A Terrible Instance of Men Being Denied Basic Human Rights That Applies to Untold Thousands of Men in North America.

jordan_smith · 2009-08-28T21:00:14+00:00

This is regarding the situation where a woman becomes pregnant by a man she's not married to. In this situation the woman has a few choices under the...

[–]Godspiral 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_ugly_truth 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kru5h 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Godspiral 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]holycrap_lions 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_ugly_truth 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 16 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]degustibus 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]degustibus -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]publius_lxxii 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago* (58 children) | Copy Link

[–]local_maximum 4 points5 points6 points 16 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Little_Kitty 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]local_maximum 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Little_Kitty 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]publius_lxxii 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]local_maximum 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shady8x 3 points4 points5 points 16 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tomek77 6 points7 points8 points 16 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

Why can a woman leave the child for adoption if she doesn't feel ready

Alabama adoption code

Section 26-10A-7 Persons whose consents or relinquishment are required.

(a) Consent to the petitioner's adoption or relinquishment for adoption to the Department of Human Resources or a licensed child placing agency shall be required of the following:

(1) The adoptee, if 14 years of age or older, except where the court finds that the adoptee does not have the mental capacity to give consent;

(2) The adoptee's mother;

(3) The adoptee's presumed father, regardless of paternity, if:

a. He and the adoptee's mother are or have been married to each other and the adoptee was born during the marriage, or within 300 days after the marriage was terminated by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity, or divorce, or after a decree of separation was entered by a court; or

b. Before the adoptee's birth, he and the adoptee's mother have attempted to marry each other by a marriage solemnized in apparent compliance with law, although the attempted marriage is or could be declared invalid, and,

If the attempted marriage could be declared invalid only by a court, the adoptee was born during the attempted marriage, or within 300 days after its termination by death, annulment, declaration or invalidity, or divorce; or
If the attempted marriage is invalid without a court order, the adoptee was born within 300 days after the termination of cohabitation; or

c. After the adoptee's birth, he and the adoptee's mother have married, or attempted to marry each other by a marriage solemnized in apparent compliance with law, although the attempted marriage is or could be declared invalid, and

With his knowledge or consent, he was named as the adoptee's father on the adoptee's birth certificate; or
He is obligated to support the adoptee pursuant to a written voluntary promise or agreement or by court order; or

d. He received the adoptee into his home and openly held out the adoptee as his own child;

(4) The agency to which the adoptee has been relinquished or which holds permanent custody and which has placed the adoptee for adoption, except that the court may grant the adoption without the consent of the agency if the adoption is in the best interests of the adoptee and there is a finding that the agency has unreasonably withheld its consent; and

(5) The putative father if made known by the mother or is otherwise made known to the court provided he complies with Section 26-10C-1 and he responds within 30 days to the notice he receives under Section 26-10A-17(a)(10).

(b) A petition to adopt an adult may be granted only if written consent to adopt has been executed by the adult seeking to adopt and his or her spouse or by the guardian or conservator of the adult sought to be adopted pursuant to the requirements of Sections 26-10A-6 and 26-10A-11. (Acts 1990, No. 90-554, p. 912, §7; Act 98-101, p. 118, §1; Act 2002-417, p. 1061, §1.)

California Adoption code

(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), a child having a presumed father under Section 7611 may not be adopted without the consent of the child's birth parents, if living. The consent of a presumed father is not required for the child's adoption unless he became a presumed father as described in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 7540) or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 7570) of Part 2 of Division 12, or subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of Section 7611 before the mother's relinquishment or consent becomes irrevocable or before the mother's parental rights have been terminated. (b) If one birth parent has been awarded custody by judicial order, or has custody by agreement of both parents, and the other birth parent for a period of one year willfully fails to communicate with and to pay for the care, support, and education of the child when able to do so, then the birth parent having sole custody may consent to the adoption, but only after the birth parent not having custody has been served with a copy of a citation in the manner provided by law for the service of a summons in a civil action that requires the birth parent not having custody to appear at the time and place set for the appearance in court under Section 8718, 8823, 8913, or 9007. (c) Failure of a birth parent to pay for the care, support, and education of the child for the period of one year or failure of a birth parent to communicate with the child for the period of one year is prima facie evidence that the failure was willful and without lawful excuse. If the birth parent or parents have made only token efforts to support or communicate with the child, the court may disregard those token efforts.

