Sex Differences in Reproductive Rights

MadHatter wrote:
But a man is responsible for the care of the baby like it or not once the baby is born. So what do you think of my solution to level that? Further, what do you think of the statement that a father can be forced to be financially responsible for the child they get a say? Frankly, my opinion is that the solution I posted is the answer but I am curious to hear differing views.

There is no level playing field. it takes two to make a baby and two to care for it, but the space in between is a burden borne by the woman alone. Which is why the decision is hers.

Now, you can sign away your parental rights, and I believe that with that, child support is no longer payable (not 100% sure on that though, and I think it requires prolonged legal intervention). But remember, child support is not to benefit the custodial parent, but to support the child that two people agreed to potentially make by having sex.

Leah Starspectre wrote:

MadHatter wrote:
But a man is responsible for the care of the baby like it or not once the baby is born. So what do you think of my solution to level that? Further, what do you think of the statement that a father can be forced to be financially responsible for the child they get a say? Frankly, my opinion is that the solution I posted is the answer but I am curious to hear differing views.

There is no level playing field. it takes two to make a baby and two to care for it, but the space in between is a burden borne by the woman alone. Which is why the decision is hers.

Now, you can sign away your parental rights, and I believe that with that, child support is no longer payable (not 100% sure on that though, and I think it requires prolonged legal intervention). But remember, child support is not to benefit the custodial parent, but to support the child that two people agreed to potentially make by having sex.

As far as I know signing away your parental rights does not stop the duty for child support. The courts view the rights of the parent different than the duties that the parent has to the child. So the only way the child support obligation stops with the termination of parental rights is if the child is adopted.
So in light of that do you think it would be fair for a father to be able to HAVE the right to sign paperwork to terminate parental rights that also terminates the duties to child support? Which is pretty much my suggestions.
Also, I hope I was clear that I do not think a man should have a say in the abortion process. My only caveat is that this being the case they should have an out on parenthood as well.

MadHatter wrote: So in light of that do you think it would be fair for a father to be able to HAVE the right to sign paperwork to terminate parental rights that also terminates the duties to child support? Which is pretty much my suggestions.
Also, I hope I was clear that I do not think a man should have a say in the abortion process. My only caveat is that this being the case they should have an out on parenthood as well.

There is no such thing as an "out" on parenthood, though. And I say that as someone with a biological child that I have no legal rights for. Legally, I have no responsibilities to him as he was created through in-vitro for surrogacy for someone else, BUT I still need to be aware that I may have a moral or emotional duty to him in the future.

Since a child is created equally by two people (something the child had no say in), it has the right to be supported equally by two people (at least!) once it's born. That being said, the fact that women are the sole carriers of life between conception and birth, that makes the playing field intrinsically uneven. There is no such thing as "leveling the playing field." By having sex, a man is agreeing to an unwritten contract of potential fatherhood. A woman's choice to keep a child or not is his only chance at an "out" - and it's up to her.

Sometimes, life's not fair.

Leah Starspectre wrote:

MadHatter wrote: So in light of that do you think it would be fair for a father to be able to HAVE the right to sign paperwork to terminate parental rights that also terminates the duties to child support? Which is pretty much my suggestions.
Also, I hope I was clear that I do not think a man should have a say in the abortion process. My only caveat is that this being the case they should have an out on parenthood as well.

There is no such thing as an "out" on parenthood, though. And I say that as someone with a biological child that I have no legal rights for. Legally, I have no responsibilities to him as he was created through in-vitro for surrogacy for someone else, BUT I still need to be aware that I may have a moral or emotional duty to him in the future.

Since a child is created equally by two people (something the child had no say in), it has the right to be supported equally by two people (at least!) once it's born. That being said, the fact that women are the sole carriers of life between conception and birth, that makes the playing field intrinsically uneven. There is no such thing as "leveling the playing field." By having sex, a man is agreeing to an unwritten contract of potential fatherhood. A woman's choice to keep a child or not is his only chance at an "out" - and it's up to her.

Sometimes, life's not fair.

Whelp we are not going to agree here then. Because if a women can opt out of having the child and thus the responsibility of raising the child a man should have the same ability. Simply because a women has control over her body it should not prevent a man from having as close to even options as we can provide. The child at the time frame I put forward would not be born and not even be legally a person. So if you opt out at that timeframe I fail to see how it differs from abortion. Further sex is not a contract to potential parenthood. Not if a women has an out and not if steps are taken to prevent it. You, in fact, may have done everything reasonable to prevent it. If a women has yet one more chance to not be a mother a father should get the same option. Life not being fair is not an excuse for legal inequity. Otherwise we would say life is not fair if the father just walks off and refuses to pay.

