http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/fatherhood.suit.ap/index.html

Male activists want 'say' in unplanned pregnancy
Lawsuit seeks right to decline financial responsibility for kids
I fully support this. If the father doesn't want the child, and the mother makes the choice to carry the child to term, he's not a part of that decision, and should not be responsible for it.

If she can't afford the child, she has options other than choosing to have it anyway, and then expecting someone else to pay.

This is going to be a pretty hot issue. So many of the people who insist that a pregnancy is a womans body, and no one, even the father, has any say in it, will switch back faster than lightning when it goes the other way.

What do you think? Should the sole decision on whether to carry a pregnancy to term be the mother's, but the ensuing financial obligation be the father's? If so, how do you justify this? Why should one party be forced to pay the costs of another party's decisions?

Also, please don't say something about "keeping it in his pants", and expect people to accept that as a valid argument, unless you're going to accept things about "keeping her legs closed" as an equally valid argument in regards to abortion and rights.

I agree that this topic should be debated, and that something should be decided, although it it will vary from state to state.

It seems to me that the feminists want it both ways. They want the sole authority when it comes to "terminating" a pregnancy, and if the father has a problem with it, it's just too bad.

But on the other hand, they'll hound a man to the ends of the Earth for child support, even if he didn't want the child. The man has no choice at all, but the woman does. Yeah, they carry the child, but they sure don't get pregnant on their own, nor are they the sole parent. It takes two to make a baby and it should take to to make a legal, life or death decsion.

I believe in child support, and I'm sick of the deadbeat dad stereotyping, because the overwhelming majority of non custodial fathers do pay it, but there has to be some fairness here, and the courts need to get over their fear of angry women and come up with a system that serves both sides instead of one.

I'm also sick of kids being used to extort money from fathers, yet they can only legally see them a few days a month. The whole system is discriminatory against fathers, and there are plenty of lousy mothers out there who have custody. Being female doesn't automatically make someone a good parent, but the courts seem to think that it does.

I agree that this topic should be debated, and that something should be decided, although it it will vary from state to state.

It seems to me that the feminists want it both ways. They want the sole authority when it comes to "terminating" a pregnancy, and if the father has a problem with it, it's just too bad.

But on the other hand, they'll hound a man to the ends of the Earth for child support, even if he didn't want the child. The man has no choice at all, but the woman does. Yeah, they carry the child, but they sure don't get pregnant on their own, nor are they the sole parent. It takes two to make a baby and it should take to to make a legal, life or death decsion.

I believe in child support, and I'm sick of the deadbeat dad stereotyping, because the overwhelming majority of non custodial fathers do pay it, but there has to be some fairness here, and the courts need to get over their fear of angry women and come up with a system that serves both sides instead of one.

I'm also sick of kids being used to extort money from fathers, yet they can only legally see them a few days a month. The whole system is discriminatory against fathers, and there are plenty of lousy mothers out there who have custody. Being female doesn't automatically make someone a good parent, but the courts seem to think that it does.

Might be a shocker, but I'm pretty much right with you on this.

A sorded issue. I think it might be how much the father is willing to spend time with the child. BUt there is no way to make sure the father will really be a good dad. I think that legally speaking this may be a weak position.

I saw this posted at the Phora. Haven't seen it here, and it looks like a good fit to this discussion. Personally, I think they should work out some sort of an accomodation, but I do think the guy has the right to decide what he did. And I applaud the court for ruling in his favor.



Don't stop me becoming a mother
By Joshua Rozenberg and Sarah Womack
(Filed: 08/03/2006)

A woman who lost a landmark legal battle to be allowed to use her frozen IVF embryos yesterday pleaded with her former fiancé to give her the chance of motherhood.

Natallie Evans, 34, who split up with Howard Johnston in 2002 and is infertile after cancer treatment, said the six embryos represented her last hope of having children that are genetically hers.

When the relationship ended, Mr Johnston withdrew his consent for the embryos to be used. Miss Evans responded by taking her case to the British courts before going to the European Court of Human Rights and arguing that her rights had been breached

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/08/nivf08.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/03/08/ixhome.html)

I saw this posted at the Phora. Haven't seen it here, and it looks like a good fit to this discussion. Personally, I think they should work out some sort of an accomodation, but I do think the guy has the right to decide what he did. And I applaud the court for ruling in his favor.

I'm pretty sure that, in the US, she'd have the right to implant them, and then sue him for child support. It is relevant to this discussion.

I fully support this. If the father doesn't want the child, and the mother makes the choice to carry the child to term, he's not a part of that decision, and should not be responsible for it.

Appalling. If you created it, you ought to take responsibility for it. Both parties created the situation and have an obligation to the child.

Appalling. If you created it, you ought to take responsibility for it. Both parties created the situation and have an obligation to the child.

