What has happened to us?

[Sure]

So, you are asserting that women should lose their ability to put children up for adoption. That if they chose to carry the child to term they are obligated to raise it? Because that is in no way the current situation. It appears your assertion ignores the current situation and breaks from it, wishing for a complete overhaul in a different direction, but applies that wish unequally by opposing rights for men without actively campaigning for a reduction in women's rights.

Further, if you assert that parents have a duty to invest time, money, emotions, and so on into a child, I do not see how that does not work as an argument against abortion. Human or not how does a woman not have a similar absolute duty to the fetus if she has an absolute duty to the fetus's result?

And despite all this, the basic inequality that the woman has a choice and the man does not remains.

[meikle]

Wow, are you not even reading what I'm saying?

I'm not going to let you tell me what my argument is (hint: it's not that) and then defend the shit you're making up.

[Caela]

Nope.  Men should have rights to their anatomy, as well.

Both parents should be responsible to a child when it is born.  That the decision to carry a child to term comes down to the mother (remember, bodily autonomy) is just a function of anatomy and nature.

Any time a child is born out of a consensual sex act, that is a decision that a man had a hand in making.

Neither men nor women have the right to 'opt out' of caring for a child, except insofar as they might abandon the child at a hospital or put them up for adoption, which are cases in which both parents have the right to make a choice (and must make that decision in unison.)

*Bolded for emphasis added by me.

This is just patently untrue. Women have every right to opt out with no input from the man at all. They can abort or put a child up for adoption (in some places no paternal input is needed for the adoption) as well as things like abandoning them at a hospital or firestation or other designated "safe zone". If she ever tells him she was pregnant in the first place. A man might have had a hand in the conception of a child, but ALL the decisions surrounding it being born and kept, are the woman's to make and the man's to just sit back and deal with.

[Sure]

Wow, are you not even reading what I'm saying?

If you would be so kind, could you explain how I have misunderstood you rather than just asserting that I have misunderstood you? It will help me understand your points better.

And since you edited: what I said still applies to the first half of your post. The second half of your post:

That argument is quite similar to the argument against birth control that, by choosing to have sex, they forfeit their right to protect themselves from the consequences. This is bunk. How is your argument different?

Are you suggesting, therefore, that a man can choose to take care of a child and a woman can choose not to and then the woman should be subject to child care measures? As is, from my understanding, this is not how it works currently. In that case you are still depriving men of choice but you are equally depriving women of choice. I would say that's not ideal but it is equality.

[meikle]

Unless the father keeps the child from being left at a hospital.  Or interferes with the adoption proceedings.  Essentially, so long as the man asserts his rights as the father, they will be enforced.

Abortion is not opting out of the rights of a child.  Abortion is choosing to exercise your right to choose what you do with your own body.

Sure: Your points aren't well considered and are kind of senseless.  Unless you try harder, I'm not going to respond to you any further.

[Sure]

Sure: Your points aren't well considered and are kind of senseless.  Unless you try harder, I'm not going to respond to you any further.

Ah, I see you have nothing to say. Well, one can lead a camel to water but it can't make it drink.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well, the argument being made then is that a man has the right to make medical decisions for a woman.  Essentially a man, by virtue of impregnating a woman, has the right to make decisions regarding her medical care until such a time as the child is born.  Note, this is not always her husband or even necessarily her boyfriend making these decisions.  Her rapist could come forward and deny her access to an abortion even if the abortion is to save her life because by this argument he has just as much claim to the fetus.  Also note that legally there is no child until the second trimester because by law life does not begin at conception.  So legally the statement would be that the man has claim over the woman’s body because he impregnated her.  Do we want to go that route?

On the flip side, a woman can go to court and sue for child support.  Legally a person can sue anyone for anything.  A man can just as easily sue for child support.  There are obviously certain obligations that go with receiving child support such as supporting the child. Note a woman does not have a “right” to child support, but instead has a claim to child support.  If she is taking care of the child and providing proper care and shelter for the child then she has a claim to some assistance.  The man, in this case, is being held accountable for his actions in participating with this child’s conception.  Child support was not created to punish men but to help children.

