Man Wants Say in Unplanned Pregnancy

jespah wrote:

The new bar scene:

"Hey, baby, let's do it. But first, sign here."

"Gotta call my lawyer first. Marv? Look this over for me, willya?"

well, like all other things, it would feel akward at first, but we would get used to it.

I was a teen/young adult in the late 70's, before AIDS/HIV was ever heard of.

It would have been unthinkable to have that conversation before sex then, today, I hope it is much more common.

Of course, signing a contract to absolve the other for possible pregancy would get sticky if either of the parties were drunk at the time....and incapable of using solid judgement.

My husband commented this morning that if men could give birth, there sure would be a lot less unwanted children around. Very true.

I just don't know, once the pregnancy occurs, I don't know how it should be handled.

If a firm decision had to be made before sex, it's compelling people to be accountable for their actions....I like that.

I will say, when younger, I'm sure I had sex with at least one person that if I had to stop and sign something...the sex would never have happened.

I can't speak from the man's point of view, but sometimes a woman, no matter how intelligent, will just go ahead and screw the guy because it's easier, it's no skin off your nose, he's not raping you or anything, you just know if you go ahead and do it, it'll be less hassle.

It would be an available out to say to him that you just aren't ready to sign anything.

Then of course, they'll be men who say...."come on, sign...everyone else signs...."

That said, I'm sure there's the man's point of view too...like the woman who won't sign, but keeps saying "let's just do it"

Overall though, I think it would help.

0 Replies

Bella has a good question: should the woman be forced to have a the baby if she doesn't want it, but the guy does? That, even if unfair, goes back to who's body it is. I see the reasoning behind it, that a guy should be part of the decision, but ultimately, I don't think it's right to force a woman to go through pregnancy if she doesn't want the child.

Now if the man doesn't want the child, and the woman goes through with it anyway? In an ideal world, everyone would be adults about this kind of thing, and people would come to an agreement every time. The woman could say, "you know, you're all set. I'm just going to have it, and you don't have to worry about it."

However, there are far too many morons out there. If they DID pass a law stating the man is free of financial responsibility just because he doesn't want the child, then there will be way too many women out there supporting kids by themselves who aren't really capable. Again, back to the ideal world. You'd think a woman not making enough money to support a kid, knowing the father isn't going to help out, would stop her from having the baby, but we all know how that works.

I think for the simple reason the majority of these cases would just be the fathers skipping out on the responsibility vs. a legit case where he was tricked, where he really shouldn't be responsible, nothing is going to change from where it is today. I just don't see how it would work.

In my case, if a girl told me right now she's pregnant? HELL NO I would not want the child, and I'd tell her that(and I wouldn't think twice about getting a DNA test).However, if she refused to have an abortion, or give the child up for adoption, I would have to suck it up and provide financial support.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Joe,

My point is this, and please correct me if I am misunderstanding, you said the future child's rights. I took that to mean the child that was presently in the womb? Did I misunderstand that part? I'll wait to find out before I finish my thought.

I meant the child in the contemplation of the parties, not in utero. According to sozobe's scenario, the man and woman would agree to a contract prior to engaging in sexual relations, so there wouldn't even be a fertilized egg at that point.

0 Replies

Thanx, Joe. I wasn't sure and didn't want to start a discussion on it unless I knew. Thank you for your clarification.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

nimh wrote:
Seriously tho, isnt that last bit here already where the metaphor strikes a rock?

Explain.

In your analogy, the driver did not intend to hit the pedestrian, "but it is clear that he was negligent and that he alone was responsible".

In the situation of the woman becoming pregnant even though her partner did not want a child, had said so and was reassured it couldn't happen, he may have been "negligent" - but "he alone was responsible"? I dont think so.

0 Replies

Slappy Doo Hoo wrote:

Bella has a good question: should the woman be forced to have a the baby if she doesn't want it, but the guy does? That, even if unfair, goes back to who's body it is. I see the reasoning behind it, that a guy should be part of the decision, but ultimately, I don't think it's right to force a woman to go through pregnancy if she doesn't want the child.

Now if the man doesn't want the child, and the woman goes through with it anyway? In an ideal world, everyone would be adults about this kind of thing, and people would come to an agreement every time. The woman could say, "you know, you're all set. I'm just going to have it, and you don't have to worry about it."

