Men's Rights?

[Zzarchov]

Tracey: Shouldn't you be willing and able to raise the child yourself before risking creating one, for the welfare of the child in question? That is the definition of having "to deal with it" after all.

Again: No comments on being able to put your side of the childs lineage up for adoption?

 

[Andrew]

Someone like me? You don't know anything about me. That is a pretty cold personal attack, especially since we are supposed to be having a civil discussion. I will not lower myself to such a level. I do hope you can be more civil in your future posts.

Just as I said, you are ruining someone's life by forcing them to be a parent when they decided long before the "accident" that they did not want to be a parent. So, since he cannot force her to have an abortion (unlike her choice to have one if she feels a baby would ruin her life), he must have his basic human rights protected (long before the baby is born (i.e. still a fetus)), which still allows the mother to make her 3 choices (keep, adopt, abort), knowing the father is out of the picture.

I guess women and men have different views of the act of sex (or maybe it is just you and me...I'm not sure), and that is not likely to change. Neither one is right or wrong, they are just different. Sex is not just an act to make babies, much like eating is not just an act so we don't starve. They both may have started out that way, but as society evolved, the acts have changed to be pleasurable (why else would someone spend $300 at a French restaurant, when you can get a $1 loaf of bread to completely satisfy the need?)

I never said you should get sterilized (are you personally going to abandon any children you father? I have no way of knowing that). It's just like when you post "You will ruin someone's life" by giving birth to a child they don't want. I don't take that to mean me personally, since I haven't ever been pregnant.

I don't think of sex as something just for making babies either. Right now I don't plan on having babies at all, but I'm not celebate. I just accept that I am always risking that possibility and I would have to deal with it. I would hope that the man I choose as a partner wouldn't just abandon our child if I choose not to abort.

Sorry Tracy, I read that wrong. The real issue is that the men have zero choice, and that needs to be changed. I know that most men would be thrilled to be a dad (I am), but it should be their choice, much like the mother has the choice. That is the issue.

 

[tracy]

Re: RE: Men's Rights?

Tracey: Shouldn't you be willing and able to raise the child yourself before risking creating one, for the welfare of the child in question? That is the definition of having "to deal with it" after all.

Again: No comments on being able to put your side of the childs lineage up for adoption?

Unfortunately that's the reality in todays world. I really have no power to force a man to contribute to his child's wellbeing. Child support orders are ignored by countless fathers in this country everyday. I just think that's absolutely sad. Our notions of rights and responsibilities may one day place the right to abandon our biological children above our responsibility for caring for them. I still think a real man doesn't abandon his children regardless of the drama with the baby's mother. I have no respect for a man that does that.

Being able to put up your side of a child for adoption.... I just don't see how it would be practical. Who wants to adopt half a child with someone they don't even know? I don't see how that relationship would work. I'm very pro-adoption generally, but I just don't get this one.

 

[Andrew]

Re: RE: Men's Rights?

It is not an offspring when it is a fetus (your words, not mine). The argument is for the choice to be a parent or not, long before the baby is born, and most likely long before the parents have even met. It is not about abandoning offspring, it is all about choice. It is a basic human right for women to have the choice (not long ago it was not a right women had), men must have this same basic human right.

There is no basic human right to not be a father after conception has occured. If a child is born carrying a man's DNA, he's the child's father. How the baby got there really doesn't matter. It's there. It is about abandoning a child at that point.

I am not talking about a child already in this world....I am talking about when the fetus is only a couple months old. It is a basic right of man to be a parent or not. That is a basic human right. The same as it is a basic human right for a woman to choose.

 

[Zzarchov]

Well Tracey then you would be surprised. There is a real shortage of babies up for adoption as more and more people wait too long to have children.

I can rhyme off 10 couples I know right now who would love joint custody of a baby to raise as their own child.

Then everybody is happy, nobody is forced to be a parent if they don't want to be and millions of infertile couples get a shot at being a parent.

And millions of Males aren't forced to raise a child with a woman they don't even know.

