If a woman doesn’t tell a man she is pregnant then how can he assert his rights to the born child? That was my point to the statement about is it really a right if he need permission to use it, meaning the woman’s permission. Would you support rights violation laws and/or fraud enforcement for women who lie or refuse to inform the father?

Yes, I would. Unless there is a very good reason to not allow the man rights to his child (criminal etc. unfit for parenting)

Agreeably I am more focused on non custodial rights and men’s parental rights. I think, honestly, that a man backing out of parenthood has not infringed on the woman’s rights in any way

No, but he has infringed on his child’s rights.

We have to stay consistent or we open the door for any and all discrimination. Saying a man not supporting his child is infringing on the child’s rights but the same from a woman is acceptable seems to me to be a very lopsided and illogical argument.

That is not my argument. I support abortion rights, yes, but I don’t support opt-out from parenthood for either gender. There is a distinction that people fail to see here.

Now, as for not being able to give up “future responsibilities” since the fetus is not a child. My question is then if a man did not help create a child, he created a fetus, and the woman then creates the child after that on her own why is he responsible at all.

Why should he get any rights to the child then, if all he did was create a fetus? A woman can technically (with abortion) stop the process where the fetus becomes a child. Of course a man has created the child too. I fail to see your point (or are you pro-life, and thus think women should not get abortion, but because they do, you want to “balance” things somehow? I’m actually curious).

One more thing while we are on the rights and responsibilities issue. If it is the 50/50 split I keep seeing, would you support gender neutral custody laws (that are actually practiced) where by custody is not assumed until both biological parents are recognized and can petition for custody?

In most cases, yes.

These always get so much longer than I plan.

Heh. Join the club.

Tuomas, If a woman doesn’t tell a man she is pregnant then how can he assert his rights to the born child? That was my point to the statement about is it really a right if he need permission to use it, meaning the woman’s permission. Would you support rights violation laws and/or fraud enforcement for women who lie or refuse to inform the father? Is it not a responsibility of the woman to keep track of potential fathers to her children at least as much as a man’s responsibility to police his own sperm? It just seems to me that there is a have my cake and eat it to clause. If the woman wants support she claims a father…if not she simply never says a word. In a similar strain, should women who wrongfully claim parentage be prosecuted? (a married woman who fails to mention an affair that led to her pregnancy for instance)

Now, as for not being able to give up “future responsibilities” since the fetus is not a child. My question is then if a man did not help create a child, he created a fetus, and the woman then creates the child after that on her own why is he responsible at all. Remember, these are your arguments not mine, I personally feel the child AND fetus belong to both parents from the start.

One more thing while we are on the rights and responsibilities issue. If it is the 50/50 split I keep seeing, would you support gender neutral custody laws (that are actually practiced) where by custody is not assumed until both biological parents are recognized and can petition for custody? Can we take gender out of the practice of awarding custody based on parental fitness. I know this is a bit off thread I am just testing the waters for opinions since people seem reasonable and calm here at this point.

Lu, the money is for the child in theory but in practice it doesnt work that way. I am glad you agree they should be prosecuted and would you support accountabliity practices for custodial parents? As for your “too rare to be legitimate” firstly, rarity shouldn’t be a factor in legal protection. Secondly, I am afraid you have a higher opinion than you should of parts of our society. What is considered abusing the system… If you receive a payment to uphold a particular standard of living for a child and use it for yourself, for your children by another father, to support a new spouse or boyfriend that is not or can not work, so on and so forth. That money, even if the recipient isn’t living the high life, becomes household income and is OFTEN not used for the child it is intended for.

Agreeably I am more focused on non custodial rights and men’s parental rights. I think, honestly, that a man backing out of parenthood has not infringed on the woman’s rights in any way. I also believe that to restrict certain rights or privledges based on gender is discrimination. So, to allow a female unilateral adoption (in practice) and the right to abandonment, but to disallow it for men is gender discrimination.