However, there are far too many morons out there. If they DID pass a law stating the man is free of financial responsibility just because he doesn't want the child, then there will be way too many women out there supporting kids by themselves who aren't really capable. Again, back to the ideal world. You'd think a woman not making enough money to support a kid, knowing the father isn't going to help out, would stop her from having the baby, but we all know how that works.

I think for the simple reason the majority of these cases would just be the fathers skipping out on the responsibility vs. a legit case where he was tricked, where he really shouldn't be responsible, nothing is going to change from where it is today. I just don't see how it would work.

In my case, if a girl told me right now she's pregnant? HELL NO I would not want the child, and I'd tell her that(and I wouldn't think twice about getting a DNA test).However, if she refused to have an abortion, or give the child up for adoption, I would have to suck it up and provide financial support.

CAN fathers still skip out on the responsibility in the US?

Here, they will be pursued quite aggressively for child support by the federal child support agency.

I agree that you cannot make a person an unwilling incubator....so the biology just makes it unfair for men, in this particular case.

I guess the only thing guys can do is to awlays take personal responsibility for birth control.

Had I ever fallen pregnant with a child that the father really did not want, and which I wanted to keep, and he had taken reasonable steps to prevent pregnancy, I would have WANTED to absolve him of all financial responsibility out of fairness and reasonableness and respect for his position, and self respect.

Once upon a time that would have been easily possible...now, the only way really to do that is to say you slept with a whole bunch of guys around conception time, and you do not know who the dad is. Even then, the child support agency can push for DNA...I guess you could say you were too pissed to remember who the guy was? But...what would THAT be like for the unfortunate child. Except where it would be dangerous (and I see plenty of examples of that, sadly) a kid ought to be able to know all about their dad, and have a relationship with him.

0 Replies

In the US of A, (unless the laws have changed since I retired) the courts will pursue child support actively if the mother is receiving assistance from the state, otherwise it's a civil matter of the mother hiring an attorney and charging the father for child support.

0 Replies

I really don't expect that this case will win in any courts but I think it's about time that the issue is being raised there.

Both parties are equeal partners in cases of consensual sex (rape remains another ugly issue).

Under exsisting law the woman has her "choice" in determining whether or not she wishes to have the child or abort.

The male has NO 2nd option here - hence the case based on equeal application of the law.

If nothing else this case is getting discussion going on the issues of paternity and child support. Maybe a truely equitable system will come of it. I'm not holding my breath though...

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Remember, child support isn't something that is supposed to help the mother, it is supposed to help the child. It is, therefore, the child's right to financial support that we're talking about here. A woman simply cannot sign away her future child's rights -- they're not hers to sign away.

IMO, this issue is where the "grudge" comes in more than anywhere else. While child support isn't supposed to help the mother, in many, many cases, it does.

Most states have established "guidelines" that plug the mother's and father's incomes into a formula and out pops a magic number that each is expected to contribute towards the cost of raising the child. That number has no basis on the ACTUAL cost of rasiing the child though. If both parents have high incomes then the cost of raising the child skyrockets. If they both have low incomes the cost sinks to nothing. How can any state reasonably say that it costs $300/month to raise a kid in one case but it costs $3000/month to raise the kid next door?

Even establishing the numbers that are plugged into the formula aren't evenly enforced by the courts. The woman is often given the option of being a "stay at hoime mom" which means that her income drops to nothing so 100% of the child support figure comes from the father. Since no court will allow the child to go without housing, food, utilities, etc... the father ends up providing those for the mother as well as the child in these cases. When was the last time a father was given the option of not holding down a paying job?

And when was the last time a mother was told to have a job and pay her share of the child support by the end of the week or face going to jail? In my own case I was left with a 12 year old child and when I asked the judge why my ex wasn't required to pay child support I was told to suck it up and live with it. Not only didn't she have to pay child support - the judge required that the divorce decree include a statement saying that I was 100% responsible for paying for my daughter's college education. When did a college education become mandatory and what ever happened to kids paying all or a portion of it themselves?

The child support systems in this country are broken and need a few kicks like this case to shake things up.

0 Replies

Hmmm...here, I think, the "magic" formula is supposed to be based on the child achieving the standard of living approximating that it might have had had parents remained together. Hence the differential amounts depending on parental incomes.

