's not about the kids, it's about the cash and what you can do for me lately.

    So yeah, I'm all for this. Equal rights for men AND women.
     
  3. Darth Megatron

    Darth Megatron Don't tell Lucas!

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Posts:
    211
    Trophy Points:
    91
    Likes:
    +0
    If a man doesn't want a child, he should not have sex, or get a vasectomy. Like I said, it is too easy for a man to walk away. It doesn't really mater if he didn't want it, unless of course the man and women were in complete agreement that they did not want a child before the nasty was even done, but how can that be managed?? Babies are not a side affect of having sex, the whole point of sex is to make babies. It just happeneds to be fun.
     
  4. Spartan-117

    Spartan-117 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Posts:
    1,813
    Trophy Points:
    161
    Likes:
    +0
    By that same token if a woman doesn't want a child she should be sterilised, use protection or not have sex. It takes two to do the dirty but afterwards it all seems to be in favour of the mother.
    A woman doesn't need to care about getting knocked up or not because they get everything handed to them on a goddamn plate. At least here they do. I know of at least two young mothers who got knocked up and neither of them works yet they can afford to move house at will and party every weekend. If a woman didn't have the government or the father to sponge cash from they would think twice about having a child. Yet the current system allows them to use children as free meal tickets.
     
  5. misterd

    misterd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    3,704
    Trophy Points:
    256
    Likes:
    +0
    Darth Megs, I absolutely agree that men and women are not equal, but do they not deserve some measure of equal consideration?

    A man who impregnates a woman is wholly at her mercy. She may abort the child, whether he wants her to or not. Adoption too is often her choice. If she wants to put up the child, but he wants to keep it, she wins out (and good luck on the single man being allowed to adopt). So if he wants the child and she says "no", it's no.

    OTOH, if he doesn't want the child, and is willing to pay for the abortion or work with an adoption agency, but she does want to keep the child, he's on the hook for child support for the next couple decades.

    The argument that has won out the past 30 years for women has been one of reproductive choice. The men are asking for that same consideration.

    The question in my mind is: what if this became law?

    Two possibilities:
    1) A flood of mothers and children losing financial support, resulting in increased poverty, increased welfare spending, and/or increased adoption (as mothers realize they can't afford the children themselves)
    2) Women keep their legs crossed until men sign pre-coital agreements, in which they agree to take responsibility for any accidental children.

    For the record, I'm not in favor of this, nor am I in favor of abortion (in most cases). I find the whole thing has created a terribly cavalier attitude towards what should be the most important decision in a person's life (or at least one of them).
     
  6. misterd

    misterd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    3,704
    Trophy Points:
    256
    Likes:
    +0
    The same basic argument was made about women before Roe vs. Wade. The anti-abortion side said women had a choice - abstinance or sterilization.

    Of course it is easier for a man to walk away, which is why, I think, women once used to hold men to higher standards.

    And sex does not "just happen" to be fun. It is an evolutionary adaptation to coerce you into engaging in a task that, in all other circumstances, would be fool hardy. Sex is a tremendous risk in a great many ways, and does require a great deal of effort, and results in a resource-devouring pooping machine. Hardly anyone would bother if not for the "woohoo!" factor.
     
  7. Zero Prime

    Zero Prime Windows user no more

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2004
    Posts:
    2,587
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Likes:
    +0
    This is a tough one for me. On one hand I disagree with any form of ditching your responsabilities for men or women any any form. If you do the deed do the time. But in all fairness then men should have that right. I believe there are some states already where a man can sign over right of a child and not have to pay but loose any type of contact. I may be wrong of course.
     
  8. funkatron101

    funkatron101 TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Posts:
    5,191
    Trophy Points:
    322
    Likes:
    +48
    Ebay:
    What happened to the good ol days of "heavy petting"?
     
  9. Aaron

    Aaron Master of Crystalocution Moderator Content Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Posts:
    21,818
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    397
    Likes:
    +69
    Twitter:
    Wow... The implications of this are rather extreme. The courts or lawmakers would have to set a very defined set of rules to follow or else an affirmative outcome in this case would end up opening such a large loophole that would cause many worthy cases to get abused.
     
  10. Dragonclaw

    Dragonclaw Comic Ink - Dublin, CA

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Posts:
    6,908
    News Credits:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    337
    Likes:
    +776
    I would be all for the "If you don't want him as part of the childs life, you don't get a dime" or vice versa "You don't want anything to do with the child, you have no rights, no contact, nothing". In the long run the child will undoubtably grow up much happier and well adjusted not having the constant conflict and/or resentment that the child would face their entire life. I've seen dad's who didn't want their kid(s), but had visitation as a means to lower support...it was BAD for the kids. I've also seen moms who use having kids as a way to get child support because they'd be cut off from their meal ticket due to welfare reform, they see having more children as an ATM that pays out better & more frequently. In either of these cases the biggest loser (emotionally) is the child.
     