We have to stay consistent or we open the door for any and all discrimination. Saying a man not supporting his child is infringing on the child’s rights but the same from a woman is acceptable seems to me to be a very lopsided and illogical argument. I think most folks want equal treatment under the law. They want things to be “fair”. It has to be in practice as well as theory. I am not talking about results here either, I am talking about opportunity. In other words I am not advocating that we mandate 50% of all custody go to fathers just because they are men and that is “fair”.

These always get so much longer than I plan.

There are also the financial benefits that child support laws now provide.

Child support benefits the child, not the custodial parent. Said parent can (and should) be prosecuted for using child-support money for her- or himself instead of the child(ren).

I get very tired of this notion that all a woman has to do is sucker some poor slob into getting her pregnant and then she can sit on the sofa and eat bonbons for the next 18 years while he works his guts out supporting her and the kid. We all know it doesn’t work that way (unless maybe the slob in question is Donald Trump, and that falls into the “too rare to be a legitimate argument” category).

I say freedoms, not rights, because I see nothing just or right about walking away from a child.

Here we agree. :)

typo, should read: for feti or pregnant women.

A woman (unmarried) can legally choose to abandon her child after birth through adoption options, so that argument is flawed.

If the woman decides to do that, the man can assert his rights as the biological father. If then the man gains custody, he is entitled to child support from the woman. How is the argument flawed?

I have never heard of a mother paying child support to an orphanage or adoptive couple.

Men do not have to pay child support to an orphanage or an adoptive couple either, as adoptive parents become the childs parents in a legal sense.

I wrote earlier that:

If it is unclear, adoption is process where the rights and responsibilities over a child are transferred from biological parent(s) to adoptive parents. It always requires the consent of the adoptive parents (thus giving a child for adoption can not be a right) and usually the consent of the biological parents.

So by your logic he is disavowing responsibility for a fetus and no child’s rights are being conflicted.

You cannot disavow a responsibility that does not exist. Men are not responsible for feti or a pregnant women (at least legally).

Thus proponents of C4M are asking for a right to disavow a future responsibility before the said responsibility actually exists! Women don’t get to do that either (as abortion removes the possibility of the fetus becoming a legal person with rights).

If there is no abortion or miscarriage, the fetus will become a child. If that happens, both the man and the woman have responsibility. I don’t think abortion should be coerced on woman because a man suddenly decides that he does not want to become a parent. If there was a binding contract before the couple even has sex that the man forfeits his rights rights and responsibilities (signed by both the man and the woman), then it might be justified. As you lamented the ways women can trick men to parenthood, realize that this does work both ways. (A man about to have sex with a pro-life woman: “Sure, I want to become a father, let’s have family” afterwards: “I chance my mind, Choice for Men!”. Is it fair to punish pro-life women, and their children thus?) Let’s not pretend that, as you said she has to choose to have the child that abortion is such a simple choice! For some, it is not an option at all (I don’t agree with the pro-life position, but it is IMO valid as long it is not pushed on other women’s bodies.).

And still, child support is about supporting the child. Not the woman’s choices.

But current legislation is justified on infringing on a man’s freedoms allowed by his biology.

There is nothing male-specific about walking away from a child. From a pregnant woman, yes, but if that woman gives birth then both parents are responsible for the child.

(thanks to Mythago for providing the legal part for this thread, I’m quoting her practically)

I am working my way through the rest of the thread and it is a bit argumentative and bitter at times, but informative.

It sure is. I lost my temper a couple of times, IIRC.

FTR, I personally support some child-care system by the state, and am also very supporting of adoption and volunteer work for abandoned children. But the issue is, if such systems do not exist, then it is only fair to demand both parents to take responsibility for their children (this should be the norm).

A man can not unilaterally decide to dump a child on a woman, she has to choose to have the child. So the support of the child she chose to have after a “paper abortion”, as you called it, would simply be her responsibility. If a “paper abortion” were legal I would fully stand behind it having to be performed early in the pregnancy if the biological father is informed. I think current notification procedures would need to be fixed though. So by your logic he is disavowing responsibility for a fetus and no child’s rights are being conflicted. Or if biological and legal parentage are not seperate issues then we have a lot of work to do with custody and adoption law.