I'm going to agree with MadHatter on this. A part of aborting a baby is removing future responsibility to said baby. If we are going to argue that a mother has a right to do that then so should the father. Only in the father's case he has no say in aborting the baby only in his future involvement with and responsibility to it.

Do I think a person should do that? No. I think you should face the consequences of your actions. However, I believe that everyone should get the same choice.

Please don't think that I'm saying that the two decisions are exactly the same. For a man it's "good bye forever, all I do is sign a form" and for a woman it's major surgery, but in so far as it can be even it should be.

Goken wrote: I'm going to agree with MadHatter on this. A part of aborting a baby is removing future responsibility to said baby. If we are going to argue that a mother has a right to do that then so should the father. Only in the father's case he has no say in aborting the baby only in his future involvement with and responsibility to it.

Do I think a person should do that? No. I think you should face the consequences of your actions. However, I believe that everyone should get the same choice.

Please don't think that I'm saying that the two decisions are exactly the same. For a man it's "good bye forever, all I do is sign a form" and for a woman it's major surgery, but in so far as it can be even it should be.

Pretty much my view exactly

Goken wrote: I'm going to agree with MadHatter on this. A part of aborting a baby is removing future responsibility to said baby. If we are going to argue that a mother has a right to do that then so should the father. Only in the father's case he has no say in aborting the baby only in his future involvement with and responsibility to it.

Do I think a person should do that? No. I think you should face the consequences of your actions. However, I believe that everyone should get the same choice.

And I'm saying that until men can carry a fetus, there is no such thing as the "same choice"

Leah Starspectre wrote:

Goken wrote: I'm going to agree with MadHatter on this. A part of aborting a baby is removing future responsibility to said baby. If we are going to argue that a mother has a right to do that then so should the father. Only in the father's case he has no say in aborting the baby only in his future involvement with and responsibility to it.

Do I think a person should do that? No. I think you should face the consequences of your actions. However, I believe that everyone should get the same choice.

And I'm saying that until men can carry a fetus, there is no such thing as the "same choice"

This again is where I think you are wrong. The same choice is the choice not to be a parent. The choice not to raise a child or pay for the raising of said child. The difference is that if men had the right the women would still have the right to raise the child if they wanted. So no its not totally the same choice and gives more freedom to the women in all cases. However as we cannot ethically mandate total leveling here making it as level as possible is only right.

This is why guys should tell their sons to get vasectomies. Until the artificial womb becomes a reality surrogates do a perfectly fine job, it's a lot more money than what women have to pay for a sperm donation, but not as much as what post-walls spend on IVF, which means it too could be tax-payer funded. It's pretty much the only way a man can have a child with the same rights, choices and risks a woman does.

They say "her body her choice" but it literally isn't her body. What they should say is "her life her choice" and you should make sure your sons get the same choices in their lives.

All I have to say is condoms are cheap and good judgement is free.

What would prevent the woman from naming a man who would agree, or just saying it was a random encounter? My father never knew I existed. Another man was named when I was an infant. I feel rather sorry for him, if they could have found him, he'd have been responsible for 18 years for a child that wasn't his, while the man who was responsible went on with his merry life. So I think all you would do is add layers onto the deception that is already there. I see cases every day of people who were lied to about who their birth father is. If women are forced to get a man's sign-off, the rate of deception I think would only increase.

JLSpinner wrote: All I have to say is condoms are cheap and good judgement is free.

You killed me there.(Possibly everyone else xD)

There is always the Orwellian option. Give everyone a chip that disables the reproductive system until they can pass a course on responsibility. But that wouldn't fly.

JLSpinner wrote: There is always the Orwellian option. Give everyone a chip that disables the reproductive system until they can pass a course on responsibility. But that wouldn't fly.

I have seen some examples of people whom I would consider horribly irresponsible becoming awesome parents and some very responsible people becoming horrible parents. It's never really easy to see what that person can become when exposed to the difference of responsibilities of becoming a parent. Note this is from a perspective of someone whom is not a parent.

Win on the Condoms and Good Judgement that's key. Judgement is really big

Just gonna cover on a couple of things I read in skimming through this thread:

My personal opinion is that 25 weeks is way too long to allow an abortion to happen, but then you get into the whole conversation about when does a baby "become" a baby. My answer would ideally be before 5 weeks - I think after that it's less a ball of cells, and more a living, breathing person.