  11. Dalarsco

    Dalarsco Kickback=ROCK

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    6,347
    Trophy Points:
    211
    Likes:
    +0
    Ya, this is also really hard for me to decide. On one hand, deadbeat dads piss me off and you should use protection. On the other hand, if a condom breaks or something, woman can suddenly decide she wants to keep the baby and the father (who is probably scared shitless at this point) will have a huge responsibility put on his life that he never wanted and was responsible in avoiding. So, I think that in cases of unprotected sex or divorce then it's tough shit, and the deadbeat should pay up. But if it's a freak accident and the protection fails, then he shouldn't have to pay the price if he doesn't want to. But they should have to see the baby first. Some guys get sudden huge parental instincts when they see their child, and that kid should have a fair chance to win over the Dad once.
     
  12. funkatron101

    funkatron101 TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Posts:
    5,191
    Trophy Points:
    322
    Likes:
    +48
    Ebay:
    I vote for everyone being "temporarily sterilized." Then if you want to have a child, you have to obtain a parent licence through a test. If you pass, the sterilization is lifted. Oh man, wouldn't that solve a lot of problems.
     
  13. Dragonclaw

    Dragonclaw Comic Ink - Dublin, CA

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Posts:
    6,908
    News Credits:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    337
    Likes:
    +776
    I'd bet if there was a "pill" for guys a lot of these legal problems would go away...ends the whole "woman who *says* she's on the pill, but is trying to get pregnant", the "no good opportunity to get a condom" and the "I/she doesn't like the feel of condoms". I also think Norplant should be required for women who are welfare recipients (If you can't afford to take care of YOURSELF, you have no good business having a child IMHO)
     
  14. Dolza_Khyron

    Dolza_Khyron Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Posts:
    23,172
    Trophy Points:
    412
    Likes:
    +2,623
    he does have a point, if women have options, men should too, equal rights, after all.
     
  15. Zero Prime

    Zero Prime Windows user no more

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2004
    Posts:
    2,587
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Likes:
    +0
    Now thats the best idea I've heard all night. You won't believe how many women in the jail I work at have like 5 or 6 kids, and some of them are in hear and pregnant.
     
  16. Shaun_C

    Shaun_C The REAL One True fan Veteran TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2003
    Posts:
    7,121
    Trophy Points:
    251
    Likes:
    +2
    Male Birth control pill

    Problem with this is that WHILE it would take away most of the risk of unwanted pregnancy.It does nothing for STDs and honestly I would picture STD transmission increasing ten-fold

    I mean let's be honest I'm pretty sure more guys are worried about unwanted pregnancies then they are about getting the clap :redface2:  What I mean is take away the risk of pregnancy & SOME men and women will forget about the STDs and not bother with a condom

    This is in my opinion of course.

    And I'm sure it's been said before 1)Protection isn't guaranteed,you've still got a chance of pregnancy.Just that it's LESSENS the likelyhood 2)Unless you're 1000% ready for the possible consequences then guys should keep it in their pants and ladies should keep their legs closed.

    An orgasm only last for 30-60 secs.Is 30 mins of sex & 1 min of exctasy really worth a possible 2 decades of child support? :peoples: 
     
  17. funkatron101

    funkatron101 TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Posts:
    5,191
    Trophy Points:
    322
    Likes:
    +48
    Ebay:
    And that just hurts the kids, and our society. Sure the children can break free from their fate and make a better life for themselves, but they are already at the wrong end.

    Too me having a child is a priviledge, not a right. It is the biggest act of responsibility that someone could have. A life is in your hands, and it is your goal to raise that life to have morals, and to be a productive member of society. Anyone that takes that for granted doesn't deserve that priviledge.

    I'm serious, if there was a way to safely and effectively sterilize everyone until they obtain the parent "license" that would solve so many problems. The abortion debate will cease to exist unless in extreme cases. We would have population control, and it would free us from the economical stress of the welfare loophole.
     
  18. Eradicator

    Eradicator I am Antithesis

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2002
    Posts:
    519
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Likes:
    +0

    I'd say it's more about revenge in your example, but it is a good point.

    I really like the sterilization idea brought up. Granted it wouldn't help with STDs, but it might not hurt it either. I mean it would probably let the people who make pregnacy tests be able to focus more on curing or treating them.

    Most of all it would help make better parents which is probably most important for the kids. Of course assuming part of the licsense means the parents have to take responsibilty for their actions, not only with kids, but in other areas too, it would probably put lawyers out of work since there'd be much less frivolous lawsuits.

    As to the topic at hand, I do agree to certain limits in it, but there would still be men who abuse it.
     
  19. Zero Prime

    Zero Prime Windows user no more

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2004
    Posts:
    2,587
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Likes:
    +0
    Thats why I said I agree with you. There are to many (parents) that don't deserve the child. Its sad how many parents have children and don't even attempt to take care of them. Just the other day my wife and I were leaving Wal-Mart and saw a car next to us with a very young girl, about 7 or 8, sitting in the passenger seat of a car with an infint in the back. Worst part was the car was running. I saw an officer that I knew and told him about it. He luckly got to the car right when the woman finally arrived. She was lucky to only get a curtasy summons.
     
  20. Ops_was_a_truck

    Ops_was_a_truck JOOOLIE ANDREWWWWWS!!!!!!

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Posts:
    11,544
    Trophy Points:
    236
    Likes:
    +5
    Ebay:
    Yikes. I may sound pretty old school here, but I'm of the firm belief that if you've got the guts to go at it with a woman, you've got the guts to raise a child. In my opinion, you make that choice as soon as you start going at it - condom or not.