If a man makes the decision he doesn't want to have a child and takes measures and precautions to do so, yet still father's a child, should he legally have the right to not recognize his child? Can we deny men the right given to woman over parenting a child? Can men expect to have the same rights when their role in procreation is so drastically different?
2006-07-09 01:24:03 · 15 answers · asked by mellow_man_ny 1 in Pregnancy & Parenting ➔ Parenting
the way i see it if your a women and you don't want a kid, don't open your legs, if your a man and don't want a kid don't pull your pants down.
2006-07-09 04:16:11 · answer #1 · answered by Heather W 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's a though question. There are no fail-safe measures to take to be certain pregnancy is is not possible, shot of a complete hysterectomy for a woman. (I know of 2 men who are fathers, post-vasectomy. Surprise.). A man taking precautions and his partner still winding up pregnant is not as uncommon as it sounds, and is a calculated risk. (For the record, a woman may not be anymore "expecting" to become pregnant than the man is--there could be numerous reasons why it still happens even under carefully 'constructed' situations.)
A man's role in the act of procreation is no different than a woman's. "It takes two to tango." By natural means, no woman can get pregnant without a man, and no man can impregnate someone who isn't there. (Focus on the words "natural means"--in vitro and all that is a different story.) The difference only begins when the woman carries the child.
I'm not sure I really have an answer--largely because I think men should do what is ethically right and at least financially support the child. That's not parenting, that's subsidizing. Hm..maybe there's my anser, sure they can decline the regular characteristics parenthood, but not financial responsibility. If a man refuses even that much, then he needs to legally give up his parental rights--essentially cutting the child out permanently.
But, I think you should be prepared to do deal with consequences (good and bad) of your actions.
2006-07-09 01:41:53 · answer #2 · answered by jayfer1976 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Men have the opportunity to give up their parental rights if they do not want a child. Upon giving up those rights, it is as if he has given up the child for adoption (to the mother) and he then carries no ties to the child.
I think men should have the same rights as women. IF a man does not want children and it happens anyways (i.e., if it's planned by the woman), then I believe that the woman knew in advance that he may be walking away from this baby and it shouldn't have happened if the consequences would have been thought about prior to sex! If it was an accident, then the couple need to come together to make a decision. If he decides that he isn't ready for parenthood (an understandable decision) but she decides that she is, this decision is made knowing that he isn't ready and she is on her own.
On the flip side, I think it's unfortunate that if a woman does not want to keep the baby and the man does, it is ultimately her final decision to abort the fetus. I don't know of anything that can be done to stop an abortion of your fetus short of taking her to court immediately and pleading to a court.
2006-07-09 01:33:52 · answer #3 · answered by gz_1st_lady 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
NO, I do not agree. Men should not really have a vote in the matter. In fact, I don't even believe we should be able to vote on abortion rights. I mean, I can never get one, so why should I be telling others how to live their lives or what they can and can not do with their own bodies. In the end, we all have to live with our decisions. We also need to be responible for our actions. i'm a father and I wouldn't be if I would have had the choice about 2 1/2 years ago. Now, looking at my little girl, I would die if anything ever happend to her. She is the reason I exist. She is the light of my life...and i'm greatful to her mother that she never listened to me when I said to probably get an abortion. Also, I am not a religious freak, nor do I even go to church (or read the bible, or pray to mecca, or budda, or anything), but the idea of ending her life sickens me. As for legal ramifications, i'll let some overpaid lawyers screw all that up...that's what they're good for.
2006-07-10 04:25:25 · answer #4 · answered by David S 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Even though a man takes precautions to prevent conception, every time a couple has sex, there is a chance of the woman getting pregnant. Both parties should be responsible for the outcome. Therefore he cannot just choose to ignore the child he has fathered. Nor can the mother.
If you don't want a child, the answer is very simple: DON'T HAVE SEX. If you cannot accept the consequences of your actions, you are not in a position to put yourself in that situation in the first place.
2006-07-09 01:30:26 · answer #5 · answered by Lisa 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
When you treat other people like sex toys you get into all kinds of questions that are not answerable. Some people want the pleasure of sex but are not capable of parenting or even being a good spouse. They should take advice from Jocelyn Elders (go ahead and do a search; former Surgeon General under Pr. Clinton).
Abortion simply for convenience is awful. If a guy recklessly procreates, I say charge him and garnish his wages for 18 years and spay him. Yes, I mean SPAY; only an animal acts like that. We don't want him creating MORE of himself! People need to know that they are RESPONSIBLE for what they do and if they try to run away, it'll cost them.
It always the children who lose.
2006-07-10 05:43:37 · answer #6 · answered by n0witrytobeamused 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you don't want a child, have a vasectomy. Otherwise, don't sleep with women. If a birth control device is 98% effective, that means that one out of 50 times it won't work. I had a child while using birth control, fortunately I am married and my husband and I love this child, but it happens. I have a friend who is a physician who used two kinds of birth control while she and her husband were doing their residency and she had a child. It happens. It takes two to make a child and the man should pay his share. The child didn't ask you to have sex with his mother. He doesn't deserve to be neglected. In other words, grow up or abstain.
2006-07-09 02:14:56 · answer #7 · answered by kadel 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm australian, so I'm not familiar with the case, but I think that it is his right to refuse to acknowledge the child, however sad that is. If a woman got pregnant, and he didn't want the child, however she continued with the pregnancy, then it's her responsibility. Simple as that. Responsibility for it can't be forced onto him if he stated his position. But the poor kid...
2006-07-15 16:14:59 · answer #8 · answered by jadevandersee 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The way I see it is laws or no laws if a man has no interest in his own child then that child is probably better off without him!
2006-07-09 01:36:38 · answer #9 · answered by bunky 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the mechanics of child gestation gives women the right as it should be( a man shouldn't be able to force an abortion). There is an alternative, just know the women your sleeping with and where she stands on parenthood.
2006-07-09 01:31:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Roe Vs. Wade has NOTHING TO DO WITH MEN. A man cant MAKE a women have an abortion or have the child. It is a woman's choice and that is what roe vs wade is all about, DUH
2006-07-09 06:41:08 · answer #11 · answered by Educated 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