 

[tracy]

Sorry Tracy, I read that wrong. The real issue is that the men have zero choice, and that needs to be changed. I know that most men would be thrilled to be a dad (I am), but it should be their choice, much like the mother has the choice. That is the issue.

You see zero choice. I don't. I see choices (condoms, vasectomies, abstinence, other sexual activity). They have choices BEFORE conception. After that, things aren't equal. You're absolutely right. Childbearing isn't fair. A woman can choose abortion or not. The man can't. Not fair. I'd also say it's not fair that the woman is the one to go through the physical difficulties and risks of pregnancy alone and often the one stuck raising children alone after being abandoned by her partner.

The real difficulty comes when a child is born and only one parent wants it. Regardless of which parent wants it, both need to step up and do the least they are required to for that child cause that's the risk you assume when you have sex. In our society that's just a financial contribution to the child's material needs. If that means the mother becomes the custodial parent with support from the father, then fine. If it means the father becomes the primary caregiver and the mother just gives financial support, that's fine too. If they both decide to give the baby up for adoption, then great. I just get so sick of seeing parents allowing their personal drama to take priority over their child.

 

[tracy]

Re: RE: Men's Rights?

I am not talking about a child already in this world....I am talking about when the fetus is only a couple months old. It is a basic right of man to be a parent or not. That is a basic human right. The same as it is a basic human right for a woman to choose.

A man has no basic right to force a woman to have an abortion if he doesn't want a child. He can't prevent his child from being born, so this is an issue about children already in the world. If the child is never born, it's not an issue.

 

[tracy]

Re: RE: Men's Rights?

Well Tracey then you would be surprised. There is a real shortage of babies up for adoption as more and more people wait too long to have children.

I can rhyme off 10 couples I know right now who would love joint custody of a baby to raise as their own child.

Then everybody is happy, nobody is forced to be a parent if they don't want to be and millions of infertile couples get a shot at being a parent.

And millions of Males aren't forced to raise a child with a woman they don't even know.

Trust me, I know all about the wait for babies. I work with babies and lots of our families struggle with infertility. My own parents had to wait years to adopt and I'm the most pro-adoption person out there. I think it's a wonderful thing.

I just can't imagine that particular situation working. How would the non-biological parent ever be really equal with the biological parent? How could you be sure to maintain that relationship? What happens when the biological parent remarries? What happens if the adoptive parent winds up having a biological child of their own? How is the adoptive parent's spouse involved? You said it yourself, you know lots of couples looking to raise a child of their own. I don't see how Bill and Mary are going to raise Jenn and Steve's biological child part time because Steve didn't want it. So Jenn is mom, Bill is dad and Mary is.....? Step mom? Does Mary get to parent the child as though it's her own? Or does Jenn take precedence since it's her kid and Mary is just married to the guy that adopted half of the child? It wouldn't be their child. It would be his child... with another woman. That get's sticky.

 

[fuzzylogix]

Maybe not for long. There are cases in courts being decided. Justice is blind and in most courtrooms equality is law. Basically their going to put to the test the new axiom what's good for the gander is good for the goose.

I think it will be a sad day if our country decides that children have no rights to support. They have no choice in who creates them and are the only blameless parties in the goose-gander drama. Anyone unwilling to support his flesh and blood is a sorry excuse for a man IMO.

Then, by extrapolation, anyone unwilling to support her flesh and blood is a sorry excuse for a woman.

Yes. I completely agree. When a child is born, the battle of the sexes doesn't matter anymore. The child matters.

(Again, the only exception IMO is when both parents place the child for adoption which I consider to be a very loving and honoroble thing to do).

I was referring to the women who dont support their flesh and blood, but rather flush it down the tube. You cant on one hand support this as the woman's right and on the other hand berate the man who doesnt want to support a child.

 

[tracy]

I was referring to the women who dont support their flesh and blood, but rather flush it down the tube. You cant on one hand support this as the woman's right and on the other hand berate the man who doesnt want to support a child.

A fetus isn't a child. There's the difference.

 

[Zzarchov]

Re: RE: Men's Rights?

