Are men getting the shaft?

[Needs2know]

What you don’t seem to get stuffn…is that MEN wrote the rules on this. And that only YOU can be completely responsible for your own reproductive rights. Sorry buddy if they don’t make a male birth control pill. They just might now that men are starting to get the same “shaft” that women have been getting all these years. If you don’t want kids guys…wear a condom…bring your own foam…get yourself fixed. And lobby the medical industry to put as much effort into developing a reliable form of male birth control as they did into developing and marketing Viagra.

Needs2know

[Wrath]

[opens can of gasoline}

So, men, not being equal in terms the laws regarding reproduction, even through they are required at some point physically (willfully or not), if we men are given equal say, can we then…

[starts pouring]

a) legally force upon the woman an abortion if we don’t want to be dad
b) legally opt out of fatherhood for the life of the child if “no” to “a”, revoking all duties and privileges
c) legally force the birth, if we wanted the child but mom did not (regardless of her wishes to either abort or bear and give up for adoption)
d) in an IVF scenario, legally demand ALL petri dish embryos (however many were developed) to be implanted in the mom, or legally demand they all be destroyed (if we change our minds)

[begins toasting marshmallows]

I for one would rather we all just get along and decide as adults what’s in the best interests of this new life (within reason), and not what’s best for egos or wallets.

[Stuffy]

*Originally posted by Needs2know *
**What you don’t seem to get stuffn…is that MEN wrote the rules on this. And that only YOU can be completely responsible for your own reproductive rights. Sorry buddy if they don’t make a male birth control pill. They just might now that men are starting to get the same “shaft” that women have been getting all these years. If you don’t want kids guys…wear a condom…bring your own foam…get yourself fixed. And lobby the medical industry to put as much effort into developing a reliable form of male birth control as they did into developing and marketing Viagra.

Needs2know **

This is not about anti-male/establishment rhetoric (not to mention I doubt that you could back that up), we’re talking an issue of fairness. And btw, I can show just as much anti-female rhetoric as you can male, that’s not the issue. Wrath’s sarcasm aside, he/she (sorry I don’t know) makes a valid point in his last post.

Consider the following:

A couple has decided to postpone childhood until financially able. The male in the couple uses condoms, the females the pill. During a session of lovemaking the condom breaks, the female in the couple happens to be in that minority of 3% of women for whom the pills is not effective.

Now let’s say one member of the couple has decided on having the child, one against. By your logic, and societies, the female has the only “rights” in this case, afterwards, the chid has the only “rights” Again, WHERE ARE THE MALES RIGHTS?

He made just as much of an effort not to have child as the mother, yet he’s STILL denied the right whether or not to become a father. You are not getting it.

[Jodi]

BUT, a woman can force a man to be a father, changing the focus doesn’t change that fact.

Well, in the strictest sense, I do NOT agree that a woman can force a man to be a father, unless we are talking about the pretty rare occurrence of actual female-on-male rape. Most children are conceived through consensual sex or (more rarely) through non-consensual sex where the non-consenting party is the woman. So in the vast majority of cases, a man can CHOOSE not to become a father by abstaining from sex or from taking responsibility for birth-control himself (using a condom).

I do agree, however, that once the parties have sex and the woman becomes pregnant, the woman may choose to keep the baby. I do not see this in terms of “forcing” the man to become a father, but rather in terms of having a child, the natural consequence of which is to make the man a father. Maybe you think this is unfair. I maintain that there is no other more fair way to handle it, because the only other option is to grant to men the right to compel women to have abortions even when the women to not want to. I find that idea abhorrent for reasons that should be obvious. In other words, once the woman is pregnant, how can you STOP her from “forcing” the man to become of father? You can’t. Unfair to the man? Maybe, but too bad; there’s no other, more equitable solution.

Again, you’re still allowing a basic right, whether or not to be a parent solely at the fancy of the woman, where again is the man’s right?

The man’s right is to choose not to have sex, or to choose to be responsible for his own reproductivity, or to live with the consequences of abdicating that responsibility. He has no right to compel a woman to terminate a pregnancy because it is the woman’s body, not his. He has no right to disavow responsibility for a child he created because the child is entitled to be supported and the logical ones to charge with that support are the parents. If you wish to maintain that this is unfair, then please tell me what would be more fair?

