advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
Interesting-- just on ABC News WNT: "Roe v. Wade for Men"
Posted by: PeterB
Date: March 09, 2006 06:10PM
[abcnews.go.com]

Video here: [abcnews.go.com]

... on first blush, it seems pretty easy to dismiss this. But thinking about it a bit more, I'm considering the following hypothetical scenarios:

1) This is most similar to the above story. Say a man makes clear to a woman that he does not want to be a father, and she makes clear to him she doesn't want to be a mother; and the man, the woman, or both take precautions to not become parents. Then unwanted pregnancy occurs. Woman intentionally doesn't inform man about pregnancy until it is too late to terminate, thereby making him a parent against his will. So, a woman can decide whether or not to be a parent, but a man cannot? Traditional thought is that a man must "take responsibility" for fathering children, even if by accident or against his will; yet, we do not equivalently force women to "take responsibility" for rape. (Well, except for those who believe that abortion should not be permitted, even in cases of rape... but they are a fringe minority, I would say.)

2) Say a man and woman decide to do in vitro due to infertility problems with either partner. Embryos are frozen. Later on, one or other parent decides NOT to be a parent, and destroys the embryos, thereby either preventing parenthood of the other partner (without their going through the whole in vitro process again), or making the choice themselves to not be a parent, or both.

3) Man and woman are in relationship, woman saves sperm (through one means or another). Later uses sperm to impregnate self, without knowledge or consent of man. (Seems farfetched, yet stories persist on this one-- a recent Law and Order episode had a woman save a condom post-intercourse, for later use.)

4) Man donates sperm, under condition that anonymity be preserved. Years later, mother or children track down biological father, either for medical or personal reasons, or both. Is he responsible for his children? (This one has come up in real life, in the media recently.)




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Interesting-- just on ABC News WNT: "Roe v. Wade for Men"
Posted by: Seacrest
Date: March 09, 2006 06:23PM
If he doesn't want a child, he can always be intimate with his hand.

Or use a condom. It's still HIS responsibility to put it on.

No matter what, there's always a risk of procreation during copulation, and every man knows that, er, going in.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Interesting-- just on ABC News WNT: "Roe v. Wade for Men"
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 09, 2006 06:25PM
Vasectomies have a good rate of reversal. Preemptive action may be necessary for the man that is sure he doesn't want to have children.

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Interesting-- just on ABC News WNT: "Roe v. Wade for Men"
Posted by: PeterB
Date: March 09, 2006 06:33PM
Seacrest and Refurb, there are problems:

1) No condom is ever 100%

2) No vasectomy is ever 100%

... it's easy enough to say, as a man, "use a condom". That's just plain good sense. The problem is, no birth control method is ever 100%... even vasectomies and tubal ligations can still result in pregnancies. And in a case where a man has expressly chosen NOT to be a father, I'm not sure that he should be coerced into it.

Also, I do realize that in most cases, the pregnancy will be looked upon as a "happy accident", but... in a case where a man (or a woman!) doesn't want to become pregnant, why should we force them to? (Strange to say that a man might "become pregnant", but we ARE encouraging men, as part of a couple, to consider themselves as being part of the pregnancy, aren't we?)

I'm also keenly aware that it *is* the woman's body, not the man's -- but we're not talking about the pregnancy per se (once the pregnancy is there, then you have another whole set of issues)-- we're talking about the original decision of whether or not to become a parent, which would seem to be a fundamental human right regardless of gender.

I'm also wondering if we as a society have still not quite gotten it through our heads that biology doesn't necessarily determine parentage-- for example, a sperm or egg donor do not a parent make. And then there is the issue of adoption...

P.S. ... of course, there is always the hand option-- but there is still the possibility of misuse of sperm, under the right conditions.




