Should men be forced into fatherhood?

[momof2inPA]

I'll give the practical answer. If the father doesn't pay for the kid, and the mother can't, then the state will. That means my taxes will go to that child and I had NOTHING to do with getting the girl pregnant. I'd rather have the guy pay than me pay.

That's the way the state looks at it as well. It's in the state's best interest if the father pays.

 

[Puffy2]

I think that if you don't want to be a father, then you better take steps to make SURE that doesn't occur - celibacy or vasectomy or 100% condom use. If someone fathers a child , regardless of what the woman "did, didn't do, said, didn't say, blah, blah, blah...", then they ARE responsible for the care and upbringing of that child.

 

[Shugardrawers]

I'll be the dissenting female, and really I feel this way. A woman holds ALL the cards when it comes to deciding whether to abort, carry the pregnacy to term and put up for adoption, or carry the pregnancy to term and keep the baby. The "father" has no say in the situation what so ever. The woman decided to participate, she has responsibility to the situation as well. The difference is she gets to make the call, and the guy has to abide no matter what she decided. What if the guy would want the child, but she decided to abort? Yeah her body, but she is carrying a being that is half the DNA of the other person. Yet he has NO SAY. It sucks. If I was a guy I would be double wrapping.

I actually do agree with you. It's unfair that the man is at the mercy of the woman's decision. Problem is that single parenthood usually winds up being hardest on the mother. A sickening number of men would simply walk away if they had that choice. In the end though, if you don't want to pay the piper, you'd best sit out the dance. And that applies to both sexes, not just men.

 

[pearlieq]

You took the words right out of my mouth!!! He says men don't have a choice? Well, they do ... to abstain, to use a condom, to have a vasectomy. Three choices there. You don't want to create a life, then don't perform the act that creates one!

Exactly!

I don't buy the argument that men have no say in what happens--they have their say, when they decide to have sex. We all know how it works, and there's not much we can do to change the fact that women carry babies and ultimately get to decide what to do.

Is it unfair? Who cares? There's nothing that can be done to change it, so why sit around whining about it?

I don't see anyone proposing a better solution...

 

[Puffy2]

I'll be the dissenting female, and really I feel this way. A woman holds ALL the cards when it comes to deciding whether to abort, carry the pregnacy to term and put up for adoption, or carry the pregnancy to term and keep the baby. The "father" has no say in the situation what so ever. The woman decided to participate, she has responsibility to the situation as well. The difference is she gets to make the call, and the guy has to abide no matter what she decided. What if the guy would want the child, but she decided to abort? Yeah her body, but she is carrying a being that is half the DNA of the other person. Yet he has NO SAY. It sucks. If I was a guy I would be double wrapping.

Not entirely true, the father can sue for custody of the child, share custody or can raise the child if the mother wants to give it up for adoption - it may have to be worked out in the court system, but the fathers do have options. They just need to speak up, get legal representation and work for it.

 

[cardaway]

My feeling is, sometimes things you can't/don't plan for happen, and you have to deal with it. Maybe he really felt he was safe from fatherhood with this woman, but he wasn't, so now he has to deal with it.

(must add this story to my warning warning file for my sons....)

Have them look up the multiple cases where leaving a used condom behind was a bad idea as well.

 

[pearlieq]

A woman holds ALL the cards when it comes to deciding...and put up for adoption

One minor niggle here--the father's consent is required for an adoption--if the mother terminates her parental rights, he can take custody of the child. He would have to sign away or have his parental rights terminated by the courts for the child to be eligible for adoption.

 

[roseprincess]

Today, Dr. Phil has a man on who's suing to have his parental responsibility terminated.

The story goes that his girlfriend told him she had a medical condition which prevented her from ever becoming pregnant AND that she was on the pill for other reasons. He says he trusted her and wore a condom in the beginning but after a while stopped. She got pregnant. He says he told her in no uncertain terms from the very beginning that he was not ready to be a father. Of course, the state he lives in has ordered him to pay $500 a month in child support and he is doing so. He has never seen nor held his own child and doesn't even consider himself her father although a paternity test has determined that he is her biological father.

The meat of his argument is that women are given options when they becoming pregnant. They can terminate, place the baby for adoption or raise the child. He says men don't have any choices, they are forced to do what the mother wants. While he has a point, if he really didn't want to be a father, he should have continued to use a condom or heaven forbid, abstained!

What do you think of this?

I can't understand why the woman is on the Pill if she cannot get pregnant at all?? She has a medical condition. Did she have a hysterectomy, one ovary removed, both ovaries removed, no uterus?? If she had both ovaries removed and uterus removed(hysterectomy), I can see she couldn't get preggo at all. Now, if she has one ovary, yes, a woman can still get pregnant, may take a little longer to get preggo because the ovaries alternate popping out the egg every other month usually. If she had blockage in her tubes, maybe she had surgery to unblock her tubes, and voila, preggo! Now, if it a polycystic ovary thing, she can still get preggo, it would be more difficult to get preggo, tho.

We don't get Dr. Phil here til late afternoon, so I don't know this woman's actual medical situation other than what I'm reading here. I don't know. Maybe she meant to tell the guy that she will have difficulty getting pregnant but told him she couldn't get pregnant? Or she purposely told him she couldn't get preggo thinking he will go for it.
Maybe he misunderstood her and thought she meant she never could get preggo and she actually told him she was going to have a difficult time getting preggo?
And I agree, this guy should have abstained or should have used a condom at all times. And he probably should have investigated more in his girlfriend's fertility medical condition before he went to bed with her.