So are you acknowledging that the only party WITHOUT rights are the male?

Once the woman is pregnant? Yes. Because he cannot compel the woman to abort and he cannot leave the baby to starve just because he didn’t want it.

You’ve pointed out situations yourself where the father can be denied that right, as have a few other posters. You still havn’t addressed that point, you’ve merely shifted the focus. While I understand the the child has a right to be supported, you haven’t satisfactorily addressed that we are in fact giving women a right that we’re denying men.

Give me strength. BECAUSE IT’S THE WOMAN WHO IS PREGNANT. IT’S HER BODY. NO ONE CAN COMPEL A WOMAN TO HAVE AN ABORTION IF SHE DOESN’T WANT ONE. Are you seriously arguing that it would be “more fair” for men to have the right to demand that women abort their children?

The options are basically as set out in Wrath’s last post. We cannot do (a) or ©, because we do not have the right to compel a woman to reproduce (or to compel her to terminate a pregnancy) against her will. And rightly so. We cannot do (b) because the child must be supported. It is legally entitled to be supported by the people causing its existence, as opposed to becoming a burden on society due to lack of support. In other words, you may think the existing situation is unfair to men, but the bottom line is that there is no fairer one.

[Jodi]

Now let’s say one member of the couple has decided on having the child, one against. By your logic, and societies, the female has the only “rights” in this case, afterwards, the chid has the only “rights” Again, WHERE ARE THE MALES RIGHTS?

He made just as much of an effort not to have child as the mother, yet he’s STILL denied the right whether or not to become a father. You are not getting it.

Of course we get it; it’s not that hard. Both parties do their best NOT to become pregnant, but the women gets pregnant anyway. So let me ask you this (again): What rights would YOU grant the man under these circumstances?

[Spiritus_Mundi]

BUT, a woman can force a man to be a father, changing the focus doesn’t change that fact.

Only in the most extreme situations. Do you have a cite for any case in teh US where a man has been raped and forced to pay child support for the issue of that rape?

Breech of trust doesn’t count. If my wife racks up 6 figures of debt on our visa cards I am liable for the debt, even though I did not approve the purchases. It would not be she who is forcing me into bankruptcy, it would be my choice in entering a joint credit agreement. Marriage is a contract with both priveledges and responsibilities. Supporting childred is one of the responsibilities. It binds both partners.

It seems to me that some folks are falling into the idea that sex should ideally be a transtroy act free of implications or long-term responsibilities. It can be such an act, if both participants so desire. But it can also be an act with significant long-term consequences for both parties.

A wise man understands this before entering.

Now let’s say one member of the couple has decided on having the child, one against. By your logic, and societies, the female has the only “rights” in this case, afterwards, the chid has the only “rights” Again, WHERE ARE THE MALES RIGHTS?

His rights end at her body. He has teh right to try and persuade her to his point of viw. He had the right to choose a method of birth control with a higher success rate.

He made just as much of an effort not to have child as the mother, yet he’s STILL denied the right whether or not to become a father. You are not getting it.

No, you are not getting it. Acts have consequences. Sometimes those consequences are not what we intended. Hence the word “accident”. That does not alleviate us from responsibility for those consequences.

Yes, there is an inequity in the process of gestation. It is an inequity in biology. If any man living does not understand that difference then he has no business having sex in the first place.

[Needs2know]

So what you are lobbying for here is forced abortion is that it? Or forced adoption, is that it? Just what is it that you are trying to say? Since you keep coming up with these far fetched scenerios. Are you asking if the man can force the woman to have an abortion, or barring that are you asking if the man can be legally relieved of his financial responsibilities? I’d be willing to bet you’d find it easier and perhaps more advantageous to simply be relieved of your financial responsibilities is that right?

So said man goes to court, gets a judge to say that since he tried to prevent this pregnancy he is not responsible for the outcome. Satisfied? Then 8 years later he needs a bone marrow transplant. The likely match available is this child that he has not supported emotionally or financially. Is he entitled to ask for kids marrow to save his life? Or how about this the kid grows up, becomes a great guy, a family man, but the old bastard that didn’t want responsibility for him is old and lonely. He wants to know his grandchildren, he wants someone to visit him in the old folks home. He contacts his kid that he didn’t want and is now bouncing his grandbabies on his knee. How’s that for far fetched scenerios?