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2006 06:41PM by PeterB.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Interesting-- just on ABC News WNT: "Roe v. Wade for Men"
Posted by: Seacrest
Date: March 09, 2006 06:53PM
My point was not that condoms are a 100% guarantee of anything. But it is his responsibility to insist on at least using it -- no matter what the woman says.

My larger point was that if he wants sex, he has to accept the risk that the result could be a living, breathing human being -- for which he will have some sort of responsibility.

If he can't accept that risk, then he should defer pleasure until he's more receptive to it.

Yes, I am fully aware that that's never going to happen.

Frankly, this is an issue of trust between him and the woman he was with. She says one thing, then goes and does another, and I don't feel that's right.

But when it comes down to making policy based on this phenomenon, my instinct is to err on the side of his personal responsibility. Enough men in this country already shirk their fatherly obligations, I don't think we need to open the door to more of them.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Interesting-- just on ABC News WNT: "Roe v. Wade for Men"
Posted by: PeterB
Date: March 09, 2006 08:01PM
Seacrest, there's a logical problem with the argument. If you believe that having sex means automatically consenting to the possibility of becoming a father, then that leads to two interesting conclusions:

1) When a woman has sex, she is also consenting to the possibility of becoming a mother. Obviously, this isn't true-- especially in cases of rape.

2) There are cases of men becoming "fathers" through means other than sex, e.g., sperm donation, "theft" of semen, etc. So in cases of this sort, the man never consented to the sex, which according to your argument, leads to automatic consenting to the possibility of fatherhood.

More, interesting reading of the issues at play here: [writ.news.findlaw.com]




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Interesting-- just on ABC News WNT: "Roe v. Wade for Men"
Posted by: MacMagus
Date: March 10, 2006 05:46AM
'Interesting case in the UK recently where laws forbid one party from using frozen embryos for in vitro fertilization without the permission of the other donor.

A man has successfully defended his right to have the zygotes destroyed where his ex wants to use them. She's appealing for the second time to the European Court of Human Rights.

If she is successful, UK law makes him responsible for the resulting kids.

[today.reuters.co.uk]

Two items of note in the next article: The EU lets individual nations decide under their own laws as to when life begins and unlike the US, UK law says that embryos do not have rights.

[www.kaisernetwork.org]

In the US, both state and federal laws give several rights to embryos. An assault on a pregnant woman is now considered an assault on her unborn child under federal law and the laws of several states and a violent act that results in the death of an unborn child is often punishable as murder.
[en.wikipedia.org]
[www.nrlc.org]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Interesting-- just on ABC News WNT: "Roe v. Wade for Men"
Posted by: Gutenberg
Date: March 10, 2006 08:41AM
Vasectomy is nearly foolproof. There's about 1 in 400 chance of pregnancy soon after the vasectomy, generally because the man had unprotected sex too soon after. The chances of pregnancy long after vasectomy are about 0,1 percent. There was one documented case in the UK that I found.

Condoms are riskier. There's about a 2 percent chance of the condom tearing or leaking.

Passing a law to let all men off the hook for an unwanted pregnancy is ridiculous given the above odds. A man has plenty of options to avoid getting a woman pregnant.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Interesting-- just on ABC News WNT: "Roe v. Wade for Men"
Posted by: Seacrest
Date: March 10, 2006 10:48AM
PeterB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 1) When a woman has sex, she is also consenting to
> the possibility of becoming a mother. Obviously,
> this isn't true-- especially in cases of rape.

Rape is not consenting to have sex.
That's why there are (hopefully, still) abortions.

Women have the burden of carrying the babies, men don't.
That's why there's a double standard.
That's also why men (in general) have to work harder to get laid.winking smiley This is all thanks to evolution.

>
> 2) There are cases of men becoming "fathers"
> through means other than sex, e.g., sperm
> donation, "theft" of semen, etc. So in cases of
> this sort, the man never consented to the sex,
> which according to your argument, leads to
> automatic consenting to the possibility of
> fatherhood.

