Double standards of parents' rights

Just had this discussion with some of the people here at work and wondered what the mass mind that is TT thinks.

The subject was on why men get such a bad deal when it comes to children.
When a woman discovers she is preganant then from that point on the father has next to zero rights but full responsiblity.

By that I mean if the mother decides to abort then the father can not stop her but if the father decides he doesn't want the child there is nothing (apart from running away and hiding) that he can do and he is financially responsible for the next 18 years.

The mother has a legal right to force the father to be a father but the man has no rights the other way.

Don't want this to turn into a discussion on the rights/wrongs of abortion (probably hopeless plea) but only on the idea of the totally unbalanced rights/responsiblities of both parents in these situations.

It gets even stranger when sperm donors and surrogate mothers get involved.

[color=gray]Related topic: Abortion - choice or murder?

Depends on how you look at it.

A single mom can't force the father to visit or meet the child, have custody if he doesn't want, but can't stop him if he wants it against her will.

[color=gray]Related topic: Children are entitled to nurturing

One word: Condoms.
As long as you leave the responsibility for contraception with the woman be prepared for surprises, pleasant or unwanted. Having a baby always involves two people, and both should get involved and cooperate.

Admittedly, some guys get a rough deal: Either the woman has an abortion and tells the guy afterwards (or not at all), or she keeps the baby although he doesn't want it. There should be a separate law for the latter option, excluding rights and responsibilities.

As for visiting rights later on if the children remain with their mother: They should be based on how involved the father was in the children's care during the marriage/cohabitation.

True. But they aren't always.

Condoms. Definitely.

Men have the choice to have protected sex. When they choose to do otherwise, several years of child maintenance is the result. Of course, being plugged into the child and having a relationship is preferable.

Also, the one caring for the child 24/7 has all of the responsibility. Money is just money.

As requested, I'm avoiding the abortion discussion. I do see where it is a raw deal for men to not have much say in the matter when they are willing to take full responsibility for the upbrining of the child is the mother doesn't want it.

It's also a raw deal for a mother if the father suddenly, or from the beginning, refuses to take part in the child's life. Just arguing the other point - that a mother can be forced to share custody, endure visitations and animosities but cannot force the father to be a part of the child's life if he doesn't want it. A child techically has the right to know an absent father, but he can deny that.

Disclaimer - this is not my situation, but I have seen it more than once here.

Condoms can, and do break.

There is no law that gives you a get out if that happens...

Women also have the choice to have protected sex but when they decide to do otherwise they then have a further choice of whether to be a parent or not, the man doesn't have this choice and his future at least financially is now dependant on what the woman decides and he has legally no say in the matter.

Exactly. It happened to me. Let's just say I am happy that my son has a father that wants to be in his life.

Not true. If he is held financially liable, he can still decide whether or not to play a role in the child's life- and she can't stop him from it or force him to it.

And no matter what, she is financially liable as well.

Man, and I thought kids were safer without Jacko around.

And as for 'she can't stop him from being a part of the child's life' I've seen plenty of nasty custody battles where the father is held fiscally liable but gets only token visitation rights.

My best friend had an affair, and her ex-husband got FULL custody rights. Yes, it can happen... mainly because she didn't fight.

I didn't have a nasty custody battle but despite being totally involved with my kids upbringing up to the point of divorce, all I was legally entitled to was to see my kids for one weekend out of every two and get to go on holiday for a couple of weeks. When I said I wanted to able to see them every day I was told that wasn't legally allowed! Luckily my ex was and is quite happy to accommodate my wishes where practical, but I did feel that I was being punished.

Not only when they choose to have unprotected vaginal sex, sadly enough.

You can use condoms and condoms can break but it's a risk you take when you have sex.

Biology isn't fair. The woman gets pregnant and copes with all the physical aspects of that and the guy gets off scot free.

The woman may choose to have an abortion, she may tell the guy about it or she may not. She may choose to have the baby and again, she may tell him about it or not. If there are more than one possible fathers, she may pick the best one. She may be a bitch from hell and demand money and presents from the father at any time in exchange for visitation, custody or something else. She may poison the children against the father. She may cut off visitation and he can fight her in court. By the time he wins, the kids are probably grown up.

The father can also choose to try to be a part of the childs life or not. He can make the mother and childs life difficult with empty promises. He may disappear, move somewhere and they'll never hear from him again. He may avoid paying child support in some countries by working as a self-employed so they can't get at his wages etc. etc.

Best thing if you get somebody pregnant, get a DNA to be sure and then try to be the best dad you can be under the circumstances.

I have said it before and I will say it again, from the time consensual vaginal intercourse occurs the outcome of that act should be a totally 50/50 contract situation. All BS aside, that is what it basically really is. Any adjustment in that "contract" would then have to be negotiated by the two parties.

But eurovol, what if it was anal, but some seed trickled in the front door?

Hazza, I concur. It happened to me.

OK there are many permutations that will have to be ironed out, but the fact remains guys get the short end of the stick. This discussion has been had before here and the "its my body" argument clouds the issue and leads to an irrational argument. With consensual sex that can arguably lead to the production of a baby (ok anal too, but not the blowjob bitch who impregnates herself), then the bodies and the wallets are both put into the contract with contractual consequences. That is simply the only fair way to judge things without the emotion. Each party has rights and one party's rights are not more equal than the others. Not when they "signed" the contract!