Whats wrong with this last scene you’ve created is that BOTH parties attempted to prevent this pregnancy. Yet now you, the man want the same level of control as she, the woman who has to carry this child for nine months and give birth. And the outcome is the same, there is now a child that must be dealt with. That is unless you can get a forced abortion, which then will be preformed on the woman and not you. Six weeks of bleeding, pain, possibility of infection. Oh well now we’re back to forced adoption?

Needs2know

[RickJay]

I’ll say now that while I have some thoughts, I honestly don’t have the solution to the problem.

1. Under current US law, if a woman wants to get an abortion, the father has no right to stop her, or even be informed. His willingness to support and/or raise the child are immaterial.

2. However, if the woman chooses to carry the child to term, the father is obligated to support the child, regardless of the circumstances of conception. (The article gives several instances of “reverse rape”, such as a woman manually procuring semen from a passed-out-drunk male and impregnating herself via a syringe, in which the “father” was later required to pay child support.)

Except in the “Reverse rape” case, there’s no problem, because the rights of both men and women are the same in this regard. I’ve seen this argument made a hundred times and it still makes no sense.

Men and women both have the right to abort unwanted pregnancies. Of course, men don’t often get pregnant. If that seems unfair, blame God.

Men and women are both legally bound to support their children.

I admit, I don’t see a problem. Abortion rights and the responsibility to care for one’s children are completely separate issues, and connecting them is logically dishonest. There is no responsibility for caring for a child a man has that a woman does not; legally, she’s required to care for her kids, too. The only difference here is that women get pregnant and men do not, and there’s nothing the law can do about that.

StuffinB, With respect to abortion “rights,” people have the right to do with their bodies as they please. It is the general opinion of the law and the courts that this includes getting abortions. There’s no reason a man should have any “rights” to interfere with a woman getting an abortion any more than the woman should have a right to prevent a man from getting his appendix removed. Basic personal liberty applies equally to both men and women. There is no issue of “parental responsibility” here, and this is a completely separate issue.

The laaw (properly) does not recognize any rights or even relevance to the issue of “Deciding to become a parent.” It’s a complete irrelevance; a child has an intrinsic right to be supported by its parents and that entails a positive duty on the parents. To what extent they “chose” this doesn’t matter.

The issue of parental responsibility begins once a child is born. At that point, the mother and father are legally responsibile to provide the child with the necessities of life unless that responsibility is legally transferred to another party. Again, the law is equal in this regard. It doesn’t matter who practiced what form of birth control; that whole aspect of the discussion is a red herring.

The (admittedly easy) logical error here is comparing a woman’s ability to have an abortion with a man’s parental responsibility. The logical comparison is to compare a man’s parental responsibility with a woman’s - and they’re the same. The fact that women can get abortions has nothing to do with it.

[Needs2know]

Forget it everyone who is logical and reasonable…

We’re talking about a man’s wallet here and you know how some are in regards to that. It’s for some people much more important and more sacred than their responsibilities as a parent. Because this is always the central issue in this debate time and again it isn’t about RIGHTS it’s about who PAYS!

Needs2know

[Demise]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jodi *
**

Well, in the strictest sense, I do NOT agree that a woman can force a man to be a father, unless we are talking about the pretty rare occurrence of actual female-on-male rape.**

Actually, a woman, through the court system, can force a man to be a father. Non-biological fathers being forced to pay child support is grossly unfair. Because these women manage to take advantage of a generous or naive man, he should be forced to continue to pay support?

This is a slightly different subject than you are debating, Jodi, but it is intimately related. The man in this situation has no rights, only responsibilities.

What about these types of situations (from the cite in the OP):

Did the woman ask him to impregnate her and sign an agreement relieving him of any financial obligations? He’s still liable if she changes her mind. Was he underage and legally a victim of statutory rape? Makes no difference. (One such case, in Kansas in 1993, involved a 12-year-old boy molested by a baby sitter.) Did the woman have her way with him when he had passed out from drinking and brag to friends that she had saved herself a trip to the sperm bank? Tough luck, said Alabama courts. Did she retrieve his semen from the condom she had asked him to wear during oral sex and inseminate herself with a syringe? Yes, it’s a true story, and in 1997 the Louisiana Court of Appeals told the man to pay up, saying that a male who has any sexual contact with a woman – even oral sex with a condom – should assume that a pregnancy may ensue.