The responsibility for babies created in the lab should rest solely with the people who decide to create the babies. If some couple decides to obtain children through these means, then they (and their families) need to be held to their obligations. The sperm donor should be out of it, with neither rights nor responsibilities.

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Interesting-- just on ABC News WNT: "Roe v. Wade for Men"
Posted by: Seacrest
Date: March 10, 2006 10:50AM
Gutenberg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A man has plenty of options to avoid getting
> a woman pregnant.


Tell me about it.
In my case it usually takes the form of a drink thrown in my face.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Interesting-- just on ABC News WNT: "Roe v. Wade for Men"
Posted by: PeterB
Date: March 10, 2006 12:17PM
Gutenberg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vasectomy is nearly foolproof. There's about 1 in
> 400 chance of pregnancy soon after the vasectomy,
> generally because the man had unprotected sex too
> soon after. The chances of pregnancy long after
> vasectomy are about 0,1 percent. There was one
> documented case in the UK that I found.

0.1% is NOT insignificant -- 1 in 1000 ? That's actually quite high, if you think about it... and there are several documented cases in the U.S., so I'm not sure that the UK is a good indicator.

> Condoms are riskier. There's about a 2 percent
> chance of the condom tearing or leaking.

Interesting, where did you get this number? I would have suspected it's quite a bit higher, which again is very relevant, because if a man wishes to use a condom as a way to prevent becoming a father, and the risk is so high, that is obviously something he would want to know.

> Passing a law to let all men off the hook for an
> unwanted pregnancy is ridiculous given the above
> odds. A man has plenty of options to avoid getting
> a woman pregnant.

True, but that's not the issue. The point is that, if a man chooses not to be a father, he ought to be able to make that choice, and not be coerced into it. I would agree that women have lots of options to avoid getting pregnant; my point is that, for men, the choices are actually a lot more limited (abstinence, condoms, vasectomy, that's about it? and all of those have their problems). Hopefully that will change soon... my point is that I think there should be equality in the ability to make one's own reproductive choices (see below).

Seacrest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rape is not consenting to have sex.
> That's why there are (hopefully, still)
> abortions.

I never said rape was consenting to sex. I said that the argument that "if you have sex (by whatever route, rape or consensual), you are thereby consenting to potential parenthood" is inherently fallacious, because I don't think that a woman having sex is automatically consenting to potential motherhood.

> Women have the burden of carrying the babies, men
> don't.
> That's why there's a double standard.

True, but again we're talking PRE-pregnancy here. I'm trying to make a separate argument for the right of the individual (male or female) to make their own reproductive choices, which again I think is a basic human right.

> That's also why men (in general) have to work
> harder to get laid.winking smiley This is all thanks to
> evolution.

Right, but the "evolution" argument is also again inherently problematic, as we've done lots over time to "jump over" evolution... for example, in vitro fertilization, medicines and surgeries to cure terminal diseases, artificial enhancements to our bodies to make ourselves more attractive to the opposite gender, etc.

> The responsibility for babies created in the lab
> should rest solely with the people who decide to
> create the babies.

Ah, but THERE is the rub (pun intended). Suppose one person intended to create the baby, and the other didn't? That's what I'm trying to focus on here. By definition, if a man has sex with a woman against her will, that's rape. If a woman either forces a man to have sex against his will, or to become a parent either against his will or unwittingly, what is that? The laws have ruled that arousal does not imply consent. And if a woman makes a man a father without his knowledge or consent, then even though he did not consent to procreate, he will still be held responsible for care of the children thus created, under the current laws (since they are his, biologically). Read the article in the link I gave above-- she gives a couple of scenarios of this sort.

If some couple decides to
> obtain children through these means, then they
> (and their families) need to be held to their
> obligations. The sperm donor should be out of it,
> with neither rights nor responsibilities.