[Sure]

Well, the argument being made then is that a man has the right to make medical decisions for a woman.  Essentially a man, by virtue of impregnating a woman, has the right to make decisions regarding her medical care until such a time as the child is born.  Note, this is not always her husband or even necessarily her boyfriend making these decisions.  Her rapist could come forward and deny her access to an abortion even if the abortion is to save her life because by this argument he has just as much claim to the fetus.  Also note that legally there is no child until the second trimester because by law life does not begin at conception.  So legally the statement would be that the man has claim over the woman’s body because he impregnated her.  Do we want to go that route?

As I said, I do not believe anyone here has made the claim that men should have such control. I believe that is a straw man. If you could point to where they have in this discussion, preferably a quote, I will denounce it.

On the flip side, a woman can go to court and sue for child support.  Legally a person can sue anyone for anything.  A man can just as easily sue for child support.  There are obviously certain obligations that go with receiving child support such as supporting the child. Note a woman does not have a “right” to child support, but instead has a claim to child support.  If she is taking care of the child and providing proper care and shelter for the child then she has a claim to some assistance.  The man, in this case, is being held accountable for his actions in participating with this child’s conception.  Child support was not created to punish men but to help children.

If children were the primary concern women would not have the right to give them up for adoption or abandon them at safe zones. Such places care for them much worse than anyone but a purposefully abusive woman could.

Further, because women have the option of putting up or surrendering the baby without the man's consent or even information men generally do not even have so little as the right to take a child which a woman has chosen to carry to term but does not want. If he does it is generally through adoption, and when a child is put up for adoption the mother loses liability. Because of this cocktail of rights a woman has but a man does not child support outside of divorce proceedings and the like is almost always a woman forcing a man to financially support her decision. Further, fathers who take care of their children born out of wedlock rarely have a right to child support.

And as I have said: The argument about men being held accountable is effectively the same argument used against abortion, adoption/abandonment options, and contraceptives: That by having sex a woman has accepted responsibility for what follows and must be forced to follow through. This is a bad argument, as I think you will agree, but I don't see how its different from what you're asserting. Or do you agree with it?

[Oniya]

If children were the primary concern women would not have the right to give them up for adoption or abandon them at safe zones. Such places care for them much worse than anyone but a purposefully abusive woman could.

Stats please?  The safe zones are generally at a hospital, or fire department (possibly churches - don't know if they still do that one), and are provided as an alternative to so-called 'dumpster babies'.

[CmdrRenegade]

Sure is correct in that there is a strawman here and also summed it up at the end of his post right above this one.  I did not say that women should be denied abortion or that a man has complete claim over a woman's body.  What I was saying is that many are in denial that an abortion has no impact whatsoever on the man who fathered the child.  Perhaps, a better solution can be found in artificial wombs as has been said, but that technology doesn't exist yet.  Caela is also completely correct.  Many jurisdictions do not require a woman to inform a man that she is pregnant at all.  Although there is difference in each state, legally, the child is only the man's in terms of providing monetary support.  In every other respect the child belongs to the mother and any objections by the father, despite how good or bad they might be, are automatically trumped by the mother's decision. 

Also look at these statistics

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/reasonsabortions.html

There's an obvious trend that most women who get abortions are getting them simply because they want to avoid motherhood for one reason or another.  Men don't have the same choice to avoid fatherhood.  Some food for thought.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

First I will give a short response to the comment regarding child safety.  The safe abandonment acts were created for the safety of the child.  Women, when under stress and feeling trapped, would abandon the children at random locations in the hopes that someone would find the child.  This law and practice was established so that a woman could safely give the child away to qualified workers that could tend to the baby and properly care for the child.  From there the child could go through the proper legal channels.  So in fact the child abandonment locations were setup specifically for the benefit of the child.  The Safe Haven Law is actually a massive step forward in child protection and welfare.

