Lots of men are pro choice just as many women are pro life.
You're saying we should only have sex if we intend to to raise children? Cause that's not how most people think, sex isn't just about reproduction.
I’m saying that two people shouldn’t (that’s responsibility on both partners) have sex if they aren’t willing to deal with the consequences of sexual intercourse. Sex is in fact a commitment. And your offspring is your responsibility, regardless of whether you give birth to it or not. I get it, that’s a big ask. But so is taking care of a child or choosing to have an abortion or dumping a child to adoption. Two people are responsible for the outcomes and choices. 100% of the time.
Celticrose, I was just being a jerk. I don’t think all men are anything specific (nor women). Just talking trash. The original post was inflammatory and I was being inflammatory too. The two issues aren’t really related.
Rosalinas I do not think that sex is just for reproduction (in fact I go to great lengths to ensure that it isn’t). But I do think choosing a sexual partner carries responsibility.
This has always been a controversial matter and it will always be.
As I was reading a little more, I found this.
"When a child is born to an unmarried mother, the mother is automatically granted sole custodianship. The father has no legal right to see their child without a court order."
What is this bullshit?
Doesn't matter he want it or not, he's paying. I honestly feel bad for the guys (there are lots of evil women outthere that would literally trap men to get child support, it's sickening)
And now when abortion is illegal in many places, women will be forced to carry the baby and both parents will suffer if they don't choose to give it up (its easier to get plan B, abortion when it's a few cells than giving up a crying baby)
That's not really the case, at least not any more. Its just the hospital doesn't automatically list the father's name if the mother is unmarried. A father can, and has in many cases, sued for parental rights without being on the birth certificate let alone married to the mother. The REAL "fun" laws are like the one in Texas where you cannot get a divorce if you are pregnant, even if you started proceeding well before you got pregnant and your estranged spouse ISN'T THE FATHER. It doesn't matter. They could be in the final stages of a 2 year divorce but if the court finds out she is even 2 months pregnant, the divorce is stalled until she gives birth
Texas law has much more to do with established precedent then some political agenda, you're messing this up a bit Celticrose. Generally, Texas courts prefer to wait until after the baby is born so that paternity can be addressed and the court can determine if appropriate child-related orders, such as child support, need to be included with the divorce. See code 160.204 under Texas law for Presumption of Paternity. More to the point, this law is specifically meant to PROTECT the woman and to establish financial responsibility on the fathers part. So if anything this helps your argument you just got the details twisted up a bit.
They can verify paternity inutero. But the restrictions usually does more damage than aid. I had a friend who had left her abusive ex, had faught for a divorce over a year, she was with an awesome guy and just found out she was pregnant. The OBs office royally fucked up and left a message referring specifically to her and scheduling a sonogram at her former address (the one her almost ex husband still lived at), I will add this was a HUGE nono, privacy wise. Anyway as soon as her ex found out he of course used it to fuck with her, informing the judge and claiming it was his ect. Regardless of the fact they verified DNA in the womb, it didn't matter to the courts.
Well, again, looking at this from a legal standpoint, she could have pushed back on him in a number of different ways to combat this... sue for child support, push back legal expenses on him for waiting until the last minute to choose 'involvement' if he knew it was his, and frankly if the knowledge was there, knowing before she did because the office contacted him, they could argue that he attempted to entrap her to push for leverage during the divorce settlement by contacting the judge and not her first. Furthermore, if he had knowledge of the child and didnt immediately establish paternity rights, not just postponing the divorce proceedings, I would tack on reckless abandonment just to screw him to the wall. Would all of this stick? Probably not, but it's going to bury him in legal fees. I digress though, the situation you outlined is kind of the exception to the rule regarding the topic.
the inverse is also true. Everyone involved is equally a cause in the matter and everyone involved equally made the choice to fuck with a chance of baby.
The issue people contest is that if everyone involved has equal cause and made an equal choice, why arent there equal rights for both? Not taking sides, just saying you guys clarified the argument.
Because once a child is born they should have the support necessary to live happily? If a woman decides to hand the child off to the father, she should also pay child support, for the benefit of that child, because it’s not about men and women, it’s about taking care of the children born into our world.