Rights and obligations - including forcing an unwilling father to visit a child, care for it and share custody?

http://www.culture24.org.uk/asset_arena/1/99/23991/v0_master.jpg

Steven192, I totally understand your points. However, we should weigh the consequences before we decide to have unprotected sex. Yes, it feels great to have sex without a condom, but you run the risk of pregnancy. Although some situations may be consensual, it doesn't matter. Remember, the laws and women's rights are already in place and we, (meaning the sperm donor), will be held accountable.

Ah, but you are assuming that all mothers are also automatically willing. The way it stands now, the majority of those types simply get an abortion to solve their own problem. There is a huge double standard and it is a big problem. I know guys that have gotten "fixed" just to make sure that problem never visits them. The laws are simply not equal in this matter and justice is a mother!

Oh, boo fucking hoo. When women get a choice whether to go through pregnancy and birth or let the father do it, come talk to me about your rights.

Yeah, but when you have consensual sex you put your body into the contract whatever the outcome. Like I said, one person's rights do not (or should not) outweigh the others. Each party has the choice not to enter into the contract. The minute you do, you give up certain rights and that goes for both parties. That is the way it should be, but that unfortunately is not the case. Men know this and are not totally happy with the situation, but women have all the p****y. In the end, we screw ourselves just to be able to screw you.

Please visit the brothel thread; all you'd be screwed out of is a little cash.

Wonder what good it does the kid, when the father is forced to spend time with them...

Which is why fathers, in this aspect, have the "upper hand" emotionally.

@DDBug: Sorry? You think? If only...

Grass is always greener on the other side.

Barring rape in countries where abortion is outlawed, the most certainly have this choice.

@lilip - congratulations! That was an out of context quote that Fox News would have been proud of. What Cinzia said was:

When women get a choice whether to go through pregnancy and birth or let the father do it

see the difference?

You realize the meaning of the word or? She said when condition 1 or condition 2 are met then consequence can occur.

I showed condition 1 has been met (in the western countries I assume we are talking about)

(Incidentally, it was not an out of context quote, it was an incomplete quote. But since you are fuzzy on the function of the conjunction 'or', i'll let it slide.)

@lilplatinum: kids==fuzzy logic, so am sure Sillypoint is aware of both the conatations of their sobriquet and the disconnect with Logical OR.

But then since when has logic ever played a part in the "Having Kids Game"...?

Good point, logic is generally a factor in the 'not having kids' game.

How about rewording cinzia's post: When pregnancy is an equal opportunity option ...
Taken early in the morning on an empty stomach the original can be misconstrued.

The original post was pretty clear, I don't think its fair for the readers to have to magically divine a different meaning than what was written.

Although that (completely different) argument suffices for allowing a woman to choose what happens to a fetus in her body on her own accord, I don't see any logical reason has to why it should affect post birth financial and custodial rights. The law isn't here to balance the fact that the biological functions that each gender got handed were not equal.

It's not, but there should be an "Out clause" for the father. Just like the mother is able to terminate a pregnancy, so too should the man be able to clearly state that he doesn't want to be the father.

It should actually be a statement that either confirms that he's "in" with all rights and obligations or "out" (but then has no rights at all to see the child) - signed within the time a woman can still abort. If the woman keeps it a secret from the man, and they go past the abortion deadline, then there should be a special provision to allow him to make the decision late.

I agree with Hazza.

Me too.

Just wanna say guys, don't listen to all that research they did in California which suggested that daily dope smoking lowers the male sperm mobility to the point where it essentially renders him infertile. Does not bloody work atall. I've tried it. Twice. Bloody scientists, giving me false hopes...

The man who invents contraceptive dope should get the nobel prize.

I think there is a confusion here between financial obligations and parental responsibility. Being responsible for a child doesn't mean forking over x amount of money per month, it involves caring and raising, nurturing and supporting.

Of course it does. That's why the opt in/out would remove all of that.

If a woman doesn't want a child, she aborts. If the man doesn't want it, he "opts out".

That's as fair as you can get it...

Not really, because in your scenario 2, there is still a child. And still one parent unsupported raising it.

But then it's a choice the mother makes. Once the man "opts out", she can either raise it on her own - with the full knowledge of the situation, or abort it.

EDIT: The woman isn't forced to have a child that she doesn't want, so why should the man be?

I have to agree with Hazza, now, if I went and got myself knocked up (for what ever reasons birthcontrol failed) I would not expect the man to pay up any money or even have a part of the child's life if he doesn't want to, if I decide the keep the child. It is ultimately my decision I can keep it or abort it! If I keep the child, I cannot expect the man to have to agree with me and support me financially and with child care issues. Now, if he agrees to help out, then backs away, then I will hunt him down and kill him (just kidding) but I would get a signed parental contract.

I know of 6 men, that are living up to their end of the agreement with financial and physical (child care and helping out), and 2 of them were from one night stands. I admire them for doing it, just as I admire the women that decide to do it on their own, or have an abortion. Everyone deals with the situation in how it suits them the best and what they think they can handle. I cannot expect someone to go along with my personal decisions.

@DDBug, but even if a child is born you can't force a woman to be a part of its life if she doesn't want to. She can give the kid up and nobody can force her to visit the child. There is no difference there between a man and a womans rights.

True, Sim. Rare, but true.

But this whole argument of what's "fair" to the person, mom or dad, is forgetting the third person - the child. Kids have a right to their parents.

This sounds fairly reasonable; everyone likes choices.

I think one reason why an "Out Clause" is unlikely to happen is because the government knows that it can't support single parents on its limited welfare funding. The single parent needs/wants help, and the government will get it for them . . . from the other parent's pocket . . . Then it can use what it takes from the taxpayer's pocket for other stuff .