For reference:

Except as provided in Section 7541, the child of a wife cohabiting with her husband, who is not impotent or sterile, is conclusively presumed to be a child of the marriage.
(a) Notwithstanding Section 7540, if the court finds that the conclusions of all the experts, as disclosed by the evidence based on blood tests performed pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 7550), are that the husband is not the father of the child, the question of paternity of the husband shall be resolved accordingly.

Do you think the Alabama code is special? And California too? Show me where women have the unilateral legal right to put a child up for adoption.

How about safe heaven laws that allow women to drop small children at the nearest hospital?

Apart from Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, and Tennessee, fathers can use safe haven laws, just as women.

[–]tomek77 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

What you are saying is true but the law is not very useful until mothers are required to name the correct father on the birth certificate, under penalty of perjury.

Also, even if a man knows he is the father, oftentimes he can't stop the adoption anyway (there were several high-profile cases like that recently). In the past, adoption agencies were required to locate the father and ask him; today, after feminist lobbying, this procedure has been replaced by the so-called "putative father registries" which are just a convenient way to bypass father's rights.

Men are supposed to put their name on the registry in order to be notified of an adoption. Problem is: no funding was assigned to telling the public that those registries exist. Very few people know about these registries: oftentimes not even lawyers or adoption workers themselves. And if you miss the deadline to register on the list, the child will be adopted without any effort of the agency to contact you!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]tomek77 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

Demonstrate that it is true that it is not illegal to knowingly lie on a birth certificate.

Are you kidding? Do you know any mother who had been prosecuted because she cheated on her husband and had a kid with another man? On what planet are you living?

On putative registries:

A law school student personal experience: http://adoption.about.com/cs/adoptionrights/a/the_what.htm

From the article: "“ORC 3701.061: A man who has sexual intercourse with a woman is on notice that if a child is born as a result and the man is the putative father, the child may be adopted without his consent pursuant to division (B) of section 3107 of the Revised Code.” R.C. 3107(B)"

A recent case of a man who lost his child to adoption: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705320176/Adoption-battle-quashed-by-top-court.html?pg=1

From the article: "O'Dea finally learned the child had been born in Utah and immediately placed for adoption; however, because O'Dea had only registered on the putative father registries in Wyoming and Montana, which notify biological fathers of future adoption hearings, he hadn't been notified of any adoption proceedings in Utah.

The high court ruled that because Olea had called O'Dea before the baby's birth and said she was in Utah, he should have taken the steps to register here. Because he didn't, when O'Dea tried to assert his parental rights in late summer 2006, he was told he was too late."

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Do you know any mother who had been prosecuted because she cheated on her husband and had a kid with another man?

No, but that's not evidence of the contrary.

A law school student personal experience:

The most recent case of a man who lost his child to adoption:

Ah! That wasn't so hard, now, was it? If indeed this is the standard in terms of putative father's registries (and I have no reason to believe that this is not standard), then I agree there is a problem. However, the problem is not with the registries, but with the implementation. The US governments are notoriously incapable of implementing social goods, I believe. Certainly, if the putative father's registry were national, and furthermore well-publicized, there would be no problems like the ones you gave above.

Unfortunately, you have yet to demonstrate that the putative father's registries are a result of feminist lobbying. When you do demonstrate this, I would appreciate it if you furthermore demonstrated that the feminists lobbied for putative father's registries in order to bypass father's rights. Otherwise, you can only claim that feminists lobbied for something which should produce a social good, but due to poor government implementation, came out as something bad.

[–]tomek77 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]tomek77 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tomek770 points 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

AHAHAHAHAH!

So I went to look for this statute, and it doesn't exist. Your paralegal mistyped it. It's 3107, and perfectly reasonable:

Consent to adoption is not required of any of the following:

(A) A parent of a minor, when it is alleged in the adoption petition and the court , after proper service of notice and hearing, finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has failed without justifiable cause to provide more than de minimis contact with the minor or to provide for the maintenance and support of the minor as required by law or judicial decree for a period of at least one year immediately preceding either the filing of the adoption petition or the placement of the minor in the home of the petitioner.

