|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:15 pm
This is taken from a recent episode of Dr. Phil, in which there was a young couple (late teens or early 20's... probably the latter since they looked to be my age or a little older) who had had a baby daughter together. That baby girl is now 8 months old.
The mother wanted the baby - however, the father wanted nothing to do with the child. Once the baby was born, he had not spent any time with it, he hadn't held it or fed it, etc. He had just walked away and not been in the picture at all.
This is where the problems came. The mother of his child wanted him to pay child support. He argued that because he didn't want to be a father at this point in his life, he shouldn't have to pay for a baby he doesn't really even acknowledge. He had even hired a lawyer and legal representation to prove his points.
He argued that men should have the same reproductive rights as women. That if women can choose to get an abortion, give up the baby, or choose to keep it and raise it, men should have the option of walking away and not being a father at all, without paying child support.
Agree? Disagree? Discuss it here.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:18 pm
I'll start it off, since I got quite... irritated, I'll say, when I was watching the show.
I personally feel that when men can get pregnant and carry a baby for 9 months, then they can have the same reproductive rights as women. Until then, they need to think about what they're doing before they do it.
I think that there needs to be consequences, and unfortunately this young man has learned his the hard way. I do feel he should pay child support, even without being in the picture. Perhaps in the future he'll remember to use condoms (if they didn't - I can't remember if they did or not), and get his girlfriend on birth control. Or better still, maybe he'll learn to just be celibate period if he's not ready to be a father.
At least he's choosing to walk away when his 8 month old daughter is too young to know she'll be raised without her biological father in the picture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:28 am
I'm a little conflicted.
On one hand if he was straight forward with her and told her from the beginning without any hesitation that if she had a baby he'd want her to have an abortion and if she didn't he'd leave. Then well, she's kinda walked right into that one.
BUT unless we start signing pre-coitous contracts that deal with the legal implications of a child resulting from the union before the deed well then there's no way to know which dudes wanted to not have kids and as much as said so and which ones were like, oh baby I'll be there for you and then pulled a dead beat.
Now here's the other thing, whether he wanted a child or not the idea of a woman having a choice in the matter, is the CHOICE TO BE PREGNANT. The choice does not involve a child. Legally. Her "choice" is whether or not to carry the fetus. Legally, it's more about bodily integrity than it is about reproduction or about parenthood.
And he DOES have a choice, he has a choice not to have unprotected sex knowing that if a pregnancy is a result that now it is in the woman's hands.
Simply put if you don't want someone "saddling you" with a baby perhaps you should not in reckless baby making procedures.
I mean here's the thing. Having sex can equal babies. Especially unprotected. And if you're not cool with that, well then tough s**t.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:41 pm
I was conflicted too when I watched the show, because I can see where he's coming from. But I do agree that if you're not smart enough to figure out by your late teens/20's that unprotected sex = babies, then too damn bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:36 am
Nikolita I was conflicted too when I watched the show, because I can see where he's coming from. But I do agree that if you're not smart enough to figure out by your late teens/20's that unprotected sex = babies, then too damn bad. Totally agree. My boyfriend and I talked about what we would do if the protection failed, and if we weren't on the same page, we wouldn't be having sex. That page happens to be abortion, but, if I told him that I didn't want one if I happened to get pregnant, he wouldn't complain, but we'd stop having sex, because, well, heck, we're not in a position where we can have and care for a child. One of us at least has to be done with our education so the other one can finish, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:11 pm
Same here. With my boyfriend and I, I've told him I probably wouldn't want an abortion, and I don't like the idea of adoption, so I'd most likely be keeping the baby. He is alright with that, and we know where we both stand. I've already told him that if he chooses not to be in my life after I have the baby, then he has that choice and I will respect his decision.
In the mean time, I've switched from Depo onto the Patch, and am hoping it'll work well. 3nodding Although I wouldn't mind becoming pregnant at my age, money (even with help from family) would be a big problem, and we're both still at the beginning of our education. So we know it's better to wait before we even start planning children. If it happens unexpectedly, then we'll deal with it when the time comes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:28 pm
There are two men I know that are huge on the subject.
First one is one on gaia, who goes by the name of requietum. I usualy dislike him, as he tends to be overly subjective. He refuses to stand concretely on any subject.
I think he adressed you with his own thread on this subject awhile back nik, but you've probably long deleted it.
He has his own thread in the Ed, showing how the child support and custody (sp?) laws are sexist, biased, and infringe upon constitutional and human rights.
But I think he is long winded and wrong.
The other man, or should I say boy, goes to my school.
His reasons are somewhat the same as req's, but not entirely.
Regaurdless I think a man should pay child support.
