Soyin Milka

Hiya UMoC,

You already made over half a dozen posts on this thread, attacking other people's ideas and complaining about a lack of rights for men about reproduction and fatherhood. How 'bout telling us how you'd correct things now?

Try answering my questions.
I'm dying to see how you would make the world more equal between men and women

Soyin

Derec

Well yes, Budrow's plan gives men exactky 0 rights now. It is awful and unconstitutional, if constitutionality had ever mattered in family law anyway.

Quote:

How 'bout telling us how you'd correct things now? Try answering my questions. I'm dying to see how you would make the world more equal between men and women Soyin

Easy, and I have stated it here several times.

Follow the US constitution and make family laws equal for both men and women. That means:

- man have the same rights to parenthood as women. That means that men should have equal rights to custody.
Crimes perretrated during custody battle are to be prosecuted (such as wrongfully accusing the father of sexual abuse which happens quite often).

- no default judgements of parenthood. The mother should have to prove a particular man is the father to get child support judgement against him. Any parternity determination should be changed if new evidence is available. If the orginal paternity determination is based on false information given by the mother the father should have recorse to get past child support back and state should be able to prosecute for fraud.

- when a man has custody of the child, courts should pursue child support collection from the woman as vigorously as they do for men.

- amount of child support should be reconsidered. It can reach 50% or more of net pay which is a serious burden. Limitation of 33% would be in order.

- Child support payees should have more say and oversight in how the child support is used. Under current lawthe woman can do whatever she wants with it, including spending it on herself. That is especially true for very high payments (one case in California (where the man is not even the father btw) is $1400 a month!.

- men not biological fathers should not be forced to pay child support (women whose men cheat are not forced to pay child support for children not theirs ether).
One exception are men that have a significant relationship with the child. But they should be legally guaranteed continuation of parental rights as well. Under current law men can be stripped of any parental rights for not being the biological father but have to pay child support anyway.

UMoC

Feather

These are good questions; my apologies that I missed them (or that they were implied) earlier. And now I shall answer them (from my perspective, of course).

1) The man could decide at any time during the pregnancy up to the point after which abortion is a "no no" legally speaking. For example, if it is made illegal to abort a viable fetus (except in the case of medical necessity, etc.), then the man could decide to abdicate up to that cutoff date (with some tiny bit of wiggle room to allow for time to file papers and so forth if the woman waits right up to the very last second to decide not to abort, for example).

2) He could be allowed only to reverse a decision to abdicate until the birth of the child (again with some slight amount of wiggle room to allow for things such as unexpected premature birth, filing time and so forth). He cannot decide to abdicate after the deadline as per (1), regardless.

3) Yes. He would have absolutely zero visitation rights whatsoever, and could not ever gain any after the proceedings were finalized. It would be as if he put the baby up for adoption and "washed his hands" of the matter. Whether he should be allowed the same investigative privileges parents that put their children up for adoption (to find the children after they've become an adult) is another issue, I think, and has little bearing on this topic.

4) If it's a case of deception on the part of the woman, then he would be granted some time to decide whether to waive his rights or not. If it's a case that he just left with the intention of avoiding the woman (e.g. he suspects she may have become pregnant), then that's a fuzzy issue. Legally speaking, I'd say he default accepted responsibility and must act accordingly. (But, really, would any woman want a man like that involved with their child?)

5) See my answer to (3), plus add the provision that he could only "change his mind" legally once the child has become an adult. Once he waives his rights, that's it.


The burden of prevention should be held equally by both parties, to be sure. I don't see how allowing a man to refuse responsibility for a child would impact this. The legal proceedings would be costly and possibly embarassing, and the man would have to deal with the guilt of leaving a defenseless, innocent child to be reared by a single mother in a harsh, terrible world where such an environment is an additional HUGE strike against the child. Much like the woman of today may have to bear the heavy burden of guilt from abortion, or both parties may have to bear the burdens from putting the baby up for adoption.

As for longer relationships, I mentioned to lunachick that long-term, "committed" relationships such as marriage (common-law or otherwise) unless explicitly stated in a contract or other similar agreement carry with them the default status of "acceptance" of responsibility. Heterosexual men and women (please, the discussion concerning homosexuals raising children would just complicate matters at this point, considering some of the emotions involved) "naturally" do certain things when in a committed, long-term relationship--such as buy a house, car, etc. One of these things is reproduction. If a man is in a long-term, committed live-in relationship that should have a definite impact on whether he can waive his rights or not. It should be a primary mitigating factor when he applies to do so.

Buddrow_Wilson

My scenario isn't something I would be completely comfortable with, more of an attempt to consider the extremes.

One problem is that there will never be equal opportunity for men and women to absolve themselves from the responsibilities of parenthood. Unless you would support men having some control over a woman's body which is something I definately would not agree with.

So, for men it is currently unfair that they have basically zero options once conception has occurred.

For women, it is unfair because it is much easier for a man to escape the situation than for a women.

Some would say it balances out or that women still have the worst end of this deal.

I have suggested that to become pregnant has inherent risks, such as the man shirking his responsibilities. And a woman should be aware that they could likely be stuck raising a child alone. A case in which legislation has little positive effect.

In cases of casual sex, I still feel there is something wrong with legally forcing a man to pay, but perhaps this stems from a perceived injustice in that I would have no choice in abortion or adoption decisions.