(B) The putative father of a minor if either of the following applies:

(1) The putative father fails to register as the minor’s putative father with the putative father registry established under section 3107.062 of the Revised Code not later than thirty days after the minor’s birth;

(2) The court finds, after proper service of notice and hearing, that any of the following are the case:

(a) The putative father is not the father of the minor;

(b) The putative father has willfully abandoned or failed to care for and support the minor;

(c) The putative father has willfully abandoned the mother of the minor during her pregnancy and up to the time of her surrender of the minor, or the minor’s placement in the home of the petitioner, whichever occurs first.

(C) Except as provided in section 3107.071 of the Revised Code, a parent who has entered into a voluntary permanent custody surrender agreement under division (B) of section 5103.15 of the Revised Code;

(D) A parent whose parental rights have been terminated by order of a juvenile court under Chapter 2151. of the Revised Code;

(E) A parent who is married to the petitioner and supports the adoption;

(F) The father, or putative father, of a minor if the minor is conceived as the result of the commission of rape by the father or putative father and the father or putative father is convicted of or pleads guilty to the commission of that offense. As used in this division, “rape” means a violation of section 2907.02 of the Revised Code or a similar law of another state.

(G) A legal guardian or guardian ad litem of a parent judicially declared incompetent in a separate court proceeding who has failed to respond in writing to a request for consent, for a period of thirty days, or who, after examination of the written reasons for withholding consent, is found by the court to be withholding consent unreasonably;

(H) Any legal guardian or lawful custodian of the person to be adopted, other than a parent, who has failed to respond in writing to a request for consent, for a period of thirty days, or who, after examination of the written reasons for withholding consent, is found by the court to be withholding consent unreasonably;

(I) The spouse of the person to be adopted, if the failure of the spouse to consent to the adoption is found by the court to be by reason of prolonged unexplained absence, unavailability, incapacity, or circumstances that make it impossible or unreasonably difficult to obtain the consent or refusal of the spouse;

(J) Any parent, legal guardian, or other lawful custodian in a foreign country, if the person to be adopted has been released for adoption pursuant to the laws of the country in which the person resides and the release of such person is in a form that satisfies the requirements of the immigration and naturalization service of the United States department of justice for purposes of immigration to the United States pursuant to section 101(b)(1)(F) of the “Immigration and Nationality Act,” 75 Stat. 650 (1961), 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(F), as amended or reenacted.

(K) Except as provided in divisions (G) and (H) of this section, a juvenile court, agency, or person given notice of the petition pursuant to division (A)(1) of section 3107.11 of the Revised Code that fails to file an objection to the petition within fourteen days after proof is filed pursuant to division (B) of that section that the notice was given;

(L) Any guardian, custodian, or other party who has temporary custody of the child.

You lose. The paralegal was quoting the relevant law in a misleading way, with a little obstruction to fact checking thrown in.

[–]tomek770 points 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tomek770 points 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tomek770 points 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tomek770 points 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Let met demonstrate your sexism very easily: how about reverting the genders, huh?

What do you think of the new "marital rape laws" in Afghanistan? Something makes me think that you are against them, no? If you research it, you will find out that there is no such a thing as a marital rape law in Afghanistan: there is only a law that says that men don't have to feed a woman if she refuses to have sex with them? It says nothing about rape being legal. However, in the context of Afghan society where women have few opportunities to make money, the law EFFECTIVELY authorizes husbands to starve their wives until they agree to sex, correct? But the law never says so explicitly, and rape is illegal in Afghanistan. So if you use the same logic as you just used to dismiss men's rights: the feminists and the 54,000 web pages that mention "marital rape" in Afghanistan, are all LIARS? Correct? This is the same reasoning you use to dismiss my claims, no?

So let me reiterate my point for you: it doesn't matter that fathers can stop an adoption, because the mother is not obligated to say who the father is. In the context of American society and law, women are EFFECTIVELY free to give a baby for adoption without the father's consent. This is what happens in real-life, and to demonstrate my point, I also gave you a few cases (there are many many more) of men who desperately tried to be fathers, but could not!

So, yes, you are a sexist bigot. You don't give a damn about men who are losing their parental rights. You are just looking for technical excuses to justify the unjustifiable!