I understand Jodi’s point that the child needs support, but why is it the man’s (or boy’s) responsibility in these situations? If the woman cannot provide such care, then the state needs to.

Compassion is good, but justice and fairness are important too.

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by Demise *
**

I understand Jodi’s point that the child needs support, but why is it the man’s (or boy’s) responsibility in these situations? If the woman cannot provide such care, then the state needs to.

Compassion is good, but justice and fairness are important too.
**

uh no…I’m not paying for that…are you volunteering YOUR tax dollars?

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Demise:
Those points seem to address the question of responsibility for support after birth, not the question of “right to decide birth”.

Or are you suggesting that the fathers in those cases should have been allowed to terminate the pregnancies against the wishes of the mothers?

As to the particular cases you mention, I find the 12 year old’s ruling to be egregious. For teh others, I would prefer to have a more complete understanding of the circumstances. They sound bad on the face, but there might be underlying factors. Or, it could just be stupid judges. Such ceatures have been known to exist.

[furt]

Only in the most extreme situations. Do you have a cite for any case in teh US where a man has been raped and forced to pay child support for the issue of that rape?

The article referenced in the OP named several, including: a stautory rape case, where the court forced a 12-year old boy to pay child support; the procured semen-while-unconscious case; and a case where she performed oral sex on him, while he was wearing a condom, then saved the condom and impregnated herself. It did not give case names, but it did give states.

Perhaps a lawyer can verify this, but it is my understanding that a man is legally responsible for his sperm, no matter how or where extracted.

[Stuffy]

OK, first let me clear up somethings. First I’m a father myself, Ive only latched on to this because I see an unfairness here that I think should be addressed at some point. Oh, and like the situation Demise mentioned, I have had just that situation occur (but don’t want to digress into something Im still not emotionally recovered from, and before it comes up I am the custodial parent), and they are in fact related, at least in my mind. Now on to the responses:

From Jodi:
And, Im going to got to right to the heart of it.

Of course we get it; it’s not that hard. Both parties do their best NOT to become pregnant, but the women gets pregnant anyway. So let me ask you this (again): What rights would YOU grant the man under these circumstances?

The same rights of parental choice the mother has. That’s the heart of the argument, how do we accomplish it? Well it’ll take a wiser man than me.

From RickJay"

StuffinB, With respect to abortion “rights,” people have the right to do with their bodies as they please. It is the general opinion of the law and the courts that this includes getting abortions. There’s no reason a man should have any “rights” to interfere with a woman getting an abortion any more than the woman should have a right to prevent a man from getting his appendix removed. Basic personal liberty applies equally to both men and women. There is no issue of “parental responsibility” here, and this is a completely separate issue.

The laaw (properly) does not recognize any rights or even relevance to the issue of “Deciding to become a parent.” It’s a complete irrelevance; a child has an intrinsic right to be supported by its parents and that entails a positive duty on the parents. To what extent they “chose” this doesn’t matter.

But shouldn’t they? The mother has that right, no? Why is it that it’s fair that the mother can decide and the father can’t?

Needs2Know said:

Forget it everyone who is logical and reasonable…

We’re talking about a man’s wallet here and you know how some are in regards to that. It’s for some people much more important and more sacred than their responsibilities as a parent. Because this is always the central issue in this debate time and again it isn’t about RIGHTS it’s about who PAYS!

As hard as it is to admit, that is part of this equation but NOT the only one. You are right, there are some men who would love the opportunity to be able to get away financially from having that responsibility. My view is that they should have that right, because ultimately they DO NOT have the choice of whether or not to become a parent in the first place.

And you can give me the abstinance, condom, line again if you want. It doesn’t change that fact. It works both ways.

What I keep saying, and what keeps being ignored is this.

After conception, the mother STILL HAS A CHOICE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO BE A PARENT. The father does not, it is the mother’s right only. And as has been mentioned supose the father wants to be a parent and the mother does not.

[Demise]

*Originally posted by beagledave *
**uh no…I’m not paying for that…are you volunteering YOUR tax dollars? **

Sorry bud, you are already paying for it. You do know that there are plenty of children already in the State’s care that you are helping pay for? And you do know what WIC is, right? Foodstamps?

Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi
**Those points seem to address the question of responsibility for support after birth, not the question of “right to decide birth”.

Or are you suggesting that the fathers in those cases should have been allowed to terminate the pregnancies against the wishes of the mothers? **

Yes Spiritus, I am addressing responsibility for support after birth. No, I not saying that in those cases the fathers should have been allowed to terminate the pregnancies against the wishes of the mothers. But neither should the father (or the father’s parents) be responsible for the child after the pregnancy.

As for stupid judges, I’d say that any judge that made such a ruling is, in fact, stupid. However, notice that the Louisiana Court of Appeals made one of the rulings. That’s more than one stupid judge, it’s a whole panel of them. Of course, it is Louisiana…

*Originally posted by Needs2know *
**Forget it everyone who is logical and reasonable…

We’re talking about a man’s wallet here and you know how some are in regards to that. It’s for some people much more important and more sacred than their responsibilities as a parent. Because this is always the central issue in this debate time and again it isn’t about RIGHTS it’s about who PAYS!**

Lovely debate tactic. Oh, you’re absolutely right, it’s all about the father’s money. :rolleyes:

How about the 12-year-old boy in the example in my above post? Do you think that all he is thinking of is the money? I think that his childhood has now ceased to exist. And as for the others, they now have a financial burden that they will have to shoulder for two decades. Any children they actually choose to bear, or already have, will suffer as a result, not due to an accident, but due to an act that was underhanded at best, malicious at worst. The father in each case (besides the 12yr old) thought they were being responsible. They didn’t do anything that could have resulted in an accidental pregnancy. Too bad for them though, eh?

[BlackKnight]

I’m amazed how this is even debatable.

Yes, it is unfair that women have reproductive rights and men have only reproductive responsibilities.

Since women have a choice whether or not to become responsible for a child, men should have a similar choice. I heartily support giving men the option of terminating all legal responsibilities for a child they do not want. The reason they don’t want the child is irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant why a woman chooses to have an abortion.

[Badtz_Maru]

I think if a men are given the right to deny responsibility for a child they fathered, they should be required to take SOME of the responsibility for the woman’s attempt to get rid of the kid - he should put forward half the money for the abortion, or be made responsible for paying it back later if he can’t afford it. I’m still undecided on what his responsibility should be if the woman chooses to put the child up for adoption - probably he should be responsible for a share of the mother’s medical expenses during the pregnancy, but I’m not certain yet.

[Sam_Stone]

Because, in your discussion of “competing rights,” you are leaving out the paramount “right” of the only truly innocent party – the right of the baby to be supported. So it is not the rights of the mother that you must weigh against the rights of the father, but rather the rights of the baby against the rights of the father – and the right of the baby to be supported must win.

Society has never acted this way when it comes to legal decisions, tort law, etc. What about the poor innocent baby when Mom is sued for everything she has because she libeled someone? What if mom is busted for smoking crack and goes to jail? The kid goes to a relative or a foster home. I don’t see the ‘rights of the baby to be supported’ entering into these decisions in any way.

I’m not sure that this is any different. If a woman intentionally deceives someone and therefore forces a monetary penalty on them, should the fact that a child is involved prevent the father from attaining justice?

If so, then why shouldn’t it be a valid defense when being sued for any other reason? “Yes your honor, I did burn down his house. But I shouldn’t have to pay for it, because my children need clothes and schoolbooks!”

Let’s say the man has rock-solid evidence that she misrepresented her birth control status. Perhaps he has a witness that saw her throw her pills out. He caught her on camera dumping pills down the drain. Whatever. After he’s forced to support the baby, should he be able to take her to court and sue for an identical amount for damages resulting from fraud?

What if the woman is wealthy? Should the man who was deceived into fathering a child still have to pay support, even if he’s poor?

What if my sperm is stolen from a sperm bank and used to impregnate someone? Am I now legally responsible for the resulting child? Where do you draw the line?

[Kimstu]

I am all for responsibility and support and mature mutual decisions and every kind of good stuff, but I think that stuffinb’s “team” has a point that has been kind of slighted. I’ll approach it via RickJay’s excellent summary:

*Men and women both have the right to abort unwanted pregnancies. Of course, men don’t often get pregnant. If that seems unfair, blame God. *

True, and well put.