I dont disagree with you annoyingnerd, however that's not the argument they're making here. They're arguing that its 100% the womans right and responsibility. Subsequently, if the father has no rights or choices then why should he have any responsibility? If it was an independent decision on the part of the woman, then she should follow through with that independence when caring for the child--thats the argument they're making.
Old thread I know. But the key here is distinguishing parental rights. A man isn’t a parent until a baby is born any more than a woman is a mother. That’s why the term “expecting mother” comes from. Think of rights and responsibilities of a parent such as claiming a child on taxes, ordering kids tickets to events and movies, having to meet certain criteria for safety of home etc, obligation for financial support etc- neither generic contributor has parental rights to a fetus. So the rights are equal in that there are none. The fetus simply is what it is, and will become what it will become. The mother or father have no more rights to what happens to it than to a cancerous lump- regardless of what it might or might not become.
Think of it like this- I tell you “if you buy us plane tickets to Hollywood, and if my script ever gets made, I’ll use your songs for the sound track!”
Well.... if the script never gets bought, or it gets bought and mid production for whatever reason it is cancelled- there’s no movie. If no movie is made- there’s nothing to use your soundtrack on. Why isn’t important. That’s why movie personnel have contracts. They stipulate who can quit under what conditions, and if one person backs out- there are legal repercussions for breach.
Surrogate mothers generally have legal contracts which state they will deliver a baby and sign over parental rights upon birth. If you have a contract with a woman like that- then you can sue her for breach. If you didn’t put your prospective mother under contract- she has no legal obligation to deliver. If you want a guaranteed delivery you have the legal right and the responsibility of mediation to write up a contract. If you scoff at the idea, remember prenups and similar legal instruments exist in common place for use to mediate such disagreements between people in relationships. So get a contract if you’re worried and then you have rights.
no, birth control is simply birth control. By that logic birth control for men is more extreme than birth control for women if its equivalent to abortion.
Seriously enough with this bullshit, we've covered it multiple times. If you can't see the obvious fact those are two wildly different scenarios than you have no business being around women, or other people in general. Just keep your dick in your pants and you won't have to worry about it. Or better yet, let any female you're interested in read this and you won't have to worry at all.
I mean, it takes two to tango. I could just as easily, with your logic, tell the woman to keep her legs crossed... but I digress. They have a point to an extent. I think everyone agrees that there should be some general compensation during gestation/pregnancy... but after that, again since carrying the child to term isnt the mans choice, I dont see a valid legal argument for him maintaining financial responsibility. Legally, if he has no say in the matter, period, I can understand how people dont think he should have any financial obligation. It's her body and her choice--okay cool... so if that's your argument then why is the man involved at all if he has no rights or say in the matter, yet you're saying you're owed something? I'm not saying I agree one way or the other but I am saying I get the argument.
Paternity tests are difficult and can harm or destroy a fetus if done before a baby is born. For this reason they usually aren’t done before then unless there is a pressing necessity. Most states do not force a man to pay medical costs during pregnancy unless paternity can be agreed upon or established. This makes sense if you think about it- otherwise I just say you’re the father and you have to pay half my medical costs. That wouldn’t be very fair by the spirit of this argument would it? That it wouldn’t matter if a man says he isn’t the father because the mothers word would be the only one that counted. Instead- if there’s a dispute paternity is established safely after the birth and a mother is reimbursed what is owed for the fathers unpaid share. Not perfect- but fair.
Now- to the point at hand with the background facts established- follow that logic to the next step. When does a father become legally recognized as a father? When is his name put to legal record and responsibility assumed? When the baby is born- a birth certificate is issued and a legal father is recorded. You can’t have a father of a child of you do not have a child can you? You can’t have a mother of a child where there is no child can you? No child exists- no parents exist. No child and no parents mean there are no legal rights to a child and no legal parental rights or responsibilities at this stage.
So a father without established paternity and without a child to be held in ones arms and provided for has no rights or responsibilities. The mother has no paternal rights either. If a pregnant woman fights a bear or goes sky diving or watches porn with her fetus present is she under arrest for endangerment or any other crime that would follow to do the same with a baby present? No. There’s no baby, there’s no child, there’s no responsibility or rights concerning a child.