[–][deleted]0 points 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sure, there is not a law in Afghanistan which explicitly makes marital rape legal. However, you make it sound like denying food to your spouse (because they refuse to sleep with you) is somehow acceptable, and it is the result of this law which is not. This is not the case. It is the law which allows a man to deny food to his wife which is atrocious on its face.

You see, if you had found some innocuous law, which had the result of causing injustice, then at least your argument would have been sensible. If you had found a law which had the result of causing injustice contrary to the spirit of the law itself, then your argument would have been apt. Your argument as it stands is neither apt nor sensible.

You don't give a damn about men who are losing their parental rights.

Right. Pointing out inaccuracies means I don't actually care about the issue. Have fun ruining the credibility of the movement.

[–]tomek770 points 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist -3 points-2 points-1 points 16 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]sylvan 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist -3 points-2 points-1 points 16 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]sylvan 3 points4 points5 points 16 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cassio -4 points-3 points-2 points 16 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]sylvan 4 points5 points6 points 16 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cassio -3 points-2 points-1 points 16 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]sylvan 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cassio -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]sylvan3 points 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cassio0 points 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sylvan2 points 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Again, i believe you're missing the point: there are biological differences between men and women, both physical and mental. That is irrelevant to how the law should deal with the genders. We generally accept that equality is the ideal, and have redressed that in many ways, such as voting and employment rights. Does having boobs mean a woman can't be a lawyer? Does a penis prevent one from being a nurse? No. We deal with people as individuals.

Nature imposes certain facts on reproduction. But that biological reality does not dictate how our laws should treat men and women when it comes to parenthood, anymore than in other areas. Currently there is an inequality: women can choose whether or not to be parents, after an unintended pregnancy has occurred. They can choose to raise the child, or they can walk away.

Men cannot. They are beholden to the woman's decision: they can neither prevent her from aborting should they want the child (and I'm not arguing they should), nor can they absolve themselves of the burden of parenthood. If the woman chooses to keep the child, even if the man has located a perfectly suitable adoptive couple willing to take on responsibility for the child, then the man's required to pay the woman to be a parent: subsidizing her choice. And in some cases, that have been discussed here, a woman isn't even obligated to inform the man that he has a child, and can give it up for adoption without him having the opportunity to take custody should he so choose.

That this is wrong should be clear to both men and women.

[–]Cassio-1 point 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mdoddr0 points 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Oh my god, this is ridiculous. Yes women get pregnant and men don't. And yes a woman has the right to decide what happens to her body.

The issue is that 'her decision' about 'her body' also - by law - determines what happens to the man.

do you see how the law creates the issue and is thus the true problem here?

if she decides to either have the child, abort it, or put it up for adoption, she will do so based on certain factors. As the law stands now the desires of her partner is irrelevant. But what may influence her decision is that she knows he will have to support it in some way.

Pay attention because this is the key factor: Her decision can completely change the mans life.

All anybody is saying that both people should get to decide. A woman should decide if she wants to raise the child based on her own ability to do so - on her own -

In a perfect world people would come to agreements about this before hand. Maybe if every woman in the western world wasn't raised knowing that they could have a child whenever they wanted and the man would have support them regardless of his desires, then there wouldn't be so many children born into these scenarios.

[–]Cassio0 points 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mdoddr0 points 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Fuck you shit head, Your attempt to reach common ground is just a transparent attempt to derail the conversation. You haven't addressed a single point made by anyone. you just keep saying 'yeah but can we all agree that women get pregnant and men don't?"

In case you haven't noticed: Everyone already knows that. It is established common ground.

Can the debate begin now? Apparently you have trouble understanding but it's already going on! But you are too busy making some pointless stand about finding common ground in an undeniably obvious fact about human biology that nobody is arguing against to notice.

Pay attention moron! Not every woman is raised to believe that man will support her no matter what. In fact, most women are raised to believe that men will just walk away.

I don't know what that is. It's insulting first off. That's your rebuttal? "No, moron, women aren't raised knowing that the legal system will back up their bid for child support, they're raised being told that men are loser assholes who will abandon them." Oh, okay. Much better.

Leaves out that somehow pretty well everyone knows that the legal system will reward a woman with child support in cases where the man never wanted the child

[–]Cassio1 point 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Since I am in the mood for some flame war I will indulge you...

