Parental Rights

[Trachito]

If we had to "man up" and take the responsibility of raising a child, I'd agree absolutely with this.

But if we, as women, have the option to abort or give the child up, then he should have the right upon notification of impending birth to terminate his rights. If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

I know ethically and morally a man is going to take responsibility in most cases. I know many men who love their children despite how they came into this world. But I'm just stubbornly against the fact that a woman has LEGAL (not ethical, not religious) ability to shirk the responsibility. It's on him because he didn't have a vasectomy or use birth control. What if he did, what if it failed? Women aren't punished for failed birth control.

Look. A man can get a vasectomy. Did you know ethically you will NOT find a gynecologist to perform a sterilization procedure on a woman under the age of 35 who has not had children? But it's okay, nay, socially demanded he has a vasectomy if he doesn't want children. Medically and socially it's not insistent women take permanent invasive irreversible steps to prevent children.

A woman has LEGAL ability to pick up morning after pills if birth control fails. She can abort. She has an "out" in every, single instance. EVERY instance.


I'm not arguing that he has a responsibility. In 90% of the cases he does. But occasionally, when you have a long term straight up I don't want kids 30+ YR old, self sustaining, non-governmental assisted, professional and middle class couples, if she deceives or is a perpetrator of fraud… I think he has a legal right to say "Nope, no thank you. We discussed it. You deceived me."

i'm in full agreement under those circumstances. i still think that men should NEVER put birth control on their women if said men don't want children. after i got done having children i got snipped.

 

[Trachito]

We're talking about a couple that had made an agreement as part of their relationship. OP says it was a "long term relationship". Not a one nighter, or fling. They had an agreement. If he told her he didn't want kids, ever, and she said she would take care of the birth control, then they had a verbal contract. He (even if he was mistaken) made sure it was taken care of. He made the mistake of trusting her to do what they had agreed on. If the birth control failed, then I think he should be just as responsible for the $$ as her, but if she admits that SHE DECIDED ON HER OWN, without talking it over with him, that she wanted to have a child, and on her own without telling him she decides to stop using birth control, I think she should be solely responsible for the costs. Breach of contract is what I'm seeing here, and in my opinion, he should not have to pay a dime. If I were him, I would get a DNA test as soon as possible.

If she made the decision to change the terms of the relationship without telling him the rules had changed, and if she took the responsibility for getting pregnant without telling her partner, and if she lied when she said she was using birth control, then I think she should get to pay for it.

Cat's right, we men get the shaft on all too many of these situations. Reminds me of the story on the news a while back about a guy that did use a condom while having sex. He took the responsibility of making sure he didn't get the girl pregnant. Story says that she admitted in court that she took a used condom from the trash, emptied the contents into some type of "syringe" and impregnated herself with it. He wound up paying the bills, even when he did take precautions, and even when she did admit she took matters into her own hands without his consent. He took care, and still got the bills. Nice.

And, I do agree that it is way lopsided. She can make all the decisions concerning the entire situation, he has no say in what happens, but he sure gets to foot the bill for all of her decisions.

that's another thing i was afraid of so i used to flush my condoms down the toilet when done.

 

[Hunh Bruh]

I had mine done @ 27...
No kids, either...

did they try to talk you out of it?

 

[JWG223]

did they try to talk you out of it?

Not the person you asked, but at 26 I asked my MD about it and he back-pedaled and side-tracked the discussion very hastily. I wasn't even asking for one, just about one.

 

[Hitman]

Reminds me of the story on the news a while back about a guy that did use a condom while having sex. He took the responsibility of making sure he didn't get the girl pregnant.

Not that what she did wasn't wrong(Treacherous Biatch!). But having sex with a condom is not taking the moral responsibility of making sure you do not impregnate a woman. It's not 100% full proof, so the argument could easily be made.

You can't use a method known to fail(not 100%) and claim responsible high ground for trying to avoid pregnancy.

Abstinence is the only absolute sure way to claim the moral high ground of responsibility in being able to avoid such situations as becoming a parent.

*Your Honor, I was not trying to get her pregnant*
*But you did have sex with her correct?*
*Yes your honor, but I used protection*
*Sounds like your protection plan was insufficient*

As long as there are still options, to include the ultimate full proof option, all other options can be and will be viewed in vain in a court of law when it comes to fatherhood.