This is why a father has to pay child support. It doesn’t matter if it’s a miscarriage or an abortion or hysterical pregnancy- if there is no baby- no one needs to pay to support it. If there is a baby, both parents of established paternity must support it. A fetus is not scientifically or legally a person. It is not a citizen of the United States because it isn’t considered a person- and even if it was considered a person, citizenship is granted upon BIRTH, and a fetus hasn’t been born- so it literally cannot he a citizen. It is a non person- a collection of cells.
Let’s look at a real situation and a sci fi situation. Real situation: a man has sex with a woman, he ejaculates inside her. Who “owns” the sperm? Legally- it is a gift. Hers to do with as she pleases. She can let it drip into a cup and mix it with paint for an art exhibit if she likes or wash it out into the trash- whatever she wants. You gave her a gift. If you make out with a person you can’t sue them to recover your saliva can you? It’s a gift. That’s the law.
So now let’s say you ejaculate on her chest. It’s a gift. This has precedent. If she saves that ejaculate and uses it for insemination- you’re a dad. There’s clear paternity and that is how she decided to “use” your gift. You very likely didn’t sign a contract before hand defining what was to be done with the ejaculate or stipulating that it wasn’t a gift, that you required it back or any such clause. So it is hers.
Sci fi scenario- a woman gives you an ovary or other cell. You use it as a man to inseminate and somehow incubate a child. Guess what? Same thing. She is the mother. She now owes child support and has parental rights and responsibilities once a child is born.
You’ll find the law is in fact quite equal in these regards to men and women- it’s simply that the scenarios where a father would have possession of a fetus without the mother having it or being attached to it aren’t as probable as the mother having possession of the fetus. If the man possesses the fetus such as in an artificial incubator- or if we have a situation where a surrogate is used to incubate another woman’s eggs- the incubator of the fetus has the autonomy over their own body and the fetus itself as a non person is a matter of property rights. A surrogate will likely have been required to sign a contract stating their responsibilities and that the bio matter was not a gift. Thusly a surrogate aborting or otherwise not fulfilling the contract by action or mission of action is legally liable for the breach of said contract.
But 99% of people conceiving without a surrogate have no contract. There is no breach of contract- just a gift from a man to a woman, which the woman has no legal obligation son how she handles that gift.
So if you use existing law, precedent, and some common sense you will see why the argument is invalid. As a man- can you tell a random woman to abort or force her to carry a fetus? No. Why could you exert will over her? You have no connection to that woman that allows that- and the child she carries has no established paternity to you. Wether the fetus is or is not yours- it doesn’t matter because there’s no established paternity unless you both agree on paternity.
@interesting I don't doubt you aren't the downvoter, there are a ton on troll on this site lately. I'm seriously NOT debating this AGAIN, this easily the 5th or 6th time in a month this crap has been on here and its been covered 7 ways to Sunday. I will state, in this case, if he is so concerned about having to pay, HE should be the one to avoid any potential chance. If the OP was female I would have said the same to her.
Now even if you DO agree on paternity and the fetus is genetically yours- you have no right or reason to compel her to do anything because 1. A fetus doesn’t have parents who have legal parental rights. The mother AND father do not have parental rights to a fetus. You can’t claim a fetus on your taxes or order off the 12 and under kids menu because you have a fetus. The mother has her own constitutional rights though.
You can’t tell her what to eat or when to sleep or what she can and can’t do when she is not pregnant- and let’s say you gave her a gift- a gold necklace she always wears. Can you legally force her to not go swimming because the necklace might be lost? No. You cannot.
Let’s use another example. This one is even stronger than a fetus because there is an actual contract- if I buy you a bond that is set to be worth $100 million dollars on maturity. I give you that bond but we sign a contract stating that on maturity you’ll use 1/2 the money to enrich me- if you then sell that bond before maturity for $50 can I stop you? Can I sue you for losses? No. I cannot. I gave you a gift, to do with as you pleased. Our deal was that upon maturity I would do something. If the bond never reaches maturity- then I never have to do the thing I said. That’s how reality and life works.