You haven't addressed a single point made by anyone.

This, and this is not addressing the point? Then you seem to have trouble comprehending a conversation. Sylvan didn't seem to have too much trouble at that.

In case you haven't noticed: Everyone already knows that. It is established common ground.

Well, then why is it not taken as a starting point and the injustice as to decision making noted duly as it should? Because then women could not be faulted for it and you would have not so much of a ground arguing your position.

It's insulting first off.

Then starting a post with:

Oh my god, this is ridiculous.

and going on like:

Pay attention because [...]

is not insulting? Then my bad. You win. Apparently, strong language is just reserved for some people.

Leaves out that somehow pretty well everyone knows that the legal system will reward a man with running away from responsibility and leave the child he fathered and the woman he said he loved so much in a moment of passion that he 'forgot' to put on a condom...

Fixed that for you.

My single point simply is - even though this is grossly unpopular with men - that if they so much do not want to have a child there are options open to them to prevent that from happening:

wear a condom
get the pill for the man
get a hormone implant into your biceps
get a vasectomy

But for some guys that doesn't fly so well, because women should not be trusted in that regard. Then there is one other option:

don't have sex (proven that you will not father children if you do not want to)

However if you still would like to have sex then be respinsible and live with the possible consequences.

[–]mdoddr1 point 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]the_ugly_truth 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_ugly_truth 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_ugly_truth 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think what Ann is getting at is that the woman's right to abortion is not a right to not be a parent, but rather a right to not be pregnant ("my body, my choice"). In that case, men and women have the same rights, and the same responsibilities: they must both support their born children, and they both have the right to determine the state and use of their bodies.

Just to support Ann's argument (something I never thought I would ever do), suppose we reproduced as fish do (everything else otherwise the same). In other words, the female drops an egg somewhere, the male fertilizes it (and all this happens exterior to anyone's body). In this case the female does not have the right to abortion, because the growth of the egg does not counter her right to determine the state and use of her own body. As a result, all fertilized eggs which do not hatch into "humanlings" are either unethically (unlawfully?) or accidentally destroyed prematurely.

In this case the only way to deny that the immature human's right to a standard of living adequate for development creates a duty for both parents is by either

claiming only one parent has a duty to support the child,
claiming everyone has a duty to provide for children (a choice western society is not enamored with), or
claiming that children have no such right to be provided for.

I'm going to assume you think point 3 is ridiculous, and point 1 is unfair. If you think that child rearing should be a communal enterprise, I can't really argue against you. I'm not convinced communal child rearing works, but at least such a proposition can be assumed to be fair, in some sense. Note that such a position means the destruction of the nuclear family.

If you don't think child rearing should be communal, then (in this situation in which humans spawn and are not born) you agree that fathers (as well as mothers) have a duty to support their spawn.

Now, we should agree that if somehow we lived in a world where abortion was impossible, the same argument could apply. Fathers (as well as mothers) would have a duty to support their spawn.

The only difference between this previous world and ours is that abortion is available to women here. This creates a new right for women (based on their right to bodily autonomy, which is universal): the right to not be pregnant. The right to bodily autonomy automatically precludes the ability for any other party to decide whether the woman remains pregnant or not. Therefore, in cases where a woman chooses to remain pregnant, we can reduce to the previous case (a world where abortion is not possible). It follows that if a woman decides to remain pregnant, both parents have a duty to support the immature human.

[–]AnnArchist -3 points-2 points-1 points 16 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_ugly_truth 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_ugly_truth2 points 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist-1 point 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]local_maximum 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nullibicity 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]justpickaname -8 points-7 points-6 points 16 years ago* (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]sylvan 7 points8 points9 points 16 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]mdoddr 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Her decision to become a parent should not be predicated on assuming she can compel the man to provide for her financial needs.

Yes. This is the main point for me. I know a lot of guys who's girlfriends got pregnant without their consent (sometimes on purpose) and later, when they expressed their frustration, taunted them by pointing out that they had no choice and would have to pay no matter what.

One of my friends had to give up a music career because of this.

These are anecdotes, I know, but they happened. These girls knew going in that their boyfriends would have to help support the child and it was part of their decision making process. The wishes of their partner was inconsequential. It wasn't a factor at all.