I can't comment on your "have a job" thing....that certainly does not happen here, if you are on benefits, you do not pay. In fact, this means angry dads often leave their job, so they won't have to pay, and work in jobs for cash, in the employment black market.

Where dads have the care of the child, or the majority of it, an increasing circumstance here, mothers will be pursued just as aggressively to pay.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

The child support systems in this country are broken and need a few kicks...

Same with divorce.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Hmmm...here, I think, the "magic" formula is supposed to be based on the child achieving the standard of living approximating that it might have had had parents remained together. Hence the differential amounts depending on parental incomes.

That may very well be the case here too. The idea of a judge deciding what comforts a child might have had in life had their parents stayed together (if they had even been together for longer than an hour..) is what leads to the extreme subjectivness of the process and that causes a lot of the heartburn.

Quote:

Where dads have the care of the child, or the majority of it, an increasing circumstance here, mothers will be pursued just as aggressively to pay.

The number of father's raising their children is slowly rising here but there are very few cases where non-paying mothers are chased after. The courts don't seem to care.

Some interesting tidbits found on the web:
Mike Diehl, research & information coordinator, Austin Chapter, Texas Fathers for Equal Rights, has made an amazing study of 783 divorces which was published in approximately thirty Texas newspapers, and the Texas Bar Association Journal. Results of his study are:

- Of the 783 divorces surveyed, only 18.8% of fathers obtaining custody received an award of child support. No noncustodial mother was required to provide any other continuing service to her children analogous to her role function in an intact marriage.

- Ninety-six point eight percent (96.8%) of mothers obtaining sole custody received child support. Only one father in five (20%) received assistance and help from a former spouse, and over five times as many mothers as fathers received postdivorce help.

- The average monetary award to custodial mothers was $170 per child per month, with an average award of $253. This did not include direct cash payments; i.e., medical expenses, insurance, schooling, etc.

- The average monetary award to custodial fathers was eleven dollars per child per month, with an overall average of eighteen dollars per month.

- After three years of separation, over 80% of non-custodial fathers were in full compliance with the divorce decree orders. After one year, only 11.7% of noncustodial mothers were paying anything at all.

0 Replies

Let me make this as clear as possible.
In the lawsuit mentioned at the beginning,the facts are these...

She knew he didnt want kids
She told him she could not get pregnant
She ended up pregnant.

So,she lied to him.

She is on her own.She lied to get pregnant,she gets no help from him at all.

A man that wants a child has no say in the matter if a woman decides to abort,so since she wants the child and he doesnt,she gets no support from him.

His rights are just as important as hers,and if hers MMUST be protected,then so must his.

0 Replies

What would happen if the woman had been told by physicians she could not get pregnant, has the medical records to prove this, then did become pregnant?

Although not common, it does happen. This was the situation of a friend of mine. Her pregnancy was a complete surprise to both her and her husband. She had been told she was completely infertile by more than 1 doctor.

It took a lot for them to reconcile the fact they were now going to be parents, when they were told it was an impossibility.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

dlowan wrote:
Hmmm...here, I think, the "magic" formula is supposed to be based on the child achieving the standard of living approximating that it might have had had parents remained together. Hence the differential amounts depending on parental incomes.

That may very well be the case here too. The idea of a judge deciding what comforts a child might have had in life had their parents stayed together (if they had even been together for longer than an hour..) is what leads to the extreme subjectivness of the process and that causes a lot of the heartburn.

Quote:
Where dads have the care of the child, or the majority of it, an increasing circumstance here, mothers will be pursued just as aggressively to pay.

The number of father's raising their children is slowly rising here but there are very few cases where non-paying mothers are chased after. The courts don't seem to care.

Some interesting tidbits found on the web:
Mike Diehl, research & information coordinator, Austin Chapter, Texas Fathers for Equal Rights, has made an amazing study of 783 divorces which was published in approximately thirty Texas newspapers, and the Texas Bar Association Journal. Results of his study are:

- Of the 783 divorces surveyed, only 18.8% of fathers obtaining custody received an award of child support. No noncustodial mother was required to provide any other continuing service to her children analogous to her role function in an intact marriage.

- Ninety-six point eight percent (96.8%) of mothers obtaining sole custody received child support. Only one father in five (20%) received assistance and help from a former spouse, and over five times as many mothers as fathers received postdivorce help.

- The average monetary award to custodial mothers was $170 per child per month, with an average award of $253. This did not include direct cash payments; i.e., medical expenses, insurance, schooling, etc.