What I am seeing is an argument that further legislation would infringe on a woman’s freedoms allowed her by biology, but current legislation is justified on infringing on a man’s freedoms allowed by his biology. I say freedoms, not rights, because I see nothing just or right about walking away from a child.

I am working my way through the rest of the thread and it is a bit argumentative and bitter at times, but informative.

Men have the biologicly viable option to walk away after pregnancy.

As do women. You compare two things that are not equals, pregnancy and the existence of a born child. It has been discussed at great length here, and it appears that the law is same for men and women (neither men or women are allowed to abandon their children after birth, as it comes into conflict with the childs rights, that do not exist before birth) . Equality of rights and responsibilities exists, to the biological limits.

Comparing paper abortion for men and actual abortion is also comparing things that are not the same. Women can not choose to unilaterally dump a child to a man either (if they do, the man can sue for child support).

Ed, all these have been suggested in the thread, you should read it.

Read it this way…
When feminists say a man’s chance to decide about parenthood is before pregnancy happens, what they really mean is, “I want to deny you one of your viable options.” There’s no reason, except for child support laws, that men can’t walk away after pregnancy begins.

I personally think the argument rings hollow both ways. I would not want to walk away from my child, I am a proud father, but that does not mean the option should be denied. Just becaues not every woman votes does not mean that all women should be denied the vote.

First, When I mentioned deception to get pregnant I was referring to how easy it is for a woman to stop the pill or say she is taking it when she is not. Any couple trusting withdrawl is not overly bright as pregnancy can occur without male ejaculation. On a similar topic, women have more incentives to become pregnant than a men do. I know that is going to upset some people but most men “on the fence” about marriage would jump into it if their partner gets pregnant. There are also the financial benefits that child support laws now provide. I would hate to believe it is common but I assure you that it is abused.

As for your comment on “what do you propose, arresting her?” Perhaps if we started holding her accountable for false statements and fraud then such incidences would decrease. It seems the current trend is allowing lies deception and fraud as part of her rights, I don’t undertand that.

Furrycatherder, I am lost as to your reply to the sentence you quoted. You are saying thank goodness there are disproportionate rights or that there currently are not? I am also confused as to how a vaginal suppositories are a valid contraceptive method for men. We have condoms or surgery, that is pretty much it. For the most part, and I am not an expert as I have no real problem with condoms so use that method, but the rest of the options are vaginal or medical for a female. As for caregiving, I believe most men want financial stability used as at least part of the consideration for custody. As it stands, she just gave birth and isnt working so can stay home and take care of the child is a positive argument. When a man brings up being able to support the child, the court simply takes the money from him. Heck, send her to work and he can quit his job just as easily as she did. I think that is where the “caregiver” argument comes from for working men. We get punished for what we can not do, women get rewarded for what they can not or are not doing.

I think part of the reason this thread is argumentative is that we keep referring to “rights” but switch back and forth between what kinds of rights we are talking about. There are basic human rights, not set down and quantified anywhere but seemingly apparent yet different to everyone. There are also legal rights, current legal rights, which are simply legislative and have very little to do with justice or fairness and then there are biological rights, the things that are simply laws of nature. To confuse the issue further each religion has its own sets of rights and responsibilities to men and women.

I have seen arguments against mens involvment or rights to a pre-natal child saying women have the “right” to an abortion, that is a legal right and didnt exist before Roe v Wade. Was the “legal” right of the gov’t to deny abortion just then and all of a sudden unjust after the ruling? Again, legal and human rights will never truly match. I think what most fathers simply want a bit more of an even shake. It seems that when you talk about a father-child relationship we discuss responsibility and when we discuss a mother-child relationship we talk about rights.

