Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Soyin Milka
Loren Pechtel gave an answer I much prefered to yours in an earlier post. If I recall correctly, he was saying a man should make up his mind by the tenth week of pregnancy. There's a big difference between a first term semester abortion and a second term abortion, physically and emotionally. Pregnancy is also already enough of an emotional roller-coaster without having a guy around who has the legal right to change his mind about declining fatherhood or not.

I was saying 10th week but at least a week's notice--if she doesn't realize she's pregnant until 12 weeks he gets to the 13th week. Willful blindness doesn't count--if a reasonable person would have realized they were pregnant it counts as her knowing.

I would also say that not being the father should terminate all child support obligations (but *NOT* other parental rights if he has acted like a father) unless he is informed of the possibility within the confines of the notice requirements above.

If I understood the men on this thread correctly, their main concern is about being held responsible for a child they fathered in the context of a casual relationship. If that's true, then you don't need a lot of time to make up your mind. If men have that option, they should have to make their decision quickly and then live with it. Putting women on hold while they think about it is in no way fair to women.

It's not just a casual relationship, there are also oopsed cases. I am not personally concerned but I still object to the unfair situation.

Pyrrho

By signing the birth certificate, he is saying that he is the father. When in doubt, get a genetic test before signing any legal document. People who sign legal documents without thinking are stupid. Stupidity is not a legal excuse for getting out of contracts that one signs. No one forced him to sign, so it is his own fault.



You seem to not even read the articles at your own links:

So, according to your source, a man who is not the biological father but is the legal father does have paternal rights.



Many people (both men and women) are extremely foolish in their choice of spouse. But there are many legal issues involved, such as who can make medical decisions if one is incapacitated, inheritance laws, tax laws, etc. If you are not really sure that you can trust someone (and this should be based on a reasonable examination of the evidence), then you should not marry that person. Most people are very stupid about their marriages. I think the high divorce rate suggests that I am right about that. But the existence of people making stupid decisions about whom they marry does not mean that it is always stupid for someone to get married.



You are speculating when you say that the mother does not dispute it. What I am saying is that whenever anyone becomes a parent, one should pay attention to the legal aspects of it. What you are defending seems to me to be people who are stupid about the contracts that they enter (or the contracts that they fail to enter), and then wish to get out of them later. The law must have definite guidelines or it cannot function well.

And, I am NOT arguing that ALL current laws are exactly as they should be.

You seem to forget about the child in these cases. If, for example, one cannot find the biological father, should the child therefore live in squalor? Someone must pay, and those who stupidly sign documents that say they are the parent should be more careful. And in cases where someone is a biological father, but is a "sperm donor", it should be clear beforehand in a WRITTEN CONTRACT that that is all he is. If he is too stupid to do this, then he is asking for trouble, as he is, in fact, the biological father.

You see, I could easily accuse you of inconsistency, as you say that people who are not biological fathers should get out of paying, and also biological fathers should get out of paying. I say, people should be careful about their contracts.

Pyrrho

I have been thinking about this for a while now, and it seems to me that, for the most part, people can be divided up into two groups:

1) Me and all of the women, and
2) The rest of the men.

Have I been missing something, or is that the way people are divided? If so, it is no wonder that so many women seem to like me so much more than most men.

Pyrrho

Well, I don't think you have been harsh with men at all. As for being representative, that is a worry no matter how many people reply, as it would be impossible for a significant percentage of the population to reply in any thread.

Pyrrho

Why do you regard your connection of sex with emotion as a "weakness"? (Please feel free to ignore such personal questions from me or anyone else, if you wish.)

Buddrow_Wilson

I think we are all more or less on friendly terms here. right?

It may surprise you that I have always felt more comfortable around women. Most of my friends throughout life have been female. I don't think of myself as sexist at all.

This is tough to answer. Yyou could say my life would have been easier in many respects if I could seperate lust and "love" or infatuation.

Pyrrho

I did not mean to suggest that we were not all on friendly terms. I was merely suggesting that the positions that people were defending seemed to be grouped in a particular way. That grouping being, of course, along lines of gender, with myself, it seems, as the sole exception.