Well Tracey then you would be surprised. There is a real shortage of babies up for adoption as more and more people wait too long to have children.

I can rhyme off 10 couples I know right now who would love joint custody of a baby to raise as their own child.

Then everybody is happy, nobody is forced to be a parent if they don't want to be and millions of infertile couples get a shot at being a parent.

And millions of Males aren't forced to raise a child with a woman they don't even know.

Trust me, I know all about the wait for babies. I work with babies and lots of our families struggle with infertility. My own parents had to wait years to adopt and I'm the most pro-adoption person out there. I think it's a wonderful thing.

I just can't imagine that particular situation working. How would the non-biological parent ever be really equal with the biological parent? How could you be sure to maintain that relationship? What happens when the biological parent remarries? What happens if the adoptive parent winds up having a biological child of their own? How is the adoptive parent's spouse involved? You said it yourself, you know lots of couples looking to raise a child of their own. I don't see how Bill and Mary are going to raise Jenn and Steve's biological child part time because Steve didn't want it. So Jenn is mom, Bill is dad and Mary is.....? Step mom? Does Mary get to parent the child as though it's her own? Or does Jenn take precedence since it's her kid and Mary is just married to the guy that adopted half of the child? It wouldn't be their child. It would be his child... with another woman. That get's sticky.

How does it work when the father thinks hes biological but isn't? (1/4 of all cases). What happens normally to retain that relationship with two estranged parents? What happens normally if the Mother/Father remarries and has another child of their own? What happens normally when a man impregnates one woman but is married to another (Assuming their is no divorce?)

These aren't at all related to the situation which would be exclusive to an adoptive/biological set of parents anymore so than a Biological/Biological set of parents.

So while they do present problems, not new ones. These problems would still exist, and exist much worse, if the Biological Father (in this case we'll assume) was forced to be a parent. He isn't going to marry the girl, he or she will probably remarry and probbably have other children. And the "Mother and Father as equal parents" judging by the law of averages WILL require legal battles over custody rights. So it is no new problems.

The difference is whether or not both parents want to be parents, that is all.

 

[tracy]

I think there are different problems with this. If a married infertile couple want a child of their own to raise, that isn't what they will be getting when one partner adopts half a child with a stranger. One partner gets to be a parent, the other doesn't.

If it worked for someone that's great, but I don't see this as being a realistic solution for most people. This society is so biased in favor of the biological parent, I can't see this ever becoming a serious option.

 

[Zzarchov]

The other parent would be a step-parent, and I'd hardly call it uncommon.

This happens ALOT currently where a parent remarries later in life to an infertile partner and then tries to take custody away from the other parent based on them often being much wealthier. Usually works too.

While it is more than likely that often there would be a conflict between biological parent and adoptive thats not really an issue since its not the remaining biological parents business. Its between the biological parent who gave up his rights and the adoptive parents who took them. At no point did bearing or fertilizing the child give you control over the other parents life after all.

 

[tracy]

I'm a little confused. Step parents aren't uncommon, sure, but they also don't have the rights parents have. That's why I say these couples wouldn't be getting what they want out of the deal (a child of THEIR own to raise).

One big reason my brother and his wife are trying to get her ex to give up his paternal rights is because they know how bioparents are favored. If anything happens to my Sis-in-law, her ex is the one who would get their daughter (even though he hasn't seen her in years and she calls my brother "Daddy"). My brother doesn't even have the right to make emergency medical decisions for her without a lot of legal formalities. All this even though her "father" wants nothing to do with her. If Bill assumes paternal rights, along with a biological mother, then his wife is the stepmom. Would she be willing to give up that child if something happens to Bill? It seems to me that one partner in this would be unequal.

I also understand that bio parents don't have any control over eachother's lives. But, as a woman, I do have some control over who I choose to conceive a child with (who I chose to sleep with). Doesn't that mean I should get some say in who would adopt my child from it's bio-father?

 

[fuzzylogix]

I was referring to the women who dont support their flesh and blood, but rather flush it down the tube. You cant on one hand support this as the woman's right and on the other hand berate the man who doesnt want to support a child.

