Should a man have a say on what a woman does with an unplanned pregnancy. (kids, emotionally)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I had thought about signing off of parental rights, but I guess legally it's not possible except in the case of adoption, as in a "step" parent wanting to adopt a child. So in a legal stance whether the parent wants to accept responsibility or not, they are, with that one exception.
My brothers wife left him shortly after their son was born. She left her daughter with him of whom he shared no blood, and I don't think he had adopted her. They also had a daughter who I believe was only 3 at the time. She abandoned them all and basically never looked back except to cause him grief.
My brother re-married and his new wife has wanted to adopt his children (the ex's daughter chose to go to her mom after 8 years or so), but the ex wouldn't sign off the parental rights. Now it's almost pointless since they will both be over eighteen in a year or so, that's how long they've been fighting this.
Under a legal sense the ex-wife was financially responsible for her children, should have been anyhow, even though she abandoned them. However, considering the circumstances, I think my brothers new wife should have been able to adopt the children as their "mother" didn't want to have anything to do with them.
So, do you think his ex-wife should have to pay 18 years of child support in arrears even though she basically had nothing to do with raising them, except being unwilling to give up her parental rights out of spite?
The child has the right to be raised by the person or persons who is actually willing to take responsibility for it.
If you are implying an abortion debate, I believe that is a separate thread.
Nothing to do with abortion and I agree that is a separate thread.
It just seems that whilst your plan has covered the rights of the father and the mother in the initial stages it does not cover the rights of the child.
Once the child is born it has rights. It has the right to see its mother and father. Any pre-existing agreement between the parents would eventually become null and void once the child is able to start making decisions about access to their parents.
Not criticizing your thoughts by the way, just trying to establish where the kid fits into this.
I was reading another article and just wanted to throw it out there to see how others felt about it :should a man have a say on what a woman does with an unplanned pregnancy?
No because the man has no say in what the woman does with her body. Hopefully, both agree on the decision but if they don't, the decision has to be hers because it is her body that has to go through whatever it is she chooses. It's unfortunate that men don't get a choice but the choice has to belong to the person who has to endure the consequences of the choice not someone who doesn't have to.
A man's choice ends when he allows a pregnancy to happen. Men would do well to remember that. Men can prevent pregnancies too. If you don't want kids, get snipped, don't have sex or if you do, make darned sure you're, at least, double protected.
I had thought about signing off of parental rights, but I guess legally it's not possible except in the case of adoption, as in a "step" parent wanting to adopt a child. So in a legal stance whether the parent wants to accept responsibility or not, they are, with that one exception.
My brothers wife left him shortly after their son was born. She left her daughter with him of whom he shared no blood, and I don't think he had adopted her. They also had a daughter who I believe was only 3 at the time. She abandoned them all and basically never looked back except to cause him grief.
My brother re-married and his new wife has wanted to adopt his children (the ex's daughter chose to go to her mom after 8 years or so), but the ex wouldn't sign off the parental rights. Now it's almost pointless since they will both be over eighteen in a year or so, that's how long they've been fighting this.
Under a legal sense the ex-wife was financially responsible for her children, should have been anyhow, even though she abandoned them. However, considering the circumstances, I think my brothers new wife should have been able to adopt the children as their "mother" didn't want to have anything to do with them.
So, do you think his ex-wife should have to pay 18 years of child support in arrears even though she basically had nothing to do with raising them, except being unwilling to give up her parental rights out of spite?
This is the same situation I was in with my step sons (The oldest was not my husband's child). I'm going to say no to child support. I considered no support payment for not having to deal with my husband's ex. That is a HUGE blessing. I don't believe in playing ping pong with kids. Volley them to mom's house, then to dad's house, then back to mom's house.....continue ad nausium. I think kids benefit when they have one home. Whatever her motives, my husband's ex gave her kids that. One place to call home and grow up in. I thank her for that.
When it became apparent we were in for an ugly fight WRT visitation for the child she too with her when she left, I told my husband to give him the only thing he could. A home where he was. Putting him in a tug of war between his parents would not be good for him. (we were fighting across state lines so it would have been an uphill battle to gain and then enforce visitiation) Unfortunately, that cost my husband any relationship with this child. He contacted my husband when he turned 18 but didn't stick around. He got mad becasue he couldn't get money from either us or his grandparents and then just dropped off the face of the earth. I never understood that. You'd think once he learned his mother was the one lying to him all those years, he would have given his father a chance.
Sometimes **** happens. I agree with MindFu though, if the woman is going to have the baby against the man's wishes then she should have to handle the responsibilities herself.
This would condemn millions of innocent children to lives in which they will not receive the financial support they need in order to grow and thrive.
All of you hardcore anti-choice people need to remember that you can't have it both ways. You can't scream that choice needs to be taken away so that the children get a fair shake, and then say that the fathers get a Get Out Of Jail Free card. If it's all for the kids, then both parties need to buck up and take responsibility for accidents.
(Note: I don't know if the person to whom I'm replying is hardline anti-choice, I'm just using his post as an example)
For a woman to claim eminent domain over a mutually created fetus is arrogant and selfish.
The fetus is living within her. I believe that would count for eminent domain.
Now if the guy wanted the baby and could find a surrogate to carry it for him or modern science could figure a way for a man to carry a baby, I think she should relinquish the embryo. Otherwise, I dont believe any woman should be forced to continue a pregnancy and go thru childbirth.
If the man does not want the child and there was no marriage or committed relationship, then I dont believe he should have to take any responsibility.
I agree with MindFu though, if the woman is going to have the baby against the man's wishes then she should have to handle the responsibilities herself.
[/quote]This would condemn millions of innocent children to lives in which they will not receive the financial support they need in order to grow and thrive.
[/quote]
I would also bet it would cut down on the number of unplanned pregnancies. If, as in the past, women were basically screwed when they had a child out of wedlock they would be more careful about who they were having sex with and use of contraceptives.
Abortion being legal, a woman can opt out of that responsibility. Of course this takes %100 of the responsibility off the man, which isnt right, so he should have to take a public beating to remind him to be more responsible.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,079,627 times
Reputation: 3937
This would condemn millions of innocent children to lives in which they will not receive the financial support they need in order to grow and thrive.
[/quote]
I would also bet it would cut down on the number of unplanned pregnancies. If, as in the past, women were basically screwed when they had a child out of wedlock they would be more careful about who they were having sex with and use of contraceptives.
Abortion being legal, a woman can opt out of that responsibility. Of course this takes %100 of the responsibility off the man, which isnt right, so he should have to take a public beating to remind him to be more responsible.[/quote]
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