Because the desires of the man have no affect on the outcome.

I can't suggest a solution but it would be nice if we could agree that in cases where it can be proven that a girl did something like this the man should be off the hook. Sad for the kids. But there will probably be a lot less children born into these types of situations if every woman knows that they would be left hanging high and dry if they went ahead and had kids with an unwilling partner.

[–]justpickaname -5 points-4 points-3 points 16 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I'm not at all interested in punishing people for sex. A few people are, but very few, anywhere that I know of.

Whether a PERSON consents to sex, is, or should be, irrelevant to whether they should be compelled, against their will, to provide service or labor to raise a child.

That all sounds really good, but when you consent to sex, you are taking the risks that lead to pregnancy, and without intervention, birth. I don't understand any good reason you should be free from providing for the child you created; that's just personal responsibility.

nor to keep care of the child once it is born

Here you have an inequality I would agree with, but in most places, the woman can't adopt out the baby unless the man approves or she lies about not knowing who/where the father is. That's no different for you as a man, it just so happens that typically the man doesn't want a child and the woman does.

I'm pro-life, so I'm not in favor of women dealing with unintended pregnancy in that way, but as the law is, we allow them not to take responsibility because pregnancy is a burden and a risk in a greater way than paying child support is.

[–]sylvan 6 points7 points8 points 16 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

you are taking the risks that lead to pregnancy

This is important. It's a risk, a possibility, and if one or both partners are being responsible about contraception, a very small possibility. Less than 1%.

I don't understand any good reason you should be free from providing for the child you created

• The person never intended to create it, and has no desire to be a parent to it.
• They were deceived about the other person's lack of intent to have a child.
• The needs of children that one didn't consent to create should fall on those who actively and deliberately decide to take on responsibility for their care: eg. a woman decides, after casual sex, to become a parent, she should bear 100% of the burden of that choice.

Here you have an inequality I would agree with, but in most places, the woman can't adopt out the baby unless the man approves or she lies about not knowing who/where the father is.

If the man wants to take custody, then that should be up to him. But if the man doesn't want any part in raising the child, and the woman has option of giving up its care and freeing herself from any financial obligation towards it, then her decision to keep it must be viewed as voluntary and she should bear the burden of raising it on her own, just as much as if she adopted a child or used a sperm donor.

I'm pro-life, so I'm not in favor of women dealing with unintended pregnancy in that way

Even if you view abortion as undesirable, do you recognize the inviolate right of a person to control their own body?

The right of a man to not be compelled to labor to support a child he never consented to have is directly comparable. A woman compelled to bear a child against her will is made into property: a birthing machine. A man compelled to work to provide for someone else's child against his will is made into property: an indentured servant.

[–]justpickaname 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Less than 1%.

True.

The person never intended to create it...

I don't see why that makes a difference with regard to personal responsibility. You took that 1% risk (in ordinary, consensual cases). This happens because of something you did that you could have chosen not to do if the risk was still too high for you.

They were deceived about lack of intent

That's a really serious issue, and I'm all for a) ranting about it here and b) using a condom if you don't want kids. Don't assume she's on the pill.

The needs of children that one didn't consent to create...

But you DID! You did consent to what led to the kids. You took that risk. Perhaps you mean intend, not consent? You can't consent to the pleasure, but not the risk of kids, anymore than I can consent to eating greasy food for every meal without risking diarrhea...

she should bear the burden of raising it on her own, just as much as if she adopted a child or used a sperm donor.

I like this idea in theory, and what you say makes sense. But my problem is that it, in practice, punishes the child, who has done nothing wrong (assuming she is, like most single mothers, not well off). I agree that it isn't "fair", but if my two choices are punishing Sylvan or punishing Sylvan's unwanted but born baby, I believe the less injust is to punish you. The only "better" thing I could think of is to have the government pick up the tab, but then again that money is coming from a group of people (taxpayers) that did not take any risk unlike yourself.

I can't think of anything "fair", the best I can come up with (honestly) is married monogamy before divorce became rampant. But I don't suspect we can go back to that.

Even if you view abortion as undesirable, do you recognize the inviolate right of a person to control their own body?