A fetus isn't a child. There's the difference.

Ay- there's the rub.

The thing is, Tracy, in reading through all of your posts here, I think you have a real bias against men in the situation of an unplanned pregancy. You blame the man continually for the pregancy, telling him that he should have used contraception, even that he should have been sterilized before having sex. This is so one sided. In this modern age, women are just as responsible for an unplanned pregancy. They can no longer pretend to be a victim.

Women fought long and hard to get to this point of having the choice of unbridled sex just as men have, and so now they have to learn to live with the consequences too. Women also have to recognize that as they get more rights and power in society, men may start to counteract with demands for their own rights. And just as we expect men to understand our rights, we have to learn to accept their rights. And I think a man has a definite right to be part of the decision about whether a pregancy is terminated, or what happens to the child when born.

I dont know the circumstances of your biological mother's need to give up her child, but in those days, she probably wouldnt have had much support either financially, emotionally or ethically. However, that situation could be very different today and men have to be given the right in this day and age to participate more in the decision making.

 

[tracy]

The thing is, Tracy, in reading through all of your posts here, I think you have a real bias against men in the situation of an unplanned pregancy. You blame the man continually for the pregancy, telling him that he should have used contraception, even that he should have been sterilized before having sex. This is so one sided. In this modern age, women are just as responsible for an unplanned pregancy. They can no longer pretend to be a victim.

I don't blame men more than women for a pregnancy. I expect them to take as much responsibility as their gender allows, just like the woman should. Physically, he just doesn't have a uterus, that's why he can't choose to abort or not. Once a child is born, dad is equal to mom IMO. It's because I think fathers are equal to mothers that I think he should be equally responsible regardless of how that child got there. It's really unfortunate how often that isn't the case. I think we undervalue fathers in this society making them seem like a nice accessory, but not really needed (that's why I have problems with the "well, she can just raise the baby on her own" line of thinking). Fathers matter. I know how important my dad is in my life anyways.

Women fought long and hard to get to this point of having the choice of unbridled sex just as men have, and so now they have to learn to live with the consequences too. Women also have to recognize that as they get more rights and power in society, men may start to counteract with demands for their own rights. And just as we expect men to understand our rights, we have to learn to accept their rights. And I think a man has a definite right to be part of the decision about whether a pregancy is terminated, or what happens to the child when born..

I completely agree a father has the right to decide what happens to his child when its born. If the day comes that medical science advances enough to allow them to assume the physical responsibility for pregnancy, I'll agree he should get as much say as the woman in deciding to keep a pregnancy rather than abort. I can't see allowing them to force a woman to abort though. Can you? I know, you'd say that he should just get to opt out of child raising if he wants to abort. I'd say that isn't fair to the child....

I dont know the circumstances of your biological mother's need to give up her child, but in those days, she probably wouldnt have had much support either financially, emotionally or ethically. However, that situation could be very different today and men have to be given the right in this day and age to participate more in the decision making.

My birth mother was supported by my birth father. He's a good guy. He offered to marry her, but they both knew that was a bad idea. They agreed on adoption after she brought it up. They moved to BC so they could pick my adoptive parents where he worked and supported her until I was born. He was a stand up guy and I have nothing but respect for that. He could have just left. He could have withheld his consent for the adoption. Instead, they both made the best decision together.

My views on fatherhood are probably partly shaped by that, sure. They are also shaped by my relationship with my dad, how I see my friends who are fathers, and all the fathers I see at work everyday. Some are loving and great with their kids. Others are just absent. Some are doing all they can to be fathers only to have those efforts thwarted. I don't see why fathers are seen as so expendible.

 

[Andrew]

Sorry Tracy, I read that wrong. The real issue is that the men have zero choice, and that needs to be changed. I know that most men would be thrilled to be a dad (I am), but it should be their choice, much like the mother has the choice. That is the issue.