*Men and women are both legally bound to support their children. *

Ah, but they aren’t, not always. They can decide to renounce parental privileges and responsibilities after the birth—that is, they can give the baby up for adoption. Now I think we usually require the consent of both parents in the case of adoption, except sometimes the father can’t be found and is considered to have waived his rights—I wish someone with more knowledge of adoption law would help out here. Is it true that if one parent wants to keep the baby and the other to put it up for adoption, the adoption is ruled out and both parents are legally required to support the child? Does it make a difference which parent wants what?

Abortion rights and the responsibility to care for one’s children are completely separate issues, and connecting them is logically dishonest. There is no responsibility for caring for a child a man has that a woman does not; legally, she’s required to care for her kids, too.

Um, yeah, except that she has the option to renounce that responsibility in advance, before the baby’s born, thus taking a shortcut around any differences she may have with the father on what to do about the baby. The father doesn’t have that option. This doesn’t seem fair to me, and not just unfair on a basic biological level, either.

As a strongly pro-choice female, I really don’t like the concept of “punitive motherhood”: that is, insisting that if a woman gets pregnant then she has to accept becoming a mother, however little she may want to, and if she isn’t happy with that then she shouldn’t have had sex (how helpful). I think the arguments suggested here in favor of mandatory child support even on the part of somebody who was clear right from the start about not wanting a kid approach perilously close to “punitive fatherhood.”

Yes, once a guy has accepted fatherhood, we can’t just let him opt out of it whenever he feels like it, since the child has a right to his support; we don’t let mothers just toss their babies in trash cans, either. But women have a short time period after conception when they’re free to choose whether to accept the responsibilities of motherhood. I think it makes sense to allow men a similarly short time period during which they can officially renounce the responsibilities of fatherhood (preferably before the end of the first trimester, so that a woman can make her decision about terminating the pregnancy based partly on knowledge of the man’s willingness to provide support). If he doesn’t opt out then, hello Daddy; he now has paternal responsibilities (including, of course, the choice to give the child up for adoption if he and the mother agree it’s best) and can’t shirk them.

I recognize that this will deprive some children of support they need (although probably not very many; it seems that the vast majority of guys paying child support are not convinced fatherhood-resisters who wanted nothing to do with the kid right from the start, but men who at some point accepted fatherhood but later ceased to be full-time on-site parents). And I’m willing to pay more taxes to help make up that shortfall, because I agree with Jodi that the baby’s needs are paramount. I know that this makes things more difficult for women who have to decide if they want to be mothers without a father’s support, but the “well-you’ll-be-more-careful-next-time” argument that some posters here have used applies to the woman too: if she’d consider not terminating an unexpected pregnancy, she’d better make sure she’s sleeping with somebody who wouldn’t let her down in that case.

Hmm. Maybe this whole fairness argument can be shot down with the objection that you have more rights over your body than you do over your money, so a woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant can abort whereas a man who doesn’t want to pay child support is out of luck. But I still have a problem with that implied “punitive parenting” attitude. Our approaches to abortion and adoption generally seem to respect the idea that it’s not a good idea to make people be parents if they don’t want to be (although our approaches to child abuse and neglect and child support, on the other hand, reinforce the notion that if you’ve undertaken to be a parent you’ve damn well got to do it right). I don’t think it’s fair that the act of “undertaking to be a parent” is considered to occur around the end of the first trimester for women but at the moment of intercourse for men. I don’t really think that’s a biological unfairness, either; I think it’s a social one, and little as I want to encourage irresponsible sex, I think it should be redressed.

[Sterra]

of course the line is drawn at birth. IE when its not a part of their body is when it has rights from the father. Of course before that it is nothing and has no rights.

Hmm not meaning to sidetrack but a baby is not part of a womans body. Its the babys body. (after all im sure women dont feel pain at being chopped up into little pieces when they have a abortion:)) Heh pro choice will be unfair untill someone can either have a lab be able to carry a baby or somehow make it so the father can. (note this is not to say i favor pro life)

but i think the real thing is is, why arent the babys rights equal to the mothers and the fathers before birth as well as after? Obviously because they dont vote:)