Women and men both carry responsibility if a child is born. Before the child is born the mother carries the risks and burdens, and her ONLY legal rights and obligations are to herself just as the only legal rights and obligations of the man are to himself. It isn’t about keeping your legs closed or anything like that. The moment you ejaculate and do not have a clear contractual obligation on your semen- it is a gift. You can have all the sex you want risk free if you don’t give up the ownership of your ejaculate. The moment you pass your genetic material to another human being it becomes theirs. Period. That hair she left on your pillow, her left over juice on your member- yours. Do whatever you want with it. You give her semen- it’s hers. IF a CHILD results the law is fair and says its 50/50 yours. If no baby is made- you’re just two people living your own lives.
Abortion comes before birth- between the place you had the ability to stop or mitigate things and when next you will have some autonomy over your former bio matter.
yea that semen as a gift argument is stupid as fuck and abused to high hell, look up the court case where a dude got a blowjob and the girl kept the semen and impregnated herself with it after which he was forced to pay child support for the resulting baby. THATS the kind of bullshit you get with that kind of thinking.
TL:DR- the logic is faulty. You have to consider when each person has what kinds of rights and responsibilities and when. Who has rights to the sperm? Who has rights to the egg as property? When a man gives a woman sperm without a contractual obligation that sperm is a gift- it becomes hers to do with as she pleases and the man loses all rights. Who has rights to a fetus? It is a non person so parental rights do not apply to a fetus. Who has rights and responsibilities to a child? Both parents. So re examine your argument and detail the legal basis and precedent which gives rights to a man to dictate what happens with semen that is not yet a legal person and he has relinquished ownership rights to- but before it has become a legal person of whom he has rights to.
@celticrose The main problem with your argument is your silencing of others. This is a debate, which means there exists multiple viewpoints to discuss, not just your own. Anyone is allowed to discuss anything outside of your discretion, without having to be belittled or told they “have no business being around women.” With that logic, I can say, “if you can’t hold your composure in a debate, you have no business debating.” Maybe this is why you’re being downvoted, not because of your belief, but because of the way you attempt to diminish anyone else’s argument under your own with irrational anger and spite. If you are calm, collected, and present yourself clearly, maybe you wouldn’t be receiving downvotes.
Oh get off ut bethorien. I simply have a grasp of reality, unlike you, and choose when to walk away. I'm not silencing anyone, I'm just tired of this same thing being posted over and over just to stir the shitpot. Seriously, this site is just going to hell because of trolls and bots.
you literally ignored the fact that your own source said literally exactly the same thing i said. If anyone has a lack of grasp on reality id assume its the person ignore their own facts.
also if you remember, im the one that noped the fuck out of that "debate" when your inability to have a real debate became apparent. Not the other way around. More reason to assume your accusations of lacking a grasp on reality is you projecting.
Hey... hey... can I just say... I no longer like turtles and I'm disbanding the turtle club, as it got too turtly. I am no officially establishing an Otter club. If you love otters, you're welcome to join... if you join and wind up just trolling otters, we will find you.
And, he could decided not to have sex with someone he doesn’t want to raise a child with.
You're saying we should only have sex if we intend to to raise children? Cause that's not how most people think, sex isn't just about reproduction.
Rosalinas I do not think that sex is just for reproduction (in fact I go to great lengths to ensure that it isn’t). But I do think choosing a sexual partner carries responsibility.
As I was reading a little more, I found this.
"When a child is born to an unmarried mother, the mother is automatically granted sole custodianship. The father has no legal right to see their child without a court order."
What is this bullshit?
Doesn't matter he want it or not, he's paying. I honestly feel bad for the guys (there are lots of evil women outthere that would literally trap men to get child support, it's sickening)
And now when abortion is illegal in many places, women will be forced to carry the baby and both parents will suffer if they don't choose to give it up (its easier to get plan B, abortion when it's a few cells than giving up a crying baby)
Well.... if the script never gets bought, or it gets bought and mid production for whatever reason it is cancelled- there’s no movie. If no movie is made- there’s nothing to use your soundtrack on. Why isn’t important. That’s why movie personnel have contracts. They stipulate who can quit under what conditions, and if one person backs out- there are legal repercussions for breach.
theres no point in debating with celtricrose, she doesnt care about truth or debates she cares about being right and grandstanding