People don’t like to think about it unless it supports their own cause but I think both sides have justified examples of why they are right. There are abusive men and fathers out there that simply want to not support their children or it was a fling and they don’t even care that they have any. There are also mothers out there that abuse the system for money and dump the kids on a third party or neglect and abuse them in other ways and are using the support money on themselves. I think basicly at this point men want an out. They want a legal option that allows them to walk away, which is what women have. I think they lump themselves in with pro-lifers to try and strip back a “right” from the “evil women” that they themselves don’t have.

As for feminist saying men have enough rights already and seeming to parrot pro-lifers…perhaps the words are similar but I think the motivations are completely different. Pro-life advocates, not all but many, take a moral superiority stance. Feminists feel threatened by the men’s demand for rights because they feel that if men have more rights then women automaticly have to lose some of theirs. So their stance is more of a self preservation outlook.

A quick PS… I just realized another logic conflict here. We talked about the rights men already have… listed over and over… and yet you (Amp) admitted that by a simple lie men’s parental rights are circumvented and you seem, by your statement, opposed to punishing the liars or finding a way to cut down on such instances of deceit or fraud. If the rights can be that easily stripped are they rights at all, or is it similar to saying that, sure blacks can eat here, as long as they have permission from the whites. Is it a parental right if you have to have the mothers permission to exercise it?

Sorry this got long.

I do think that blaming biology for allowing or disallowing disproportional rights to one gender after birth is inaccurate and deceptive.

And thank G-d that isn’t the way the law works!!

(Don’t shoot me, Amp, I’m going to mention Father’s Rights boards and conversations …)

Men who want to be fathers — real fathers, not “I’m going to make the mother’s life miserable” fathers — do fight for, and are granted by the courts, their legal right to be involved parents. And as much as I disagree with the concept of Parental Alienation Syndrome, courts have even recognized that custodial parents who decide “I’m going to make the (the other parent)’s life miserable and make my child hate him/her” and have changed custody.

Now, there are some biological facts that tend to grant rights to women that men don’t have. For example, women have breasts, and contrary to the purveyors of pr0nography, breasts exist … to feed babies. (Some men might seem to have breasts, but that’s another subject.) So, women tend to have a superior right to custody of infants based on the biology of breast feeding and the advantages to a newborn of being breast fed. Beyond that, courts grant rights based on which parent was the primary caregiver. That some men seem to think “But I had a job!” equals “caregiving” is not a valid reason to receive custody. It’s an argument for why those men (and where the roles are reversed from gender stereotypes, women) should continue to have the same level of involvement as before the separation — provide money to the mother (or father — see earlier comment) so that parent can continue to be the caregiver.

So … men already have plenty of choices. If they are sure they never want children, the choice begins with having a vasectomy. If they don’t want a child now, there are forms of male contraception, as well as forms of female contraception, which can be used to greatly reduce the risk of pregnancy. Those forms — condoms, spermacides, vaginal suppositories containing spermicides, etc. — are things the man can use so that he can have control. Should, by some accident, a child be conceived, the man again has choices. He can be however fully-involved in the child’s life his relationship with the child’s mother permits. And, should the child’s mother deny the constitutionally protected (yes, it’s a right founded in the Constitution) right to be an involved parent to the child’s father, he can sue. Quite conventiently, the child’s mother has the same constitutionally-protected rights.

I just feel others here have done that job, and that I do not need to.

I have always been of the postion of pro-choice,even though my personal belifes are pro-life, If I have sex and a pregnacy occurs, I will take full responciblity for my actions. But I don’t have the right to impose that belife on anyone else, and I see the logical arguments to the pro-choice postion for both men and women.

I am sorry that you felt the need to get hostile with me, but again your blog your rules.

I will refraine from posting in the future, if you wish.

By the way although I do get involved in Men’s Rights Activism, that is not all I am, My belifes are wide ranging and can change from issue to issue. Do not assume things about me based on my views on a particular topic.

I don’t care for cheerleading posts here, Wookie. Nothing in your post provides any logical rebuttal of my opening post, or indeed of what anyone has said on this thread. If you want to attempt to make logical arguments or rebuttals, then that’s okay. If you have nothing to add but cheerleading the same old MRA positions, then please keep it off of “Alas.”