 

[JWG223]

Not that what she did wasn't wrong(Treacherous Biatch!). But having sex with a condom is not taking the moral responsibility of making sure you do not impregnate a woman. It's not 100% full proof, so the argument could easily be made.

You can't use a method known to fail(not 100%) and claim responsible high ground for trying to avoid pregnancy.

Abstinence is the only absolute sure way to claim the moral high ground of responsibility in being able to avoid such situations as becoming a parent.

*Your Honor, I was not trying to get her pregnant*
*But you did have sex with her correct?*
*Yes your honor, but I used protection*
*Sounds like your protection plan was insufficient*

As long as there are still options, to include the ultimate full proof option, all other options can be and will be viewed in vain in a court of law when it comes to fatherhood.

"You ran into the man on purpose."
"No, your honor, I tried my best to swerve, hit the brakes, and honked, but he darted out in front of me too suddenly for any of it to be of use."
"You were driving a car, weren't you? Shouldn't have been doing that. This could have been prevented. Guilty of murder in the first--because I know you planned to drive that car--just like you do every day, isn't that right Mr. Defendant?"

 

[Russo]

"You ran into the man on purpose."
"No, your honor, I tried my best to swerve, hit the brakes, and honked, but he darted out in front of me too suddenly for any of it to be of use."
"You were driving a car, weren't you? Shouldn't have been doing that. This could have been prevented. Guilty of murder in the first--because I know you planned to drive that car--just like you do every day, isn't that right Mr. Defendant?"

i don't believe the woman darted out in front the man suddenly... you would be correct if the man was raped and he was arguing child support, but sex always results in one of two things..

 

[Hitman]

"You ran into the man on purpose."
"No, your honor, I tried my best to swerve, hit the brakes, and honked, but he darted out in front of me too suddenly for any of it to be of use."
"You were driving a car, weren't you? Shouldn't have been doing that. This could have been prevented. Guilty of murder in the first--because I know you planned to drive that car--just like you do every day, isn't that right Mr. Defendant?"

Serious Major Fail Here!

I'm shocked a bit at how your mind trys to work.

 

[Cat]

"You ran into the man on purpose."
"No, your honor, I tried my best to swerve, hit the brakes, and honked, but he darted out in front of me too suddenly for any of it to be of use."
"You were driving a car, weren't you? Shouldn't have been doing that. This could have been prevented. Guilty of murder in the first--because I know you planned to drive that car--just like you do every day, isn't that right Mr. Defendant?"

Completely different situation that pollutes the discussion.

Hitman, like I said. I could agree that was the law IF

Your honor I forgot to take my pill last month (one day can mess up an honest woman here)
Your Honor I decided I didn't want the baby after all
Your honor he doesn't own me. I can do with my body what I want.

I understand and agree with you for a large majority of cases. But when he can't legally save a child from abortion but he is obligated to provide for one he made an effort to prevent... The system is screwed.

 

[Russo]

Serious Major Fail Here!

I'm shocked a bit at how your mind trys to work.

like every other carnal mind... "For the sinful nature is always hostile to God. It never did obey God's laws, and it never will." Romans 8:7

it's natural for the flesh to blame other people, circumstances, God, etc to get out of the responsibility of it's actions..

I understand and agree with you for a large majority of cases. But when he can't legally save a child from abortion but he is obligated to provide for one he made an effort to prevent... The system is screwed.

how bout both parents pay the people who adopt their child? that would be fair, right? that is, if both parents reject the child..

 

[JWG223]

Serious Major Fail Here!

I'm shocked a bit at how your mind trys to work.

It's a poor analogy. What I am trying to convey is that the man took reasonable precautions against the child being conceived, and that it is not fair for the court to side with 1 person "automatically" when 2 people committed the act.

like every other carnal mind... "For the sinful nature is always hostile to God. It never did obey God's laws, and it never will." Romans 8:7

it's natural for the flesh to blame other people, circumstances, God, etc to get out of the responsibility of it's actions..

Errr...okay...trying to understand this, but...

...no, it's 2 people arguing and the court siding with 1 automatically when both contributed equally to the situation. That is what I don't think is right.

