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.

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.

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.