A woman has the ability to put a child up for adoption, but the father can also assert his parental rights to claim the child.  I do acknowledge that a father has to actively assert his paternity of the child by taking an active role in the care of the mother and the unborn child.  This is achieved through helping with medical bills, actively participating in the prenatal care and being there at the birth of the child.  From there a father can petition the courts to negate the adoption proceedings and care for the child himself.

http://adoption.about.com/cs/adoptionrights/a/unwedfath.htm

Do notice that the father, if he can be located and determined, has a right to be notified of adoption proceedings.  Ones that did not assert their paternity prior to the birth may actively look for the adoption proceedings and attempt to have them negated.  Meaning that a man that has had no involvement with the mother since conception may still petition the courts to block the adoption proceedings.  He may not win, but he certainly has the ability to try.

I also fail to see how a woman giving a child up for adoption or electing to have an abortion is somehow failing to take responsibility for their action.  Women are forced, regardless of the law, to take responsibility in some way, shape or form.  Men do not face such enforcement without legal intervention unless they desire to support the child.

Also, if a woman has a legal abortion that is often not enough time for medical problems in the mother to develop or be properly documented.  This is especially true if the woman is having her first child.

[Caela]

Well, the argument being made then is that a man has the right to make medical decisions for a woman.  Essentially a man, by virtue of impregnating a woman, has the right to make decisions regarding her medical care until such a time as the child is born.  Note, this is not always her husband or even necessarily her boyfriend making these decisions.  Her rapist could come forward and deny her access to an abortion even if the abortion is to save her life because by this argument he has just as much claim to the fetus.  Also note that legally there is no child until the second trimester because by law life does not begin at conception.  So legally the statement would be that the man has claim over the woman’s body because he impregnated her.  Do we want to go that route?

I've seen more of your writing and I can only think that this is deliberately obtuse. No one has argued that man should have the right to say that a woman HAS to carry a child to term. The argument has been that a man should have as much right to negate his responsibilities as a woman does. A man can't go get an abortion or put a child up for adoption but he should be able to say he's no more ready to be a father than a woman who chooses those option is to be a mother.

As it stands the system is incredibly unfair. A woman doesn't even need to tell a man he got her pregnant in the first place and she can abort or give the child up for adoption without his ever having a chance at stepping up to the plate but if she chooses to keep it he damned well better step up or he faces spending the next 18 years in and out of court if she wants to keep him there and he has no real recourse there either. She had sex just as surely as he did, but all the choices are hers (as some of them should be) and he just has to suck it up and deal. It's a system in which there is no fairness or equality as it stands.

[Sure]

Stats please?  The safe zones are generally at a hospital, or fire department (possibly churches - don't know if they still do that one), and are provided as an alternative to so-called 'dumpster babies'.

There is no statistical claim there, though I'm curious what sort of statistics you would want. How does one objectively measure 'worse'? That bad mothers are superior to such facilities is my opinion from personal experience with the infrastructure surrounding orphans and abandoned children. My apologies for any confusion, I probably should have couched that.

As to dumpster babies, something sticks in the craw about basically making the argument 'if you don't do it then people will start committing crimes!'. It seems like the proper way to deal with crime is to prevent it, not to appease people. But I understand the argument, and agree that is adequate justification for their existence. But I would argue that in no way detracts from my point that if children were the primary concern society would prefer to force women to not give them up rather than condoning it. Of course, the idea that society condones a woman's right to give up their child rather than raise it might simply be my point of view and one might believe adoption exists only as a mechanism to save children's lives.

First I will give a short response to the comment regarding child safety.  The safe abandonment acts were created for the safety of the child.  Women, when under stress and feeling trapped, would abandon the children at random locations in the hopes that someone would find the child.  This law and practice was established so that a woman could safely give the child away to qualified workers that could tend to the baby and properly care for the child.  From there the child could go through the proper legal channels.  So in fact the child abandonment locations were setup specifically for the benefit of the child.  The Safe Haven Law is actually a massive step forward in child protection and welfare.