Again, there's the problem. The courts have still held that biological parentage IS parentage, which means that the sperm donor is NOT out of it. He may be responsible for his biological children, as incredible as that is. Recent cases where the mother or children have "looked up" the sperm donor (which is supposed to be confidential, but has turned out not always to be) have raised this issue:

[news.bbc.co.uk]
[news.bbc.co.uk]
[www.post-gazette.com]
[www.cbsnews.com]




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2006 12:20PM by PeterB.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Interesting-- just on ABC News WNT: "Roe v. Wade for Men"
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 10, 2006 12:43PM
So... how "late" is your girlfriend, Peter?
:-)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Interesting-- just on ABC News WNT: "Roe v. Wade for Men"
Posted by: PeterB
Date: March 10, 2006 12:59PM
Refurb, it's not a personal argument that I'm making winking smiley

However, I have heard of guys in that particular situation before, and it obviously becomes a messy problem. Obviously, no birth control method is 100%, other than abstinence.

My major point is that I think that men and women, both, should have control over their own reproductive choices. I do know a "pill" for men is in the works... personally, I would have not considered using such a thing, but after reading all of the above, I have to say that it's completely changed my mind. Also, that I would never personally choose to become a sperm donor, after having read the above.




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Interesting-- just on ABC News WNT: "Roe v. Wade for Men"
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 10, 2006 01:04PM
This is why I always use radial condoms with at least two steel belts and make the woman sign a notarized release, witnessed by two or more reputable citizens.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Interesting-- just on ABC News WNT: "Roe v. Wade for Men"
Posted by: Seacrest
Date: March 10, 2006 01:15PM
Peter, men DO have control over their reproductive choices.
It's called keeping it in your pants.
And if you decide NOT to (which most guys will), realize that there is ALWAYS the risk of pregnancy occuring regardless of external factors. "She said she was on the pill. HONEST," just doesn't cut it.

I'm going to leave the question of a woman raping a man out of the discussion for now because, frankly, it does not happen all that often.

In the case of the more 'scientific' methods of creating life, then I think some of the laws are wrong and should be changed.
A sperm donor to me is akin to a contractor.
Once the house is built, he doesn't get to come live in it, nor should he be forced to make mortgage payments 18 years into it.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Interesting-- just on ABC News WNT: "Roe v. Wade for Men"
Posted by: MacMagus
Date: March 10, 2006 01:27PM
> "She said she was on the pill. HONEST," just doesn't cut it.

Why not?

It's a commonlaw crime called fraud in the inducement.

If anything absolves a person of responsibility for the insemination, one might reasonably think that fraud was sufficient.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Interesting-- just on ABC News WNT: "Roe v. Wade for Men"
Posted by: PeterB
Date: March 10, 2006 02:00PM
Seacrest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Peter, men DO have control over their reproductive
> choices.
> It's called keeping it in your pants.

True. However, this now gets into the area of gender politics.

What would a woman say about a man who, when she wants to become intimate with him, responds with: "Sorry, honey, but I don't want even the possibility of becoming a father." She will likely respond to him in one of three possible ways:

1) Amazement and/or astonishment, followed by disgust

2) Distrust, since it implies that he doesn't trust her to properly use birth control, which though as we've stated is not 100%, is pretty close in the female's case

3) Going elsewhere to get her needs met

Interesting, isn't it? The double-standard works in ALL ways.

> And if you decide NOT to (which most guys will),
> realize that there is ALWAYS the risk of pregnancy
> occuring regardless of external factors. "She said
> she was on the pill. HONEST," just doesn't cut
> it.

No, that's my point too. We men do have to take responsibility for birth control-- in fact, the words "birth control" itself... "control"... who has the "control" here? Right now, it's mostly the women, unless the man either chooses to abstain (see above), get a vasectomy (still not 100%, though admittedly it's close), or use a condom (nowhere near 100%, as far as I'm concerned). We men need more control and to take more responsibility over our own reproduction... that's what I'm trying to say. That view actually puts me in the same league as some feminists, who have been arguing the same thing for women for years. (I am also a firm believer in women having control over their own reproduction-- nobody should be forcing a woman to be a mother!)