At 5 weeks, most women still don't even know they're pregnant. Further, a 5 week old fetus is in no way a 'living, breathing person'. Indeed, if you want to speak specifically towards the technical respiratory system of a person: "Development of this system is not completed until the last weeks of Fetal development, just before birth. Therefore premature babies have difficulties associated with insufficient surfactant (end month 6 alveolar cells type 2 appear and begin to secrete surfactant)." https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Respiratory_System_DevelopmentSource So no. Sorry, but no. You can't restrict a woman's right to that decision that early in the process.

Now, you can sign away your parental rights, and I believe that with that, child support is no longer payable (not 100% sure on that though, and I think it requires prolonged legal intervention).

-vs-

As far as I know signing away your parental rights does not stop the duty for child support. The courts view the rights of the parent different than the duties that the parent has to the child. So the only way the child support obligation stops with the termination of parental rights is if the child is adopted.

In this particular regard, the first quote would be more accurate. Most of us live in jurisdictions where, once parental rights are terminated, parental duties are also terminated. At that point, they have no responsibilities to that child, up to and including child support, but by that same token, they also lose all rights to have access to that child, including visitation rights or custody rights. The most the court might try to require at that point is support that is back owed, because it was still a duty they had up to that point, but even that is negotiable at a legal table. In short, the father has as much of a right to terminate his rights to the child as the mother does... his may simply have to wait 9 months where as the mother can make that decision far before it ever has to reach legal actions.

Take this from someone who had a biological parent sign their rights away; his only stipulation was that my mother not continue suing him for overly $35,000 in back-owed child support. Once she dropped that, he was more than willing to sign away all rights to me, because it meant he wouldn't have to pay any more child support.

And since the man has the right to do so, he has no right to force the mother to carry to term a child she does not desire. Particularly not given all the health implications pregnancy has on a mother that it will never have for a father. In the words of Margaret Atwood, forced pregnancy is merely a new form of slavery.

Avalonslight wrote: Just gonna cover on a couple of things I read in skimming through this thread:


In this particular regard, the first quote would be more accurate. Most of us live in jurisdictions where, once parental rights are terminated, parental duties are also terminated. At that point, they have no responsibilities to that child, up to and including child support, but by that same token, they also lose all rights to have access to that child, including visitation rights or custody rights. The most the court might try to require at that point is support that is back owed, because it was still a duty they had up to that point, but even that is negotiable at a legal table. In short, the father has as much of a right to terminate his rights to the child as the mother does... his may simply have to wait 9 months where as the mother can make that decision far before it ever has to reach legal actions.

Take this from someone who had a biological parent sign their rights away; his only stipulation was that my mother not continue suing him for overly $35,000 in back-owed child support. Once she dropped that, he was more than willing to sign away all rights to me, because it meant he wouldn't have to pay any more child support.

And since the man has the right to do so, he has no right to force the mother to carry to term a child she does not desire. Particularly not given all the health implications pregnancy has on a mother that it will never have for a father. In the words of Margaret Atwood, forced pregnancy is merely a new form of slavery.

Except that is not what my family law course or several law sites says

http://dadsdivorce.com/divorce-process/

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/does-my-ex-still-have-to-pay-child-support-if-he-s-1190356.html

http://dadsdivorce.com/articles/do-i-have-to-terminate-my-parental-rights-in-order-for-child-support-to-be-canceled/

http://www.lawqa.com/qa/do-i-still-have-to-pay-child-support-if-i-sign-my-parental-rights-away

So while it might be allowed in some states and in some cases this is not the widespread legal standing. I am in paralegal studies so my family law class was pretty clear that it does not automatically terminate the demand for child support. However, as I said that is a separate issue from the abortion deal to me. The right to abortion is the women's choice and not the mans in my eyes plain and simple. Even if there is currently in my eyes some legal inequity. That does not mean we justify further unfairness.

My usual backchat:

All I have to say is condoms are cheap and good judgement is free.

Pithy as that is - Good judgment often comes from quite expensive lessons - as in, "Well, I wouldn't do that a second time" :laugh:


Also, a lot of this discussion is couched in some heavy assumptions - like you live in a place where a woman does have those rights.

How many people live in places where
A. The woman doesn't have the option for an abortion at all.
B. The man* has full legal rights over the woman, anything inside of her, and any decisions made regarding either?


*Asterisk because I can't decide if The Man in this example is the father of the child, or the father of the woman. Owning people is complicated.


I am (obviously) in favour of options that are the two extremes

Total Law - Unplanned conception is a crime against the state, and as such, the future of the child becomes subject to the state's preferences (probably based on genetic makeup, and whether or not it will be useful as a eunuch in the salt mines)

No Law - Let the involved individuals work it out with no input from the state - There will not necessarily always (or ever) be a all-round happy solution, but life wasn't meant to be perfect, and this option preserves the beautiful chaos of life.