Why? Because he is a man. He shouldn't whine for not getting a choice when he doesn't need one, let alone complain about a 18 year commitment of paying a few hundred dollars a month. rolleyes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:29 pm
Nikolita I was conflicted too when I watched the show, because I can see where he's coming from. But I do agree that if you're not smart enough to figure out by your late teens/20's that unprotected sex = babies, then too damn bad. But in the same matra of the pro-choicers, protection fails and your partner isn't always reliable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:09 pm
H a s h b r o w n s Nikolita I was conflicted too when I watched the show, because I can see where he's coming from. But I do agree that if you're not smart enough to figure out by your late teens/20's that unprotected sex = babies, then too damn bad. But in the same matra of the pro-choicers, protection fails and your partner isn't always reliable. Then they shouldn't be having sex. Birth control isn't 100% effective. If you're having sex, you're ensuring you're going to deal with the risks and any consequences. If that means not having sex because you can't deal with an abortion, or keeping a baby, or giving it up for adoption, then so be it. Regarding the other thread, I think I've moved it. I know it still exists in the guild, I just don't know where.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:48 pm
Nikolita H a s h b r o w n s Nikolita I was conflicted too when I watched the show, because I can see where he's coming from. But I do agree that if you're not smart enough to figure out by your late teens/20's that unprotected sex = babies, then too damn bad. But in the same matra of the pro-choicers, protection fails and your partner isn't always reliable. Then they shouldn't be having sex. Birth control isn't 100% effective. If you're having sex, you're ensuring you're going to deal with the risks and any consequences. If that means not having sex because you can't deal with an abortion, or keeping a baby, or giving it up for adoption, then so be it. Regarding the other thread, I think I've moved it. I know it still exists in the guild, I just don't know where. Ok, even I in my degrading view of men think your being somewhat unfair. A woman is obligated to no commitment whatso ever. We have multiple forms of protection, we have multiple choices on the pregnancy, and we have multiple choices on what to do with the baby. Infact you can leave your child at a fire house or police station and never be bothered with it. You can literaly abandon it. So why do women get all these priveldges that men don't? Child support can ruin a young man who is just getting into college. If he even tries to oppose it the record it will leave him with can ruin his reputation, or he can end up in jail. There are three choices in a pregnancy. The choice to have sex. The choice to stay pregnant. The choice to keep the baby. The man only has 50% of the say in only one of the choices. if each is worth 100 points it ends up that he only has 20% of the choice in the entire matter. So it seems to me that there isn't much sexual equality. If you should just deal with what happens when you have sex women shouldn't be able to abort. Because while not physicaly threatening, a unwanted child can still thoroughly ruin a mans life. So if men must pay child support they deserve more choice in the matter, because they shouldn't be held responsible for choices the woman makes. If you didn't forget she chose to have unprotected sex aswell. If I had sex, and told my partner I would abort, but decide not to, should he be responsible to support the baby? I would say not. Fact is a person should be able to choose when they are a parent, or when they except these responsibilities. When a woman chooses to stay pregnant she excepts the responsibility that comes with having a baby. The whole "if you have sex deal with consequences " thing is horridly one sided, sexist, and ugly. You would give women all these choices so that they may have a free sexuality. Pregancy and child rearing are no longer burdens women have to bear. Yet you would still shackle men with the old prejuduce (sp?) and social standards?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:23 pm
Another option being forgotten that men have is they can sign over their parental rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:37 pm
lunashock Another option being forgotten that men have is they can sign over their parental rights. Good point. Thanks for mentioning it Luna. smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:39 pm
H a s h b r o w n s Ok, even I in my degrading view of men think your being somewhat unfair. A woman is obligated to no commitment whatso ever. We have multiple forms of protection, we have multiple choices on the pregnancy, and we have multiple choices on what to do with the baby. Infact you can leave your child at a fire house or police station and never be bothered with it. You can literaly abandon it. So why do women get all these priveldges that men don't? Child support can ruin a young man who is just getting into college. If he even tries to oppose it the record it will leave him with can ruin his reputation, or he can end up in jail. There are three choices in a pregnancy. The choice to have sex. The choice to stay pregnant. The choice to keep the baby. The man only has 50% of the say in only one of the choices. if each is worth 100 points it ends up that he only has 20% of the choice in the entire matter. So it seems to me that there isn't much sexual equality. If you should just deal with what happens when you have sex women shouldn't be able to abort. Because while not physicaly threatening, a unwanted child can still thoroughly ruin a mans life. So if men must pay child support they deserve more choice in the matter, because they shouldn't be held responsible for choices the woman makes. If you didn't forget she chose to have unprotected sex aswell. If I had sex, and told my partner I would abort, but decide not to, should he be responsible to support the baby? I would say not. Fact is a person should be able to choose when they are a parent, or when they except these responsibilities. When a woman chooses to stay pregnant she excepts the responsibility that comes with having a baby. The whole "if you have sex deal with consequences " thing is horridly one sided, sexist, and ugly. You would give women all these choices so that they may have a free sexuality. Pregancy and child rearing are no longer burdens women have to bear. Yet you would still shackle men with the old prejuduce (sp?) and social standards? I believe when men can get pregnant and actually have babies, then they get the same reproductive rights as women. Up until then, I believe it's the woman's choice, and the man shouldn't be having sex if he doesn't want to risk paying child support, or doing anything else he's not ready for. Though as Luna said, once the baby was born, the father could sign over his parental rights and act like he was never a father.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 2:03 pm
lunashock Another option being forgotten that men have is they can sign over their parental rights. But their still shackle with parental responsibility of child support. They cannot however, get out of paying them. And in some states they can't, or have to have the womans permission. Nikolita: Wrong, they can't just sign over, many states, florida being one of them, won't allow it. And furthermore, I've pmed Req to come post about it, as he has more information on the subject than I do. But reprodcutive rights should be human, not woman. Who chooses to have sex? Man and woman. Who chooses to stay pregnant? Woman. Who chooses to keep child? Woman? Who is the only one forced into responsibility by law? Man. There is something very wrong about that. Until a man can be pregnant? I'm sorry, I'm not into forcing people into 18 year commitments for choices I make.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:39 am
Quote: Nikolita: Wrong, they can't just sign over, many states, florida being one of them, won't allow it. I don't live in the states, therefore I don't know what the laws are in every single state. I was going by what Luna said. If this turns into a flamewar by Req coming here, I'm locking the thread. I'm not dealing with a flamewar over this topic again, because it's happened once before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