> I'm going to leave the question of a woman raping
> a man out of the discussion for now because,
> frankly, it does not happen all that often.

Actually, we have no good idea of what frequency this occurs. Male rape is vastly underreported, even more than female rape, because men in general want to be "macho" and not seen as victims.

> In the case of the more 'scientific' methods of
> creating life, then I think some of the laws are
> wrong and should be changed.

Agreed. In my mind it comes back to the issue of what is parentage? Does being a sperm or egg donor make you a parent?

> A sperm donor to me is akin to a contractor.
> Once the house is built, he doesn't get to come
> live in it, nor should he be forced to make
> mortgage payments 18 years into it.

Well, but the law does not agree with you there. Forgetting about sperm donation for the time being. Suppose the following scenario occurs, which would be far more common. Man and woman have consensual sex; man does not desire fatherhood-- woman may or may not desire motherhood. Woman gets pregnant, does not tell man. Has child, raises child on her own without the child being aware of his or her father, nor of the father being aware of the child. Sometime down the line, either the father learns of the child, the converse, or both. Despite the fact that the father did not want children, and was not even aware of having been a father (and misled about his own fatherhood), he is still legally and financially obligated to care for the child, because of biological "parentage".




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2006 02:00PM by PeterB.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Interesting-- just on ABC News WNT: "Roe v. Wade for Men"
Posted by: Gutenberg
Date: March 10, 2006 02:26PM
All right, Peter, draw up a legal document that absolves you from any financial responsibility should she become pregnant, and have her sign it before you have sex. You could probably have a roommate or someone witness the document. To keep it current you would probably have to have her sign it each time you copulate, assuming there is a second time.

Then you are off the hook, and all is ducky.

The legal document is the best contraceptive I can think of.

It seems like there is a lot of fuss and bother and worry about whether the woman is putting one over on the man, and no one is considering the kid. The kid's the one with no choice whatsoever in this matter.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2006 02:43PM by Gutenberg.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Interesting-- just on ABC News WNT: "Roe v. Wade for Men"
Posted by: PeterB
Date: March 10, 2006 03:53PM
Gutenberg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All right, Peter, draw up a legal document that
> absolves you from any financial responsibility
> should she become pregnant, and have her sign it
> before you have sex. You could probably have a
> roommate or someone witness the document. To keep
> it current you would probably have to have her
> sign it each time you copulate, assuming there is
> a second time.

Gutie, you're making my points.

1) There wouldn't be a second time. winking smiley

2) The legal contract you've described would not hold up in court, because it is in conflict with currently existing laws which make a man responsible for his biological children. Any contract which conflicts with the laws cannot be enforced.

3) There wouldn't likely be a first time, either winking smiley

> Then you are off the hook, and all is ducky.

Nope, I'm not, see above. And leave the ducky out of it! :-)

> The legal document is the best contraceptive I can
> think of.

Well, yes, because it would be promoting abstinence! And we all know how well that works. <smirk>

> It seems like there is a lot of fuss and bother
> and worry about whether the woman is putting one
> over on the man,

No, here you've missed my point. I'm not even necessarily arguing that, I'm arguing that a guy should be able to have control over his own reproductive choices, just as a woman does. Unfortunately, right now, his choices are pretty limited, I think. (Or, they're at least more limited than those a woman has... the three choices of abstinence, condoms, or vasectomy are pretty limiting... it seems it's either "don't have sex" or "lose your fertility" for men, without much in between.)

and no one is considering the
> kid. The kid's the one with no choice whatsoever
> in this matter.

True, but that's again not my point. I am not considering the kid in this discussion. I'm considering PRE-pregnancy as a separate issue for the sake of discussion. POST-pregnancy, that's unfortunately a different situation entirely-- because then you're right, there's a third party (the kid) involved.