 

[AllyandJack]

What if the MOTHER wanted to put the baby up for adoption, but the father didn't? Should she then be forced to pay child support? What if she just wants to be rid of the situation.....she's not ready to be a mother, she's still in high school? The father wants the baby.....and then he goes after the mother for child support. I think she should have to pay up.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Well the woman has the choice to abstain, use birth control, insist her partner uses birth control and then she has the choice if she should become pregant to abort, put up for adoption or keep the baby. So while the "father" has the same first three choices, he has no say in the later three choices. Is there some grand, clear-cut better solution to this? No.

I think God had all this in mind when He proposed in the bible about not engaging in pre-marital sex.

 

[cardaway]

I'll give the practical answer. If the father doesn't pay for the kid, and the mother can't, then the state will. That means my taxes will go to that child and I had NOTHING to do with getting the girl pregnant. I'd rather have the guy pay than me pay.

But if you change the system it's likely things will get better from that standpoint. With the system reversed people will be more likely to be responsible when the state isn't forcing men to give them a safety net.

 

[roseprincess]

Well the woman has the choice to abstain, use birth control, insist her partner uses birth control and then she has the choice if she should become pregant to abort, put up for adoption or keep the baby. So while the "father" has the same first three choices, he has no say in the later three choices. Is there some grand, clear-cut better solution to this? No.

I think God had all this in mind when He proposed in the bible about not engaging in pre-marital sex.

Well said!

 

[Shugardrawers]

Dr. Phil said pretty much the same thing about non marital sexual relationships. Male, female, married, single, you have to be willing to accept what may happen.

It wasn't specified why the woman in question thought she couldn't have children or exactly what condition she had that took b/c pills for. The pills could be for endometriosis or other painful menstrual symptoms. I dunno, they didn't say. They invited her to be on the show and she declined. They did show a picture of her and the baby and that little girl is just adorable. Her sperm donor is missing out on quite a beautiful little girl.

 

[momof2inPA]

But if you change the system it's likely things will get better from that standpoint. With the system reversed people will be more likely to be responsible when the state isn't forcing men to give them a safety net.

Nonsense. Sex and irresponsibility in young people go hand in hand. It's an act of passion, not of planning. You will continue to have unwanted births, no matter who is deemed responsible-- and more of them, if abortion is outlawed.

 

[alliecats]

The story goes that his girlfriend told him she had a medical condition which prevented her from ever becoming pregnant AND that she was on the pill for other reasons. He says he trusted her and wore a condom in the beginning but after a while stopped.

Then he is an idiot. He was not "forced" into becoming a father, he acted irresponsibly and this is the result. Sounds like the girl was a liar, but he CHOSE to trust her, he CHOSE not to take precautions, and now he must deal with the consequences of his CHOICES. Not defending her, because I despise that kind of behavior, too.

He says he told her in no uncertain terms from the very beginning that he was not ready to be a father.

But his actions spoke louder than his words, didn't they? And his actions clearly said that he wasn't all that concerned about it, because if he was that definite about it, he would have bent over backwards to make sure that it didn't. In this case, I don't feel sorry for him at all. The only one I feel sorry for is his kid.

 

[WatchinCaptKangaroo]

I'll be the dissenting female, and really I feel this way. A woman holds ALL the cards when it comes to deciding whether to abort, carry the pregnacy to term and put up for adoption, or carry the pregnancy to term and keep the baby. The "father" has no say in the situation what so ever. The woman decided to participate, she has responsibility to the situation as well. The difference is she gets to make the call, and the guy has to abide no matter what she decided. What if the guy would want the child, but she decided to abort? Yeah her body, but she is carrying a being that is half the DNA of the other person. Yet he has NO SAY. It sucks. If I was a guy I would be double wrapping.

One of my good friends got his [now] ex girlfriend pregnant on accident. He used a condom, she said she was on the pill. He wanted the baby so badly after he found out. She didn't. You can guess what the outcome was.

He was willing to be a single dad with no support from her.

 

[chobie]

One of my good friends got his [now] ex girlfriend pregnant on accident. He used a condom, she said she was on the pill. He wanted the baby so badly after he found out. She didn't. You can guess what the outcome was.

He was willing to be a single dad with no support from her.

Life is unfair. The botton line is though it is the women's health that is effected by pregnancy. Once the baby is born they are both responsible for the payments so that is where the balancing comes in and sometimes child support is unfair to men. However, that is a separate issue from whether or not a man should be able to force a medical procedure on a woman because his microscopic DNA was implanted in the woman.

Also in the 30 some years that women have had a choice men have not exactly been advocating for better birth control methods for them have they? There is male pill out there, why arent men demanding access to this instead of crying about not being able to force medical procedures on women?

 

[azgal81]

I think he was part of it so yes he should be responsible. What if it was reversed and he was the one with the medical condition and couldn't have kids so they stopped using protection and suddenly she did get pregnant would he think he was responsible then or not. Quite frankly $500 a month is not that much money for child support.

 

[jbdreamer]

You need to take responsibility for your actions. Period.

 

[bamajill]

You need to take responsibility for your actions. Period.

Exactly! I have two young sons and it is my intention to have them understand that their choices pretty much end at whether or not to have sex with someone (at some point in time....waaaayyy in the future ) and if they choose to use protection.

I do not want my sons to believe they have the right to force a woman into a decision she isn't comfortable with (either direction). Nor do I want them to believe that if she decides to have a baby that they can opt out of their responsibility.

I would be disgusted with my son if he were to behave in the manner that this 'man' is (on the Dr. Phil show). At least women who get involved with him in the future will know the truth about his character.