A woman has the ability to put a child up for adoption, but the father can also assert his parental rights to claim the child.  I do acknowledge that a father has to actively assert his paternity of the child by taking an active role in the care of the mother and the unborn child.  This is achieved through helping with medical bills, actively participating in the prenatal care and being there at the birth of the child.  From there a father can petition the courts to negate the adoption proceedings and care for the child himself.

http://adoption.about.com/cs/adoptionrights/a/unwedfath.htm

Do notice that the father, if he can be located and determined, has a right to be notified of adoption proceedings.  Ones that did not assert their paternity prior to the birth may actively look for the adoption proceedings and attempt to have them negated.  Meaning that a man that has had no involvement with the mother since conception may still petition the courts to block the adoption proceedings.  He may not win, but he certainly has the ability to try.

This article begins with the following sentence:

An unwed father has no absolute right to veto an adoption, but must take action to preserve his right to veto an adoption.

It asserts that the father MIGHT get the child. The right to 'try' is in no way what we are talking about and at the very least less rights in a sphere where the woman has no biological argument to defend her: we are talking about an already born child the woman does not want. And yet the man only has a chance to get it while the woman would definitively get it. This is not equality.

Much of the rest is covered above, I think?

I also fail to see how a woman giving a child up for adoption or electing to have an abortion is somehow failing to take responsibility for their action.  Women are forced, regardless of the law, to take responsibility in some way, shape or form.  Men do not face such enforcement without legal intervention unless they desire to support the child.

Also, if a woman has a legal abortion that is often not enough time for medical problems in the mother to develop or be properly documented.  This is especially true if the woman is having her first child.

I'm not sure what the last sentence is supposed to mean. I do not deny abortion is a medical procedure or that a woman undergoes more biological stress. But I also do not see how that suffering gives her the right to force a man to support a decision of hers or force him to do anything with his consent. On top of that, I do not see how taking responsibility by abortion or putting the child up for adoption is legally different from signing away the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood. Biologically it is but the law should not be used to compensate women for their biological suffering, which is no less the man's 'fault' than the woman's, by giving them special rights and depriving men of their rights.

In other words, I do not track the argument: "I suffered biologically in having this child, therefore the law should force the man to impregnated me to help me financially to raise the child."

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The argument is that if a woman can give her child up for adoption or abortion, then a man is able to likewise abort his responsibilities.  I am merely showing, by that logic what would be required for a woman to enforce the man’s responsibilities.  So if a man can abort his responsibilities because a woman can abort hers, then if a woman is not allowed her right to privacy as per Roe v Wade then a man cannot relinquish his responsibilities.  There is no straw man here except to point out that the argument is there.  Consequences to decisions are often not foreseen by the people making the initial argument. 

For instance the consequence of forcing a woman to tell a man that she is pregnant.  First off, she may not know who the father is specifically.  That would require a physician to properly set the gestational age of the child.  Secondly, this is forcing a woman to give up her legal right to medical privacy.  Notice a woman does not even have to reveal her pregnancy to her parents if she is underage and they are her legal guardians.  Medical workers must, by federal law, respect a woman’s right to privacy.  People with STDs do not even have to notify people they slept with of the potential danger, but a woman must notify a man of pregnancy.  Is he then under any obligation to restrict that knowledge?  By law he is not which means the right to privacy does not truly exist.

Also, if you notice the article talks about the difference between an actively participating father and one that does not.  I am sorry if a man must actively demonstrate interest in the welfare of the mother of his child and of the child in order for the courts to consider that man's care to be in the best interest of the child.  According to the article the courts judge what is in the best interest of the child.  A man that shows up at the end of the proceedings after giving no money, time or effort to the birthing process with a sudden cry of, “I want my baby” is probably not in the best interest of the child.

Keep in mind that child support is not the mother's right, but the child's right.  The child has the right to support by both parents.

My last sentence was actually in reference to another poster that presented statistics.  Sorry for the confusion.

[meikle]

Ah, I see you have nothing to say. Well, one can lead a camel to water but it can't make it drink.

Sure, you said that my claim -- 'People should be held responsible for the consequences of their actions' -- is the same as claiming that people should not be allowed to attempt to avoid consequences.