Also, I think you think that I'm condoning a lack of male responsibility. I'm not (in fact, quite the opposite)... I'm saying that if you are going to be responsible for something, you should get a say in it, and the converse. If you had no say in your own reproductive choices, why should you be responsible for them?




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Interesting-- just on ABC News WNT: "Roe v. Wade for Men"
Posted by: dmann
Date: March 10, 2006 05:26PM
Not sure why I want to join in here, but here is my opinion:

I am a single female. At this point, I do not want to become pregnant and take precautions to help assure that does not happen. If I should become pregnant, I have the choice to continue my pregnancy or not. Of course, my decision would be strongly influenced by my relationship with that particular man. My ethical dilemma will be put aside for this discussion.

If I am not married to the man who impregnated me and he wants to be a father and I do not want to be a mother, nor do I want to carry a child to term and let him raise the child without me, I can terminate the pregnancy and there is not a whole lot the man can do about it.

If I am not married to the man who impregnanted me and he does NOT want to be a father but I have decided I do want to be a mother and plan to carry the child to term and raise it, there is not a whole lot the man can do about it.

Really, both of the above situations seem very wrong to me.

Yes, being sexually active carries risks no matter which precautions are taken. That said, the only person punished is the child if one of the parents is doing so under forced circumstances.

I would feel very uncomfortable forcing a guy, who I am not married to, to pay child support for at least 18 years based on a decision that I made for my own reasons. Yes, it takes 2 to "tango" but "tangoing" and being a parent are two TOTALLY different things and punishing someone for the first by forcing them to be the latter makes no sense to me.

DM

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Interesting-- just on ABC News WNT: "Roe v. Wade for Men"
Posted by: PeterB
Date: March 10, 2006 05:47PM
dmann Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not sure why I want to join in here, but here is
> my opinion:
>
> I am a single female. At this point, I do not want
> to become pregnant and take precautions to help
> assure that does not happen. If I should become
> pregnant, I have the choice to continue my
> pregnancy or not. Of course, my decision would be
> strongly influenced by my relationship with that
> particular man. My ethical dilemma will be put
> aside for this discussion.
>
> If I am not married to the man who impregnated me
> and he wants to be a father and I do not want to
> be a mother, nor do I want to carry a child to
> term and let him raise the child without me, I can
> terminate the pregnancy and there is not a whole
> lot the man can do about it.
>
> If I am not married to the man who impregnanted me
> and he does NOT want to be a father but I have
> decided I do want to be a mother and plan to carry
> the child to term and raise it, there is not a
> whole lot the man can do about it.
>
> Really, both of the above situations seem very
> wrong to me.
>
> Yes, being sexually active carries risks no matter
> which precautions are taken. That said, the only
> person punished is the child if one of the parents
> is doing so under forced circumstances.
>
> I would feel very uncomfortable forcing a guy, who
> I am not married to, to pay child support for at
> least 18 years based on a decision that I made for
> my own reasons. Yes, it takes 2 to "tango" but
> "tangoing" and being a parent are two TOTALLY
> different things and punishing someone for the
> first by forcing them to be the latter makes no
> sense to me.
>
> DM

DM, everything you've said above makes ABSOLUTE sense to me.

The problem is that the laws aren't consistent with this. Though you would feel uncomfortable forcing the guy to pay child support based on a decision you made for your own reasons (your wording), the law says you would be entitled to do so; and the resultant child might have the right to pursue this as well, as in the case of the sperm donor children.

The only thing I might comment on is your statement that the "the only person punished is the child if one of the parents is doing so under forced circumstances." While that is true in the larger sense, in the more proximate sense, a father who is forced to pay child support for a child that he did not wish to father-- because he is the biological father-- surely he is being punished too. Unless you are referring to the force aspect of it, in which case obviously the person who is being coerced is also being punished (maybe not exactly punished, but certainly hurt by the action-- for example, as in rape).