Most men don't consider themselves sexist, no matter how sexist they are, just like most racists don't consider themselves racist. People tend to consider themselves "justified" in their positions; otherwise, they would have different opinions.

Please keep in mind, I am speaking in the abstract, and do not mean to suggest anything about you in particular. I do not know you, and therefore cannot say much about you.



I am not satisfied with that as an answer. But let us consider the matter in a more abstract manner, rather than with you specifically in mind. Suppose we have two men, call them "Paul" and "Eric". Paul does not connect sex and emotion; Eric does. So, which of them is more likely to be promiscuous? And which, therefore, is more likely to end up with an unwanted pregnancy to deal with, or venereal disease? Which, then, truly has the advantage? (Of course, individual differences may reverse matters, but let us keep thinking in terms of generalities. Let us suppose, therefore, that they both are equally sensible [or equally not sensible] when it comes to birth control and prophylactics.)

I think that Epicurus is very relevant to these kinds of matters, and you may wish to peruse:

http://www.atomic-swerve.net/tpg/

http://www.epicurus.net/

Epicurus believed that pleasure is THE GOOD and pain is THE BAD. What one should do is maximize pleasure, and minimize pain. But, you should think about the long-term consequences of your actions, and consider those when deciding what to do. Thus, when thinking about an orgy, for example, the orgy, in itself, is a good, but getting a stranger pregnant, or getting a STD (sexually transmitted disease) is bad. It is also bad that one will be apt to worry about bad consequences that might happen, even if they do not actually happen. So, Epicurus would ask you, is the pleasure of one day at an orgy worth the chance of getting some unpleasant STD, or the chance of making child support payments for the next 18 years of your life (or, for a woman, the chance of an unwanted pregnancy), as well as any other risks that there might be? You would also, of course, need to keep in mind that the particular orgy may not give as much pleasure as anticipated, as such things must surely be rather variable.

The same kind of reasoning applies to other matters. Suppose you are considering a trip to the dentist (and let us suppose you have a competent and honest dentist). The experience, in itself, is bad. However, it is likely to result in less pain later in life, so, on balance, it is good to go to the dentist.

You may, by connecting emotion with sex, miss out on many pleasures. But you are also likely to miss out on many pains. Epicurus would ask you, when you consider the pains and the pleasures of each, which, on balance, will give you the most pleasure and the least pain?

Now, of course, you may have had something very different in mind when you called connecting sex and emotion as a "weakness", but, if so, I again ask, why would you believe that such a connection is a weakness?

Pyrrho

I agree that there is no "perfect" answer, because the starting position is unequal, and no legislation can change biology. The question is, given the fact that women can get pregnant, and men cannot, what should the law be to make this unequal situation as equal as possible?

The "extra out" that a woman has in the possibility of an abortion is something that helps make up for that inherent difference in who can get pregnant and who cannot. It is her body, and therefore her decision. (If you really wanted equality with the law, we could add that whenever a man gets pregnant, he may choose whether or not to have an abortion without the woman having any say in the matter.) And, it is not something that is really an easy out; do you think that surgery on you should be thought of as easy for you?

Buddrow_Wilson

LOL yea I saw that one coming.

A weakness is not always completely negative. I believe its related to parts of my personality that I value. However, there have been a few relationships that ended so horribly that I can't help but wonder if more over-all pleasure would have resulted from a casual encounter.

Majestyk

Here's my big problem with this line of thinking:

You want it both ways. You want equality under the law but, you want special consideration under the law. When it suits you.

If, it's the woman's decision then, it's the woman's responsibility to keep uncovered penii out of her vagina or deal with the sperm that will be left there. If, the man is to be held responsible then, it's the man's decision.

Each has authority equal to the level of their responsibility. This has been a basic tenet of principle of law. Yet what I hear are arguments that claim that authority and responsibility are not linked.

Do you know what happens when the law holds people responsible and yet denies them the authority to actively control that for which they are being held responsible? They reject the rule of law.