I've got nothing to say to someone whose entire approach is misrepresenting my points.  It's intellectually dishonest at best and stupid at worst.

Now you can make a pithy remark (the same kind you accused me of making) and feel good about having the last word.

[Sure]

The argument is that if a woman can give her child up for adoption or abortion, then a man is able to likewise abort his responsibilities.  I am merely showing, by that logic what would be required for a woman to enforce the man’s responsibilities.  So if a man can abort his responsibilities because a woman can abort hers, then if a woman is not allowed her right to privacy as per Roe v Wade then a man cannot relinquish his responsibilities.  There is no straw man here except to point out that the argument is there.  Consequences to decisions are often not foreseen by the people making the initial argument. 

I would actually agree with this, if I understand it correctly: If woman cannot give up children then men shouldn't be allowed to either. But they can, Roe v Wade IS in effect last I checked as well as a few other options, while men generally can't. That's the issue.

For instance the consequence of forcing a woman to tell a man that she is pregnant.  First off, she may not know who the father is specifically.  That would require a physician to properly set the gestational age of the child.  Secondly, this is forcing a woman to give up her legal right to medical privacy.  Notice a woman does not even have to reveal her pregnancy to her parents if she is underage and they are her legal guardians.  Medical workers must, by federal law, respect a woman’s right to privacy.  People with STDs do not even have to notify people they slept with of the potential danger, but a woman must notify a man of pregnancy.  Is he then under any obligation to restrict that knowledge?  By law he is not which means the right to privacy does not truly exist.

While a a bit of a scummy thing to do, I would understand why women might want to keep it secret from the man. The caveat would be she can not then make the man who impregnated her responsible for her child. In other words, she deprives the man of his choice but foists no responsibilities or duties on him. In this case I know some people have implicitly made a contrary argument here, but between two imperfect options I could support the current situation in regards to not telling men if they could not later hit him for child support payments for a child he didn't know they had. If she wants to demand he be a father he at the very least owes him the knowledge that he is one, and to give him the option of saying 'no'.

Also, if you notice the article talks about the difference between an actively participating father and one that does not.  I am sorry if a man must actively demonstrate interest in the welfare of the mother of his child and of the child in order for the courts to consider that man's care to be in the best interest of the child.  According to the article the courts judge what is in the best interest of the child.  A man that shows up at the end of the proceedings after giving no money, time or effort to the birthing process with a sudden cry of, “I want my baby” is probably not in the best interest of the child.

The impartiality of the family courts is... questionable, in my opinion. And the issue is that women are presumed to have an active interest and don't have to prove it. So, yes, that is wrong. If there were a standard bar for both men and women which they could meet that would be a different issue, but we are effectively talking about men having perhaps a chance while women have a guarantee.

It's kind of a principle, reality thing: In principle I understand that any party should be forced to demonstrate their capability and what you're saying, but in reality it too often ends up working in a sexist way.

Keep in mind that child support is not the mother's right, but the child's right.  The child has the right to support by both parents.

Money that children have a right to is generally legally regulated, child support generally goes straight to the custodial parent. It's quite different. And there is no right to financial security or financial support in general, particularly not from other individuals. Why should this be a special case?

My last sentence was actually in reference to another poster that presented statistics.  Sorry for the confusion.

My apologies for the misreading as well.

Sure, you said that my claim -- 'People should be held responsible for the consequences of their actions' -- is the same as claiming that people should not be allowed to attempt to avoid consequences.

I've got nothing to say to someone whose entire approach is misrepresenting my points.  It's intellectually dishonest at best and stupid at worst.

Now you can make a pithy remark (the same kind you accused me of making) and feel good about having the last word.

I said that because you asserted that holding men responsible involved not allowing them to avoid the consequences of a child's existence. Is that a wrong interpretation? How so?

