Interesting op-ed: A Man's Right to Choose

[kstar]

Originally posted by ktsnake
I agree, but if this were to be allowed, what other restrictions would you think would be permissible to place on women seeking abortions?

How about the case of a man wanting to compel a woman to have an abortion? What then?

What if he didn't want to have the kid and doesn't want to be on the hook for child support for the next 18 years?

The way I see it, there are always going to be inequities as long as women are the ones carrying the kids around for 9 months. The best way that I know to cure the inequity is to change the test for custody -- in other words, place the child with whichever parent is best able to care for them, and reject the premise that women are necessarily the better caregivers (an untrue stereotype).

We'd have a whole new ballgame if women who decided to carry the child to term against the wishes of the father would also have to face losing custody and ending up being stuck with the child support payments.

I know of one. Two friends were getting a divorce, because she stopped taking her pills and oopsed her then husband. He tried to convince her to have an abortion, since it was in their prenup that there would be NO KIDS. Since she had the "baby rabies" she refused. He signed away his parental rights, and refused child support.

After the divorce, he got a high paying (6 figure) job at Xerox.

She's stuck raising a brat on welfare.

[Kevin]

It couldn't have happened the other way.. If he had switched her birth control with placebos and got her prego, she could have easily opted for the abortion.

As far as the pre-nup, an agreement not to have children? I'd be surprised if that held up in court.

But she did do the right thing in allowing him to sign away the parental rights. Few women would do that in my experience. Most are interested in getting the child support.

[kstar]

Originally posted by ktsnake
It couldn't have happened the other way.. If he had switched her birth control with placebos and got her prego, she could have easily opted for the abortion.

As far as the pre-nup, an agreement not to have children? I'd be surprised if that held up in court.

But she did do the right thing in allowing him to sign away the parental rights. Few women would do that in my experience. Most are interested in getting the child support.

Oh, no, she fought not getting child support and his waiver of parental rights, she also fought the divorce, saying that "He'll grow to love a baby."

A pre-nup is a contract, just like any other. Having a baby clause in the pre-nup is just like having an affair clause.

And I misread your post for some reason, I thought you were looking for a male that didn't want children.

And yes, it isn't fair that if the man was the one with the baby rabies, the woman could easily resolve her condition. I believe that since a man doesn't have the option of forcing an abortion, he should always have the right to forgo custody, and in forgoing custody, he shouldn't have to pay.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by kstar
Oh, no, she fought not getting child support and his waiver of parental rights, she also fought the divorce, saying that "He'll grow to love a baby."

A pre-nup is a contract, just like any other. Having a baby clause in the pre-nup is just like having an affair clause.

And I misread your post for some reason, I thought you were looking for a male that didn't want children.

And yes, it isn't fair that if the man was the one with the baby rabies, the woman could easily resolve her condition. I believe that since a man doesn't have the option of forcing an abortion, he should always have the right to forgo custody, and in forgoing custody, he shouldn't have to pay.

It's good that you agree that men should have that right, but it's not enough. We demand payment for our semen.

-Rudey

[irishpipes]

Originally posted by kstar
I know of one. Two friends were getting a divorce, because she stopped taking her pills and oopsed her then husband. He tried to convince her to have an abortion, since it was in their prenup that there would be NO KIDS. Since she had the "baby rabies" she refused. He signed away his parental rights, and refused child support.

After the divorce, he got a high paying (6 figure) job at Xerox.

She's stuck raising a brat on welfare.

As a mother, I find your word choice revolting. I am not supporting this woman's decision to trick her husband, but a woman wanting a baby does not constitute "rabies." Furthermore, I think she is raising a child, not a brat. I won't even go into to the welfare part.

[kstar]

Originally posted by irishpipes
As a mother, I find your word choice revolting. I am not supporting this woman's decision to trick her husband, but a woman wanting a baby does not constitute "rabies." Furthermore, I think she is raising a child, not a brat. I won't even go into to the welfare part.

No, her child IS a brat. It is by far the most obnoxious child I have ever met.

And most mothers don't get "baby rabies." The term is referring to when a person has the overwhelming desire to breed, we're not talking someone's biological clock went off, not talking about someone just wanting to have a baby, but talking about someone who wants a baby come hell or high water and will not stop until they have one. It's almost like they have an obsession.

She chose the welfare life, unlike most people who need welfare, and she's proud of it. She says things to the effect of, "well, it's not like I have to pay for it, the taxpayers do."

[kstar]

Originally posted by Rudey
It's good that you agree that men should have that right, but it's not enough. We demand payment for our semen.

-Rudey

Sure Rudey.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by kstar
Oh, no, she fought not getting child support and his waiver of parental rights, she also fought the divorce, saying that "He'll grow to love a baby."

LOL

Originally posted by kstar
A pre-nup is a contract, just like any other. Having a baby clause in the pre-nup is just like having an affair clause.

Like Ron Burgundy, we'll have to agree to disagree - but in fact I'd guess case law disagrees. Can you see why?

Originally posted by kstar
And yes, it isn't fair that if the man was the one with the baby rabies, the woman could easily resolve her condition. I believe that since a man doesn't have the option of forcing an abortion, he should always have the right to forgo custody, and in forgoing custody, he shouldn't have to pay.

Even I don't agree, and I hate the current child support system more than almost anything.