Sure, abstinence is the only fool-proof way, but that's in the gone and done now. The situation at hand is what I am trying to say is unfair.

 

[Hunh Bruh]

why wear condoms at all? i don't. if god wants me to have an out of wedlock baby he will let me. so far he has not.

 

[Russo]

you aren't going to fix the imorality in this case, you can only teach future generations to not make the same mistakes... what happened was the government got involved and said people can't be responsible for their actions, so we need to steal money from everybody to sweep their failures under the rug, in the mean time, creating voting blocks to keep the politicans in power..

 

[Hitman]

What I am trying to convey is that the man took reasonable precautions against the child being conceived, and that it is not fair for the court to side with 1 person "automatically" when 2 people committed the act.

I'm not arguing what's fair. I'm arguing what's logical if one wants to NOT produce a child and that if that logical option is not used then there can be no claim of reasonable precaution allowing you to escape responsibility.

 

[JWG223]

I'm not arguing what's fair. I'm arguing what's logical if one wants to NOT produce a child and that if that logical option is not used then there can be no claim of reasonable precaution allowing you to escape responsibility.

That draws us back to my analogy. The only way to KNOW you won't kill someone with your car is not to drive. However, doing the speed-limit, driving to conditions in inclement weather, etc. would all indicate "reasonable caution", and you would not be found guilty of murder in the first, if you were to accidentally hit someone--I suppose I equate that with "escaping responsibility" as you would not do jail time, etc.

I brought that analogy up to ask...what is reasonable? To you, it means not having sex. To someone else, it may mean the pill+condom, do someone else...

...see what I mean? It's opinion-based whether or not he was "irresponsible". He can just as easily blame HER for being irresponsible, as she could have done something about it more preventative herself.

That was my point--what is reasonable, is very much a personal opinion.

 

[Russo]

That draws us back to my analogy. The only way to KNOW you won't kill someone with your car is not to drive. However, doing the speed-limit, driving to conditions in inclement weather, etc. would all indicate "reasonable caution", and you would not be found guilty of murder in the first, if you were to accidentally hit someone--I suppose I equate that with "escaping responsibility" as you would not do jail time, etc.

I brought that analogy up to ask...what is reasonable? To you, it means not having sex. To someone else, it may mean the pill+condom, do someone else...

...see what I mean? It's opinion-based whether or not he was "irresponsible". He can just as easily blame HER for being irresponsible, as she could have done something about it more preventative herself.

That was my point--what is reasonable, is very much a personal opinion.

but you cannot compare the two because when you drive, you have insurance in case of an accident... no insurance, no driving.. whereas this chump doesn't want to be responsible for his mistake which will probably result in all of us paying for the little bastard...

 

[JWG223]

but you cannot compare the two because when you drive, you have insurance in case of an accident... no insurance, no driving.. whereas this chump doesn't want to be responsible for his mistake which will probably result in all of us paying for the little bastard...

When you have sex and don't want a kid, you have $500 in the bank to pay the clinic.

 

[Hitman]

Nope, you still you can't compare the two b/c having sex, without the intention of procreation, is not a necessity in life and nowhere near the necessity/importance of having to drive a vehicle. That's why you cannot compare the two. It's still a poor analogy that attempts to dilute the truth of the logical (100% Guaranteed) option of abstinence.

 

[SpeedRacer]

having sex, without the intention of procreation, is not a necessity in life

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one!

 

[JWG223]

Nope, you still you can't compare the two b/c having sex, without the intention of procreation, is not a necessity in life and nowhere near the necessity/importance of having to drive a vehicle. That's why you cannot compare the two. It's still a poor analogy that attempts to dilute the truth of the logical (100% Guaranteed) option of abstinence.

http://www.empowher.com/sexual-well-being/content/medical-necessity-sex
http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/08/cz_af_1008health.html

Personally, I have chosen abstinence while I live here (LA) because I don't want to put forth the effort and subject myself to the risk of having sex (leave my apartment/associate with others in this area, basically /also, STD's are rampant here), I still would acknowledge and submit that sex is indeed necessary for optimal health.

Driving, on the other hand, doesn't seem to help the body so much, and is more about convenience/location-necessity.