- The average monetary award to custodial fathers was eleven dollars per child per month, with an overall average of eighteen dollars per month.

- After three years of separation, over 80% of non-custodial fathers were in full compliance with the divorce decree orders. After one year, only 11.7% of noncustodial mothers were paying anything at all.

Wow!

Our system sucks, too....it is about to be revised (but - I bet it will still suck. Thing is, in this sort of area, unless reasonable adults can get together and make a reasonable decision themselves, with the wellbeing of any child at the centre of their hearts and minds, the state will, I think, ALWAYS be a blunt instrument, capable, at best, only of assisting to provide a least worst, rather than a best, solution) ...but the rules re payment are the same for parents, regardless of gender.

Cultural practices re gender decree that certain patterns will be observable in how the law works for the genders, but even this is changing.

And, MM, I have not read the whole thread, so I do not know the whole story...but while I agree the woman has no rights here, if the story as you present it is what happened, but I suspect what is being discussed are the CHILD'S rights. I do not know that having a horrible mother means the child should suffer more than it will do so by having at least one parent with no integrity.

As I said, I think this is one of those odd situations where men experience the pointy end of biology.

I guess the lesson is, use a phranger unless you have experience telling you that the woman you are having sex with is absolutely reliable, and you know you both have no diseases.

The woman caught at the business end of a man who lies and says he has had a vasectomy has no good options, either. Sometimes life sucks.

It is a TERRIBLE thing to do to a person...lie about the possibility of engendering a pregnancy.....and a form of abusive behaviour that is very serious, I believe.........but no kid asked to be involved in such crap.

0 Replies

Chai Tea wrote:

What would happen if the woman had been told by physicians she could not get pregnant, has the medical records to prove this, then did become pregnant?

Although not common, it does happen. This was the situation of a friend of mine. Her pregnancy was a complete surprise to both her and her husband. She had been told she was completely infertile by more than 1 doctor.

It took a lot for them to reconcile the fact they were now going to be parents, when they were told it was an impossibility.

That's an act of god, and adults simply have to cop it sweet, and make the best decision they can.

That's a no fault scenario!

Unless you take the view that you simply ALWAYS take other precautions, if you do not want to become pregnant. These stories are not that uncommon.

If I consent to sex, I consider I shoulder risks, biology is full of surprises.

0 Replies

In that case bunny, what would be the difference is the bc pills failed and a woman got pregnant?

would the man be responsible in both situations? either/neither?

0 Replies

Chai Tea wrote:

In that case bunny, what would be the difference is the bc pills failed and a woman got pregnant?

would the man be responsible in both situations? either/neither?

I take it that "is" is an "if"?

I see no difference.

No birth control method is perfect.

Both share responsibility.

Having sex is a risk, if you do not accept responsibility for the risk, don't have sex.

0 Replies

I have to agree with dlowan. Keep it in hand if you don't want the resposibility.

0 Replies

The main point in fairness
And you all are missing the problem with the current laws.

There are two different issues

1. Before a pregnancy happens.
I think everyone is in agreement. The man and the woman have equal responsibility to talk about the desire for children and to choose birth control.

All these silly ideas of pre-sex contracts are irrelevant becuase responsibility and choice before a woman gets pregnat is simple and understood by all.

Here's the problem, although before a pregnancy men and woman have equal responsibility and equal options (both can insist on birth control or keep their legs closed or whatever).

2. After a pregnancy happens

After a pregnancy happens (and remember the pregnancy is the responsibility of both) all of the power and decisions become the womans. This is simply unfair.

If the man wants the baby, and the woman doesn't... the woman can terminate the pregnancy-- even if the man is deeply opposed.

If the woman wants the baby and the man doesn't there isn't a thing the man can do. Not only is he forced to reproduce... he is also forced to be financially responsible even if he is deeply opposed to it.

Saying the pregnancy is man's fault and that he should be forced to take the consequences is hypocrisy
If a pregnancy happens is the fault of both a man and a woman. In a mistake... both are equally at fault.

Saying that the woman has to live with the consequences of her actions by being forced to become a parent is a Pro-Life position.

Why is saying that the man has to live with the consequence of his actions by being forced to become a parent somehow acceptable to the Pro-Choice camp?

0 Replies

Man Wants Say in Unplanned Pregnancy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know