Soyin Milka

UMoC,

You sound like you're asking for increased parental rights rather than more reproductive rights. That kinda makes it easier for me to agree with you. In fact, I couldn't think of major objections to most of your points. I could have annoyed you about your concerns about cheating or deceithful women, but I think I'll let you handle these issues on your own.

There's that point tho...

If by that you mean setting up a trust fund in the name of the child (for her education once she's no longer a minor most likely), I agree. Part of the childcare payments could go directly to a trustfund rather than to the primary custodian. But any "oversight" requiring contacts between parents would offer way too much potential for abuse.

Thanks for your reply,

Soyin

Soyin Milka

Hiya Feather,

I have a beef with your first answer

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.

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.

I've got nothing bad to say about your other answers. Laws along the lines you suggested would have at least the merit of making things clear. Thanks for taking time to answer and risking my nit-picking.

Soyin

Soyin Milka

Buddrow, don't take what follows personally, it's sort of a rant.

It seems to me that this whole thread has been mostly concerned about extremes. I don't know of any man in a situation similar to one of those described in it. But five of the seven units of the apartment complex where I live are occupied by single mothers and their kids. One of my aunt and two of my cousins are also single moms. To me, men walking out on their responsibilities are a much more common occurance than men being "trapped" by unwanted fatherhood and its responsibilities.

I really don't like to hear men say that women can absolve themselves from the responsibilities of parenthood by having an abortion. Each time I hear or read that I roll my eyes. I hate that wording. It's not always easy to get men to get tested for STDs. There's a bunch of them who get very nervous at the thought of having a doctor manipulating their penis and inserting that rigid little stick in the urethra to get a sampling. Sorry, but men can be real wimps about such things. It makes me scoff when I hear some say that abortion is just a minor medical procedure or trivialise it in some way.

The fear of "entrapment" leads men to do strange things. There are some out there who believe in our culture and times, all women must be using contraceptive pills. I've been told by guys it was my responsibility to inform them I wasn't, implying that it was okay for them to take for granted I was. The irony is that some of these guys are pro-choice because they agree with the argument "My body, my choice".

You can drop me in any major city in north america and in less than a few minutes I'll find you a man who doesn't know when ovulation occurs during the menstrual cycle. On average, I'd feel confident to say men know way less than women about reproduction and contraception.

I wish men would not only ask for more legal rights, but also more contraceptive options. It's rare to find guys who think a pill for dudes would be a good idea. It's much less rare for me, a woman, to be the only one proposing it as a possibility. It would make it easier for me to agree that making it easier for men to walk out on their responbilities is a good idea if some of them could convince me first they're interested in other options than the easy legal way out.

I won't even get started about guys and condoms (The worst ones come from the places where they still teach abstinence...).
I'm also concerned this debate we're having could provide anto-abortion folks some arguments they could use, but that's another thing I won't get too much into.

When I'm looking at the statistics about divorces and separation and the experience I've had so far in my relationships with men, the scenario proposed by you Buddrow has some appeal to me. It makes things clear. I know what to expect from the start.

I didn't write all that to discourage men from seeking more rights, just to explain why I have a beef with that idea to begin with and help you appreciate the effort I put in being open-minded about it all. I wish more women would post just so I stop worrying about being too harsh toward men or non-representative of other women.

I really liked your last post Buddrow.
You did nothing to trigger my rant, it was just meant to happen.

Soyin

Majestyk

There's always the baseball bat/baby seal method.

Buddrow_Wilson

The discussion is mainly concerned with casual relationships. The situations you describe are probably more common as you say. I honestly don't know to what extent the government should attempt to force a man to live up to his responsibilities in those situations. However, the idea of "better off without him" still comes to mind. I realize that the family needs support from somewhere, and welfare is a large burden to the state, but I also don't believe that the current methods of extracting support are really alleviating this problem.

I know its definately not an easy decision or a pleasant experience. It remains an option that the man has no control over however.

I have had one of those tests done with the flat stick. I wasn't afraid of it, but I did feel there must be a better way

Hmm. I still believe it is, by nature, more paramount that the women be responsible for prevention of pregnancy. Considering it is something that will only happen to your body. Yet, It is equally important that both sides protect theirselves from STDs and the precautions are similar. Even if the man pays a generous monthly amount of support, it is still the woman's body that must deal with pregnancy and the woman who will raise the child (most likely). Again, I'm talking about casual relationships here.

I'll have accept this, considering I don't remember such details from middle school sex ed very clearly. However, seems to me it would be prudent to consider any sexual encounter to have a high fertility probability when conception is not a desireable outcome.

Sign me up for the male pill

I'll admit that I don't like condoms myself and have rarely used them, but I've also never had a casual, sexual encounter. I have a personal problem separating sex and emotion, which I consider a weakness.

I suppose banning abortion would make the decussion less complicated, if that's what you're getting at. But we won't let that happen!

The charm is in the simplicity I would agree.

I think there is much emotionality on both sides creating barriers to honest debate, I'm glad this discussion hasn't degenerated to flame sessions. I would also like more women (and men for that matter) to get involved in this thread. Not that your input hasn't been intelligent and helpful, but the more opinions the better.

Loren Pechtel

True, he should have gotten a lawyer. Since it was the welfare department that was after him, though, that probably wouldn't have made much difference.

In this case it was pretty obvious--she was lez, not straight! Nobody was alledging that the facts were incorrect, just that they didn't matter.