Absolutley :nice: If men dont want the resposibility of an unwanted pregnancy then they should either wrap it up or keep it in their pants!!!!!!!

If men dont want the resposibility of an unwanted pregnancy then they should either wrap it up or keep it in their pants!!

I agree completely. And if a woman does not want to take responsibility, then she should keep her pants on as well.

I agree completely. And if a woman does not want to take responsibility, then she should keep her pants on as well.

Couldnt agree more, birth contol SHOULD be joint responsibility.

If men dont want the resposibility of an unwanted pregnancy then they should either wrap it up or keep it in their pants!!!!!!!

. . .

Also, please don't say something about "keeping it in his pants", and expect people to accept that as a valid argument, unless you're going to accept things about "keeping her legs closed" as an equally valid argument in regards to abortion and rights.

Appalling. If you created it, you ought to take responsibility for it. Both parties created the situation and have an obligation to the child.

I didn't ask if abortion should be banned. I asked if person A should be held financially liable for person B's decisions. I'm not interested in a debate about banning abortion. That's not what this is.

I didn't ask if abortion should be banned. I asked if person A should be held financially liable for person B's decisions. I'm not interested in a debate about banning abortion. That's not what this is.

And I said, "Both parties created the situation and have an obligation to the child."

Obligation means supporting. Obligation does not mean neglect or abandonment.

It's not about person B's decision. It's about taking responsibility for Person C that you created.

And I said, "Both parties created the situation and have an obligation to the child."

Obligation means supporting. Obligation does not mean neglect or abandonment.

It's not about person B's decision. It's about taking responsibility for Person C that you created.
Ok, but how do you rectify the imbalance of power a woman has in what happens to person C. The mother has three options, the father has one (whatever the mother decides).

"Keeping it in his pants" IS a valid argument as too is "keeping her legs crossed"

[QUOTE=BooRadley]http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/fatherhood.suit.ap/index.html


What do you think? Should the sole decision on whether to carry a pregnancy to term be the mother's, but the ensuing financial obligation be the father's? If so, how do you justify this? Why should one party be forced to pay the costs of another party's decisions?

QUOTE]

Its justified by the fact that the MOTHER is the one who would have to go through a VERY TRAUMATIC proceedure in order for the man to sherk his responsibilities, if both parties have been irresponsible enough to get to this situation then both parties should take responibility for their action.

Your almost saying that the father should be allowed the right to force the mother to terminate the pregnancy :eek7:

This situation is so preventable with a little fore thought.

Ok, but how do you rectify the imbalance of power a woman has in what happens to person C. The mother has three options, the father has one (whatever the mother decides).

For the record, go ahead and name the three options so nobody makes a wrong assumption on what they are.

1. be a parent
2. give it up to be adopted
3. abortion

Whether or not you agree with abortion, it is currently an option. The mother has three choices, the father's choice is whatever she chooses.

That's what I thought, but figured it'd be best to spell it out.

Now, I am not concerned whatsoever with the imbalance issue you bring up. Men ought to know when he engages in the act of sex, that this "imbalance" is the next possibility. If he gives her the advantage, that's his fault. (Of course I seek to eliminate the abortion option)

That's why one ought to only engage in sex with somebody you can raise a child with, and why I personally will only engage in sex within a committed marriage with a woman who shares my viewpoint on the matter.

Ok, but how do you rectify the imbalance of power a woman has in what happens to person C. The mother has three options, the father has one (whatever the mother decides).

take away the option of legal abortion.

take away the option of legal abortion.
I will when they don't have the option. :)

im not telling you to take it off your list. i am saying that is the solution to solving the imbalance of power.

If elective abortion is no longer a legal option for women, both parents can be held accountable.

Women who are not interested in having children should not be allowed to have sex with men who cannot decide if they want to have children or not.

If all women would take a firm stand on the matter in their early teen years and stick with it the entire duration of their adult lives more men would have the time to consider procreation as the only true motive for having sexual intercourse.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/fatherhood.suit.ap/index.html
What do you think? Should the sole decision on whether to carry a pregnancy to term be the mother's, but the ensuing financial obligation be the father's?

I believe the financial obligation for the termination, if legal, should be the burden of both parties. Both parties played a part in the creation of the pregnancy.

If so, how do you justify this? Why should one party be forced to pay the costs of another party's decisions?

Both parties played a part in the creation of the pregnancy.

HA!
this bit was GREAT!

"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."

When it comes to women taking responsibility for their actions, it's about the rights of the woman, but when it comes to getting a man's paycheck, it is suddenly about the rights of the child.

I agree with you on this boo.

A sorded issue. I think it might be how much the father is willing to spend time with the child. BUt there is no way to make sure the father will really be a good dad. I think that legally speaking this may be a weak position.

There's no way to make a woman a good mother either, but the courts rule overwhelmingly in their favor when it comes to custody; at least they do in the US.