[adpiucf]

A man does not get to choose unless he can carry the baby inside his body and give birth to it. Why should a woman be saddled with his choice for 9 months and have to make concessions that will effect her body for years to come?

I think if a woman gets pregnant, it should be her decision whether or not to carry to term. If a man wants a baby, go hire a surrogate. The changes in your body, the careful monitoring of lifestyle and diet, the doctor's visits, changes in your routine, the pain and healing... just so a man can have a choice? What does he do for the next 9 months while the woman's body and lifestyle go through hell?

A woman's biological purpose is to breed, but God also gave us free will. Not for me, thanks very much. Sorry if I sound selfish, but marriage, pregnancy, babies and child rearing sounds about as appealing as being covered in leeches.

[AlphaFrog]

I'm sorry. I missed the part where preganacy is a random act, with no cause to it's onset. It's like cancer, we don't know what the cause of it is, so there's no way to prevent it. So if you just happen to get the pregnancy disease, there's a cure for it, so you can have it taken care of.

I'm sorry, can you tell I'm pro-choice:
You have the choice to have sex.
You have the choice to make him wrap it up or say no.
You have the choice to take the Pill.
You have the choice to participate in the other 100 methods of BC.
(I realize that nothing is 100% effective, but no one made you take that risk)

Yes, I am a woman, and I believe that a father should have the choice NOT to have his baby killed. But then again, I don't think the mother should have a choice TO have her baby killed. Your choice ended when you CHOSE to have sex.

ETA: Ready for flames, you won't bother me.

[Peaches-n-Cream]

I thought that child support was the child's right, not the parent's, and the parent cannot waive that right.

I think it's pretty awful that a parent wouldn't want to support his or her own child and allow that child to live on welfare while earning a six figure salary. I have seen plenty of dead beat parents so I'm not just talking about kstar's friend. I had friends whose father chose not to support them. After over a decade of hiding assets and income, he was forced to pay the back child support. The children were out of college for which he did not pay.

I'm also not just talking about fathers. I also know a man whose child decided to live with him, and the mother never paid a dime of child support. When the child resided with the mother, he paid 17% of his income each week. When the situation changed, the mother did nothing for their child financially. I found both cases disgusting mainly because it is the child who suffers.

In NY a parent must pay a percentage of income for child support. It's 17% for the first child and a sliding scale for the rest. Also in New York if a parent doesn't pay court ordered child support, he or she can be arrested and go to jail. I'm not sure how it works in other places.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by adpiucf
A man does not get to choose unless he can carry the baby inside his body and give birth to it. Why should a woman be saddled with his choice for 9 months and have to make concessions that will effect her body for years to come?

I think if a woman gets pregnant, it should be her decision whether or not to carry to term. If a man wants a baby, go hire a surrogate. The changes in your body, the careful monitoring of lifestyle and diet, the doctor's visits, changes in your routine, the pain and healing... just so a man can have a choice? What does he do for the next 9 months while the woman's body and lifestyle go through hell?

I agree completely with you. Surely you'll also agree, then, that this right and responsibility should allow the man to relinquish his rights to the child, just as the woman can terminate the pregnancy, no?

I mean, why should a man be saddled with her choice for the next 216 months, and have to make concessions that will affect his livelihood, his ability to work, and limit is opportunities in nearly every area of his life for years to come?

I realize the argument is extreme, but true feminism is based in equality - so let's discuss equality, not some bizarrely nominal notion of self-importance or 'fairness' rooted in inconvenience.

[Peaches-n-Cream]

Originally posted by AlphaFrog
I'm sorry. I missed the part where preganacy is a random act, with no cause to it's onset. It's like cancer, we don't know what the cause of it is, so there's no way to prevent it. So if you just happen to get the pregnancy disease, there's a cure for it, so you can have it taken care of.

I'm sorry, can you tell I'm pro-choice:
You have the choice to have sex.
You have the choice to make him wrap it up or say no.
You have the choice to take the Pill.
You have the choice to participate in the other 100 methods of BC.
(I realize that nothing is 100% effective, but no one made you take that risk)

Yes, I am a woman, and I believe that a father should have the choice NOT to have his baby killed. But then again, I don't think the mother should have a choice TO have her baby killed. Your choice ended when you CHOSE to have sex.

ETA: Ready for flames, you won't bother me.

I'm not flaming, just clarifying. You wrote that you are pro-choice, but you think a woman should not have a choice to have an abortion. Wouldn't that make you pro-life and anti-abortion?

[AlphaFrog]

Originally posted by KSig RC
I agree completely with you. Surely you'll also agree, then, that this right and responsibility should allow the man to relinquish his rights to the child, just as the woman can terminate the pregnancy, no?

I mean, why should a man be saddled with her choice for the next 216 months, and have to make concessions that will affect his livelihood, his ability to work, and limit is opportunities in nearly every area of his life for years to come?

I realize the argument is extreme, but true feminism is based in equality - so let's discuss equality, not some bizarrely nominal notion of self-importance or 'fairness' rooted in inconvenience.

Damn, I have to agree with you. Well said.

[33girl]

Here's a wild idea.

What if the guy wants the kid and the woman doesn't - could they take the fertilized egg out of the pregnant woman and put it in a surrogate (found and paid for by the guy of course)? Would that work?

I'm serious - is this medically possible?