[Callie Del Noire]

UUmm.. for the longest time, pregnancy was about the most dangerous thing a woman could have happen to her. A LOT of women died in childbirth, as did children. A woman was more likely to die in childbirth than to pretty much anything else. So don't say it's not dangerous. Even now with modern medicine, it's not an easy task for a woman to undergo.  Is it easier than it was 100 years ago?Yes, but it's still not easy.  To dismiss it as not being dangerous is ignoring the millions of women who have died in childbirth related problems and the women even now that have problems with it.

Case in point.. my great-grandmother (who died like 12 years ago) told me once what it was like growing up in the 19th century (the tail end of it). She was one of 22 children in her family. (Lots of twins/triplets). Of the children her father had with his two wives (first one had like 8 and the 2nd had the rest) only FOUR survived and both her mother and step mother were considered LUCKY. It was very easy for a woman in the 1800s to die due to preganancy related issues that to us today would be considered stange to die of. We've, as a society, have gotten VERY good at tending to the issues of preganancy.

That being said, it's a very delicate condition and only an idiot assumes that everything is going right.

[Lilias]

Actually, maternal mortality was mostly due to complications in labour, not pregnancy itself. 'Childbed fever' (puerperal sepsis) was appallingly frequent before antibiotics and effective disinfectants - we're talking the 1920s at the earliest - and a C-section was tantamount to a death sentence before the combination of effective hygiene and blood transfusion made abdominal surgery relatively safe.

In the 19th century, childbirth was the cause of death of nearly 50% of women. We've come a long way, but not nearly enough.

[LustfulLord2011]

As a man who firmly believes in the value of traditional masculine mores, even I found this article to be ridiculous, misogynistic, and narrow minded. First off, the quoted statistics are things I could not find any reference to ANYWHERE else, even after a while of heavy net searching, so I am going to go out on a limb and say that the employment and income and divorce statistics presented by the author were either grossly misquoted or outright fabrications. Second, if we mourn the loss of traditional masculine values, well... that's OUR fault, as men. Women haven't taken anything from us, or demeaned us in any way... Well, except for some HORRIBLY abusive laws that I won't get into here because even thinking about it makes me sick... but even in that instance, it happened because we, as a nation, allowed it. Men shouldn't feel threatened by strong or successful women, either in actuality or in media portrayals. What they SHOULD do is either learn to appreciate those qualities in a woman (as I have), or strive to be even more strong and successful themselves (as I also have). My lover is physically my equal... she's as strong as I am, and can probably kick my ass in the cardio department (I have been a smoker for too many years). She is more successful than I am financially, as well, and has more formal education (though in terms of actual knowledge I believe I outstrip her). Rather than feeling emasculated by these facts, they push me to want to be a better man. This article is clearly written by someone who is afraid of and offended by modern women. His loss, not theirs.

[Callie Del Noire]

http://www.personhoodusa.com/

http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20111009/NEWS/110090349/Weighing-Personhood-Initiative-s-effects-could-profound

These people scare me in the openendedness of their proposal. It would essentially give the government the right to ban birth control in addition to abortions and would make ANY miscarriage a criminal investigation.

[Vekseid]

Considering 70% of pregnancies end in miscarriage...

[Callie Del Noire]

Considering 70% of pregnancies end in miscarriage...

And the number of 'dangerous practices/habits' that MIGHT induce a miscarriage. (Smoking, PAST smoking/drugs/drinking, ect). I find myself wondering how long it is before some poor woman is sent to jail for 'murder' because she smoked or worked around smokers (insert other vice as appropriate)

[LustfulLord2011]

Actually, in Utah, such legislation was already PASSED. It's scary. Miscarriage is traumatic enough for women, now they might risk going to jail over it? Have we completely lost our damned minds? I am still waiting for the day (soon, the scientists assure me) when a safe male chemical contraceptive is found... It adds another layer of protection, and also, because our bodies are less subject to inherent rhythm's than women's bodies, we could probably use birth control with less potential negative side effects as well.

[Oniya]

Or slipped in the tub, or on the ice and landed wrong.  I remember feeling clumsy once I passed the halfway point, and a face-plant isn't out of the question.

[LustfulLord2011]

The ignorance and unfairness of these kinds of laws just boggles the mind.