Yes. Notice I'm pro-life, not pro-slavery. I believe at some early point (conception? probably not, but not the 2nd trimester, either) that fetus is a person with a right to life that should be enforced by law as much as mine or yours. I'm all for legalizing drugs (this demonstrates my believe in inviolate rights to your own body), I'm ok with suicide, but because a fetus is not (IMO) equivalent to cancer, I am pro-life.

If we someday could remove children from women and grow them in a lab, I'd be fine with women doing that to be free (I like freedom), but not killing them.

A man compelled to work to provide for someone else's child against his will is made into property: an indentured servant.

I agree, and I get upset at the stories of men paying child support for children that are not theirs. This is also why alimony is such an atrocity. But if it came from one of your little swimmers, (consensually), then you are providing for your child, and I think you should do that, against your will or not.

Let's not have a whole abortion debate, but ask yourself, if you thought abortion was equivalent to or close to killing a person, wouldn't you end up about where I am? I think that's the biggest source of our disagreement. Thanks for the discussion, btw!

[–]sylvan 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't see why that makes a difference with regard to personal responsibility.

"Personal responsibility" is one of those rhetorical codewords used by conservatives to exclude the complexities of an issue.

An unconsenting male has no "personal responsibility" to provide for the needs of a child whose conception he never consented to. If it was the mothers choice to carry to term, and to keep the child when adoption is an option, then it is her responsibility alone.

This happens because of something you did that you could have chosen not to do if the risk was still too high for you.

The existence of a hypothetical possibility doesn't imply a legal or moral obligation. When you get in your car and drive, there is a non-zero possibility that you will kill someone. That doesn't make you a murderer for willfully deciding to get in your car, even though by choosing not to, that person would not have died.

Where two persons have sex with the stated purpose of procreation, and the male, through the pregnancy, maintains that consent, then I agree he bears half the obligation to the child. But where there is no such agreement, where both parties are having sex purely for mutual enjoyment, then pregnancy and childbirth are clearly not intended. If the woman decides against abortion and against adoption when they are both valid avenues to relieve her of 100% of the burden of the child, then she has actively and willfully decided to take on the responsibility for that child.

She should not be able to expect the unwilling father to subsidize her choice to be a parent.

Say a woman has sex with a man, then artificially inseminates herself with sperm from a donor. Is the man who consented to sex obligated to provide for her child? Why not? He still had sex, and the woman still got pregnant. Oh, it's not his actual sperm that caused the pregnancy? Then sex is irrelevant to the question of obligation.

By asserting that sex itself creates an obligation, you are viewing all women as prostitutes, and all men have to "pay" for the privilege of sex.

What about the sperm donor. Does he have to provide for the child? He masturbated, and gave the sperm to someone, knowing it would be used to get someone pregnant. He consented to his sperm being used to create a child. Is he obligated to provide for that child? No, because the woman made the choice to use his sperm to have a child entirely on her own. DNA therefore is not relevant to the question of obligation.

Sex, when there is no explicit intent to conceive, should be viewed no differently than the sperm donor situation. Women must, in this day and age, be viewed as capable of making their own decisions. They are not children, who must be coddled and protected by Men and Government. If a woman finds herself accidentally pregnant, and decides to keep the child, then that is as much her choice as if she chose to get pregnant by donor, or adopt a child that already existed.

But my problem is that it, in practice, punishes the child, who has done nothing wrong (assuming she is, like most single mothers, not well off). I agree that it isn't "fair", but if my two choices are punishing Sylvan or punishing Sylvan's unwanted but born baby, I believe the less injust is to punish you. The only "better" thing I could think of is to have the government pick up the tab, but then again that money is coming from a group of people (taxpayers) that did not take any risk unlike yourself.

The child's well-being is and should be irrelevant to the question of whether a person can be compelled to labor against their will. It is the woman who had the opportunity to either prevent that child from existing in the first place, or transfer responsibility for that child to others.

If society as a whole is concerned about children of single parents, then society as a whole can choose to provide for them, through general taxation. In this case, everyone (or the majority) are willfully choosing this course.

And the idea that single parents cannot raise children is itself patronizing. Should women whose husbands die be forced to give up their children? Should single parents be denied the ability to use sperm donors, or adopt children?