Is a resounding YES.

I have never supported C4M but after reading this, I have had my mind changed.

I feel that the C4M arguement has been put in a balanced way, and the essential arguement for dismissal is “He should keep his pants on”

Man or woman as the right to choose NOT to get pregnant, though it is much easier for a female to “trick” a man into an unwanted pregnancy than vice versa.

I don’t understand. Is using a pin to poke a few holes in a condom something much more difficult for men? How about saying “don’t worry, I’ll pull out in time” and then not pulling out in time - is that terribly difficult?

Now I am confused on what comes after though. If the female feels the child has a right to live but can not raise it she can give up legal responsibility and put it up for adoption and is praised for her sacrifice for the sake of the child. If a man feels he can not raise the child and gives up his legal responsibility…wait, he can’t. Now, how can we blame that particular part of it on biology?

Once the baby is born, the mother and father - if the father is around - are legally in the same boat. Neither of them has the right to give up the child for adoption without the other parent’s agreement. If either one of them decides they don’t want custody, the other parent can take the child, and the non-custodial parent can be sued for child support.

There is one inequality here, which is that it’s possible for a mother to keep a pregnancy secret from the father, but not vice versa. However, that inequality is biological, and carries substantial disadvantages for women.

To my knowledge there is no law that requires a mother to even list a biological father before giving up a child.

You’re mistaken. However, in practice it’s a nearly-impossible law to enforce. If a woman says “I don’t know who the father was - his first name was “Joe,” I was drunk and I have no idea where he lives” - what do you propose, arresting her?

Again, the difference is biological, not legal. Neither parent is permitted to give up a child for abortion unilaterally if the other parent is known, alive and can be contacted. That’s why we’ve had cases like the “baby M” case, in which biological parents have been able to sue for custody of their already-adopted child on the grounds that the bio-father had never been informed.

Now I am confused on what comes after though. If the female feels the child has a right to live but can not raise it she can give up legal responsibility and put it up for adoption and is praised for her sacrifice for the sake of the child. If a man feels he can not raise the child and gives up his legal responsibility…wait, he can’t. Now, how can we blame that particular part of it on biology? If you want to argue biological rules then we could just as easily argue that the woman has to be more meticulous about birth control because it is she that is stuck with the child and (biologicly) the man’s part is finished. We have established social and legal rules that change that, not biological ones.

I agree that there is no way to ever make this fair, not to the man, woman, or child if there is a disagreement on abortion, adoption, or custody. I do think that blaming biology for allowing or disallowing disproportional rights to one gender after birth is inaccurate and deceptive.

On a similar note, there is no legal responsibility of a biological mother to inform a biological father (unless they are married) of a pregnancy before or after an abortion or adoption. To my knowledge there is no law that requires a mother to even list a biological father before giving up a child. Would it truly infringe, at least in the case of adoption if not abortion, on the rights of a woman to give the other biological parent a chance to raise the child?

I am sure the comparison will be frowned on but imagine taking a woman’s child from her immediately after birth and never allowing her to see it. Fathers who “know” they have children but have no legal claim to them face a similar circumstance. Men are biologicly different but saying that they love their children less is quite a predjudiced statement.

Second of all, FormerlyLarry, in the past your posts have usually had real content and arguments. These last two posts are nothing but cheerleading and insults. If that’s all you’ve got, please don’t post on “Alas.”

Third of all, this post closes the discussion of if Larry is a sock puppet, Larry’s cheerleading, etc. Don’t post to this thread again, Larry, unless you have actual content to add.

My, my, that could be considered rude. I am offended and hurt by such an obvious personal attack! (just kidding) As I said I usually don’t care for the cheerleader type posts, but it was such a exceptional display I had to comment. It was a little like watching a small swarm of flies attacking a full grown man. But I do agree with Amp on one thing, this thread was settled by Dorset many posts ago. Everything else was wound licking.