For what it's worth, I have no children, because I, and every woman stupid enough to fall in love with me have always agreed that my genes can not be allowed to continue on this earth.

As I said, I spoke out of personal experience with my mother's fight with my biological father. In that situation, if he was to sign off his rights, he would be removed from any future child support responsibility. However, he refused to do so unless she in turn agreed to forgive his standing child support debt. Local laws didn't require her to do so, nor did they require him to pay any new amounts post signing, but that was the only way he would do so.

But in the spirit of googling sites, I found many of my own that support my claim:

However, parents seeking to terminate the other parents' parental rights should know up front that in situations where the non-custodial parent voluntarily agrees to terminate his or her parental rights (in other words, signing over parental rights voluntarily), child support obligations typically cease.

https://www.thespruce.com/overview-of-signing-over-parental-rights-2997635

When a court approves a termination of parental rights, the parent-child relationship is completely extinguished and all the rights and responsibilities of parenthood are terminated. This means the ex-parent no longer has an obligation to provide care or financial support. They also forfeit any right to have input regarding the child’s education, religion, place of residence or other child rearing decisions.

http://family-law.freeadvice.com/family-law/child_custody/voluntarily-terminating-parental-rights.htm

I could go on but I'm on a phone so that's a pain.

What you're probably getting is that many courts won't terminate parental rights solely to absolve parental duties, which you're right is often the case. But once the right is terminated, then more often than not the duty is as well. Obviously that's not everywhere, and I never said it was the case everywhere, but it seems that it is the case in more places than not.

Avalonslight wrote: As I said, I spoke out of personal experience with my mother's fight with my biological father. In that situation, if he was to sign off his rights, he would be removed from any future child support responsibility. However, he refused to do so unless she in turn agreed to forgive his standing child support debt. Local laws didn't require her to do so, nor did they require him to pay any new amounts post signing, but that was the only way he would do so.

But in the spirit of googling sites, I found many of my own that support my claim:

However, parents seeking to terminate the other parents' parental rights should know up front that in situations where the non-custodial parent voluntarily agrees to terminate his or her parental rights (in other words, signing over parental rights voluntarily), child support obligations typically cease.

https://www.thespruce.com/overview-of-signing-over-parental-rights-2997635

When a court approves a termination of parental rights, the parent-child relationship is completely extinguished and all the rights and responsibilities of parenthood are terminated. This means the ex-parent no longer has an obligation to provide care or financial support. They also forfeit any right to have input regarding the child’s education, religion, place of residence or other child rearing decisions.

https://family-law.freeadvice.com/family-law/child_custody/voluntarily-terminating-parental-rights.htm

I could go on but I'm on a phone so that's a pain.

What you're probably getting is that many courts won't terminate parental rights solely to absolve parental duties, which you're right is often the case. But once the right is terminated, then more often than not the duty is as well. Obviously that's not everywhere, and I never said it was the case everywhere, but it seems that it is the case in more places than not.

The fact is in most states you will pay child support unless the child is being adopted by someone else or the state has involuntarily taken custody. Its rare that they will absolve that duty as they consider the support the right of the child not the right of the parent so the termination of the parents rights does not terminate the right of the child. Hence my point of an uneven system of getting out of being a parent if you wish.

I definitely think a father should be involved in their child's life.

With that said, some people post the argument that father's don't really have a choice. If women choose to not be a mother either through abortion, giving up for adoption, and other such things, they can do so easily, all without a father. This seems fair due to the fact a mother must carry the child. But, if a mother is wanting to keep that child, father's are required to pay child support. This is done for the child, in their best interest. This is great and really helps support the child and I have no argue with it in that regard. But, at the same time, that father is forced into a position he had no decision in. But is there anything we can do? Many mother's rely in that money to help that child, but father's are forced to pay up. I know some father's who can never see their child because the mother simply didn't want them to, yet they have to pay for the child.

Now, I think this is justified because of the fact that when sex takes place, you are aware of all of this. It's a risk you take and you have to accept for what is done. But even then there does seem like a level of unfairness. For example, no DNA test is required before a father has to pay child support. This leaves it to whomever the mother decides the father is. Also, father's paying child support are charged way more than they can afford, meaning they should consider someone's income before charging them more than they can possibly afford. This also causes father's to be behind on payments and for proper support to not take place.

So in summary, child support is good, but needs to be tweaked. As far as a fathers rights to abortion, I agree that a father should have a say, but he isn't tasked with the carrying and birthing of a child. I don't think that makes the father bad, because it's not his fault he can't carry the child, but it's also not the women's fault she gets pregnant (except rare times where crazy women lie about birth control and other super crazy things).