Should poor parents, who have less resources than one middle-class single parent, be denied the ability to have children at all? Do ALL children have the "right" to a middle class upbringing, or only certain types?

What if a man is willing to provide for his child, lives on a remote farm where he grows his own food, makes his own clothing, and can provide for all of a child's physical and mental needs without having any monetary income? If he is able to do that, why should he be obligated to provide hundreds of dollars in "child support" when he's already capable of supporting his child, the way he chooses to?

that fetus is a person with a right to life that should be enforced by law as much as mine or yours.

At no point does anyone else trump the woman's right to control her own body. Pregnancy must be voluntary at every point.

[–]justpickaname 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Wow. Thanks for that reply; it was really good.

I'm pretty sure I still disagree with you, but responding at length would take me more time than I have right now. I'll let it bounce around my head for a while, and we'll see what I think next time this comes up.

Thanks for taking the time to explain your view so well, and for the link. I generally don't use personal responsibility to absolve society of things, like it talked about, but in this case I think it's closer to justified. Like I said, I'm going to go ponder your analogies, and figure out if I think it meets that threshhold.

Oh, and with your farming example, I would have no problem with that at all, and it's a decent test to see if people want the kid cared for, or some extra cash. But, I have no idea how to deal with that sort of thing legally.

[–]sylvan 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mdoddr 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]justpickaname -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mdoddr 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]justpickaname 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mdoddr 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

no, just that women do have the right to be free from providing for the child they created using abortion or adoption.

I was just pointing out the double standard. when you said:

I don't understand any good reason [somebody] should be free from providing for the child [they] created; that's just personal responsibility.

you really meant

I don't understand any good reason men - not women- should be free from providing for the child [they] created; that's just personal responsibility.

here's an example: If a woman doesn't want the child she is carrying. she could give it up for adoption. The father could adopt it if he wants to. The mother would not be asked to contribute financially in this scenario as she has given the child away for adoption. Fair enough. She didn't feel she could take care of the child.

now if we reverse the woman and man in this scenario (except of course for who's carrying the child) we find that the new scenario is impossible. The man can't opt out in the same way the woman did. It doesn't matter how he feels.

You see, it's a woman's choice and a man's responsibility.

If a woman doesn't want the kid? no problem. Abort or adopt.

If a man doesn't? tough shit.

If she wants to keep the kid but he doesn't? No problem. The man will have to pay support. He has to be responsible. Case closed.

If the man wants to keep it and she doesn't? he can have it. But don't expect support payments from her. She doesn't have to be responsible. Only Men do.

Is that equality?

So, to sum it up, I was trying to get you to clear up what exactly you meant. If you meant that men shouldn't be free from providing for the child they created but women should I'm sure you would agree that that is a problem. And since you have said you think adoption is okay (in the situations you listed) we seem to have come to a snag.

Anyways, I guess it would only be fair to let you explain and clarify a bit

[–]justpickaname 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ok, I see what you're saying, and I agree, that's not equal.

I'm pro-life, though, so I'm not going to be encouraging them to just get an abortion.

My understanding with adoption law is that they need to go through the father first (but, again, there's an inequal loophole in that she can just say she doesn't know who the father is, and they'll skip it).

I absolutely agree that women have options men don't, and that is unfair, but note that I am against the woman's unilateral option - abortion. That's for pro-life reasons, but if I weren't pro-life, I'd probably want men to have a simple "Check here to never be responsible" box to make it equal.

Also,

But don't expect support payments from her. She doesn't have to be responsible. I don't know about the law, but if that's accurate (I assume it is) then that's also a big problem.

I think both parties should be responsible for their children, adoption is an acceptable way out, but should be mutually agreed upon.

[–]mdoddr 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kloo2yoo 3 points4 points5 points 16 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]justpickaname 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]kloo2yoo -2 points-1 points0 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	A Terrible Instance of Men Being Denied Basic Human Rights That Applies to Untold Thousands of Men in North America.
Author	jordan_smith
Upvotes	11
Comments	96
Date	August 28, 2009 9:00 PM UTC (16 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/9f69l/a_terrible_instance_of_men_being_denied_basic/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/a-terrible-instance-of-men-being-denied-basic.1053152 https://theredarchive.com/post/1053152

Comments