I go back to the case of a woman who has been coerced into sex-- we would not say that she consented to motherhood by being raped, or being impregnated per se. And hopefully we would not force her to carry the child. (Though I think there are some nutjobs out there who would say, "yes, she should.") Why then would we force a man to fatherhood against his will?




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Interesting-- just on ABC News WNT: "Roe v. Wade for Men"
Posted by: Seacrest
Date: March 10, 2006 06:22PM
dmann, you are a thoughtful and reasonable person (would you like to bear my children? smiling smiley).

However, we can't assume that everybody in the country is as reasonable and thoughtful as you.
If they were, we wouldn't be in a lot of the messes we are today.

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Interesting-- just on ABC News WNT: "Roe v. Wade for Men"
Posted by: dmann
Date: March 10, 2006 06:23PM
Just to be clear, I am talking about cases where the sex is consensual between two rational legal aged adults who are not married. Cases of rape and sperm donation are quite different in my mind.

PeterB- I honestly think that forcing a man to support a child he does not want to be a parent to IS punishment and it IS ridiculous. The guy didn't commit a crime and shouldn't have to pay for it the rest of his life. Like I said- since the decision ultimately rests with me, I should be, no I NEED to be prepared to do it on my own.

I have no desire to force a man to be a father when he has absolutely no desire to be one. If that man were my husband, then the situation would be different for me, but if it were someone I was dating, no way. In that case, the laws are unfair to the man IMHO.

DM

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Interesting-- just on ABC News WNT: "Roe v. Wade for Men"
Posted by: PeterB
Date: March 10, 2006 06:58PM
dmann Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just to be clear, I am talking about cases where
> the sex is consensual between two rational legal
> aged adults who are not married. Cases of rape and
> sperm donation are quite different in my mind.
>
> PeterB- I honestly think that forcing a man to
> support a child he does not want to be a parent to
> IS punishment and it IS ridiculous. The guy didn't
> commit a crime and shouldn't have to pay for it
> the rest of his life. Like I said- since the
> decision ultimately rests with me, I should be, no
> I NEED to be prepared to do it on my own.
>
> I have no desire to force a man to be a father
> when he has absolutely no desire to be one. If
> that man were my husband, then the situation would
> be different for me, but if it were someone I was
> dating, no way. In that case, the laws are unfair
> to the man IMHO.
>
> DM

DM, again, everything you've said makes absolute sense to me, but the problem is... it's not consistent with the laws. The laws generally say that biological parentage = parenthood. If a man (or woman) biologically parents a child, they are the parent legally and from the financial responsibility standpoint. (I guess it also has ramifications for egg donation, though I'd imagine this would again rarely come up.)

It does make for some interesting legal cases, though-- for example, a situation where a biological parent wants to take custody of a child who was adopted, and has only known their adopted parents his or her whole life (and might not even be aware of being adopted). Essentially the biological parent is "dropping in" on the child's life, and claiming parenthood and therefore custody... but to the child, this is essentially a stranger, saying that they are now their "parent".




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Interesting-- just on ABC News WNT: "Roe v. Wade for Men"
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 10, 2006 07:33PM
I think children should be able to pick their own parents. Sure, George Clooney and Michelle Pfeiffer will be too busy raising so many kids, but life is a competition and they both deserve to be playing with a handicap.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Interesting-- just on ABC News WNT: "Roe v. Wade for Men"
Posted by: dmann
Date: March 10, 2006 08:46PM
Seacrest- careful. That IS my biological clock you hear ticking in the background.

PeterB- Of course, the laws are stupid and should be changed to match my mindset. See, I can be an irrational female when the situation warrants it. smiling smiley

DM
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Interesting-- just on ABC News WNT: "Roe v. Wade for Men"
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: March 10, 2006 09:37PM
When condoms are suspect stronger measures may be necessary.
[www.thesun.co.uk]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 118
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020