You see zero choice. I don't. I see choices (condoms, vasectomies, abstinence, other sexual activity). They have choices BEFORE conception. After that, things aren't equal. You're absolutely right. Childbearing isn't fair. A woman can choose abortion or not. The man can't. Not fair. I'd also say it's not fair that the woman is the one to go through the physical difficulties and risks of pregnancy alone and often the one stuck raising children alone after being abandoned by her partner.

The real difficulty comes when a child is born and only one parent wants it. Regardless of which parent wants it, both need to step up and do the least they are required to for that child cause that's the risk you assume when you have sex. In our society that's just a financial contribution to the child's material needs. If that means the mother becomes the custodial parent with support from the father, then fine. If it means the father becomes the primary caregiver and the mother just gives financial support, that's fine too. If they both decide to give the baby up for adoption, then great. I just get so sick of seeing parents allowing their personal drama to take priority over their child.

Well, believe me, from the male's point of view, it is zero choice. Plus the vast majority of all males want to be part of their children's lives. Yes, there are guys out there who abandon their kids - mostly due to their partner, and for countless reasons that are beyond their control, so they are not the animals you think they are.

But this is not what I am talking about...I am talking about the fetus, not a child.

 

[Zzarchov]

Re: RE: Men's Rights?

I'm a little confused. Step parents aren't uncommon, sure, but they also don't have the rights parents have. That's why I say these couples wouldn't be getting what they want out of the deal (a child of THEIR own to raise).

One big reason my brother and his wife are trying to get her ex to give up his paternal rights is because they know how bioparents are favored. If anything happens to my Sis-in-law, her ex is the one who would get their daughter (even though he hasn't seen her in years and she calls my brother "Daddy"). My brother doesn't even have the right to make emergency medical decisions for her without a lot of legal formalities. All this even though her "father" wants nothing to do with her. If Bill assumes paternal rights, along with a biological mother, then his wife is the stepmom. Would she be willing to give up that child if something happens to Bill? It seems to me that one partner in this would be unequal.

Not at all, this would be 100% the same as if Bill was the biological parent. So yes, if Bill dies , then Bill's wife the Stepmom loses the child. This is no different than if Bill was the biological father and died, his wife would lose the child (barring court cases in either situation).

People already willingly choose to live this way, so the question has already been answered.

I also understand that bio parents don't have any control over eachother's lives. But, as a woman, I do have some control over who I choose to conceive a child with (who I chose to sleep with). Doesn't that mean I should get some say in who would adopt my child from it's bio-father?

No, not at all. As you stated, its the females fetus , NOT the females child. The whole reason the father is forced against his will to be responsible for a child you could have aborted is because it isn't the females child but both of theirs equally.

In the end this is no different than any other relationship, If you are partners with a with the bio-father in any other respect, say a business partnership, it could work the same way. He gets rid of his half of the business whether or not you want him to, the best you'll get is an offer to buy his place first.

Meaning if he chose to put his half up for adoption the best you would get would be to choose to be the sole parent. Otherwise its his business, not yours. You chose to concieve a child knowing this could be a consequence.

 

[Andrew]

Re: RE: Men's Rights?

I am not talking about a child already in this world....I am talking about when the fetus is only a couple months old. It is a basic right of man to be a parent or not. That is a basic human right. The same as it is a basic human right for a woman to choose.

A man has no basic right to force a woman to have an abortion if he doesn't want a child. He can't prevent his child from being born, so this is an issue about children already in the world. If the child is never born, it's not an issue.

No, I am not saying he can force her to have an abortion, but he must have the choice, and if he decides not to be a father, then the mother still has all her choices available to her. She just goes into the decision making process knowing the father is not going to be around. There is nothing wrong with this process, and both parties have made their own decisions.

 

[Andrew]

I was referring to the women who dont support their flesh and blood, but rather flush it down the tube. You cant on one hand support this as the woman's right and on the other hand berate the man who doesnt want to support a child.

A fetus isn't a child. There's the difference.

It would be if it wasn't aborted. This argument works both ways, so you have to stop using it.

I believe it should be the choice of the parents to be parents or not. Period.