- NEW!
by AntigoneRising on October 17th, 2007
The man has authority only over his own body and its functions. He is responsible for them. Thus, he will have to pay child support no matter if he wanted her to terminate her pregnancy or not. The woman is the one who has authority over her body.
There are no laws being considered for this, as a man has no right to force a woman to terminate a pregnancy, and if the man doesn't pay child support, most of the financial burden will be transferred to government (ie taxpayers).
This is one of the big reasons why men need to start taking a more active role in birth control and not leaving it mostly up to women.
by KyraLou was gone but now shes back on June 20th, 2007
It doesnt matter if he wants the child or not, he made the choice to lay down. If it is biologically his child, he can be ordered to pay support.
by unknown on June 20th, 2007
The father will still be held responsible. The "father" has the right to not have sex or to use protection if he doesn't want to be a "father." If you have sex, you may end up with a child. You are responsible for it if you do. And I sincerely hope that you will take that responsibility seriously. I don't think there are any laws that will change that.
by tamarakh is ready for a vacation on October 19th, 2007
Pretty sure you're the one who didn't keep it in your pants. I will grant that it takes two to tango, but it's not your decision whether or not the woman decides to carry her child to term or abort it.
YOU aren't the one who has to endure the pregnancy; YOU aren't the one who will probably have to care for the child on your own or move back into your parents' house when the father doesn't want to stick around; YOU aren't the one who might have to fight the deadbeat dad for the child support rightfully owed to the kid. You ARE the one who needs to step up and take some responsibility for what you made; if she wants to keep it, regardless of her reasons or your desires, you have to pay for it.
And please...father's rights? In cases like this, I hope there is never such a thing, to be perfectly honest; the day that the father of an "accidental" child can dictate whether or not the mother has an abortion is going to be a sad day for the world.
by Michie on October 19th, 2007
The only time I can think of that it's even SLIGHTLY appropriate for a man to request that a woman abort is if he knows he has some horrible genetic disease.
It's called a CONDOM. A man is not *forced* to impregnate a woman, and once that happens it's her call. If a guy is that worried about having to pay for spreading his seed, then he needs to watch how/where he spreads it.
by Nasiswand on November 11th, 2008
Seems there's a double standard here. A woman who messes up has options but a man who messes up is screwed? I don't think that is right. I believe a father can terminate his rights and that should take care of the issue. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's how it works.
by Anonymous on January 8th, 2009
For the record, once again, **I** am the writer of this question. I made this comment eariler in the post but it seemed to have gone unnoticed.
Some of you have assumed that the question was written by a scum-bag of a man. Some have asumed that it was written by a woman that is currently in that situation. Both are incorrect. This question came up as a discussion amongst friends and I wanted outside opinions.
I am happily married and currently pregnant with my 3rd child.
by Richiesgirl on November 11th, 2008
There should be laws to protect the father!!!!!!!!!!And Im a woman!!!!
by hope and peace on January 27th, 2008
If he didn't want to take responsiblity, he should have kept it in his pants.
by Anonymous on June 24th, 2007
In the US, yes he can still be made to pay child support even if he doesn't want the child. The fact still remains that he was part of the conception process, therefore he needs to be held financially responsible for the child.
Legally speaking, until he's established as the biological father (which happens AFTER the child is born) he doesn't have ANY rights, especially not the right to force the woman to abort.
by Sugar-licious a bellydancing rum maiden on December 4th, 2007
Not only is he financially responsible for his child, it is also his right and responsibility to assist in the raising of his child. It is also his right to seek child support from the mother if he has been granted joint custody and is the primary custodial parent.
I would be very careful who I let get me pregnant. Someone I want to have sex with isn't necessarily someone I would want to have raising our kid.
by Wynper on April 4th, 2010
You consented when you shared your semen.
Here's a pretty simple rule I shared with my children as part of their sex education; never have sex (if you are capable of reproducing) with anyone who you are not ready to share a child and the attached obligations with.
Biology isn't fair but we know that going in.
by ssuess on January 8th, 2009
it is disgusting that everyone is all about the man shouldnt spread his seed if he doesnt want a baby, and blah, blah. what about her. what about the guys that are stupid in love and believe her when she says shes on birth control, and oh whoops, there goes 17% of his income. i don't believe that any child should be aborted, but fathers are being nailed to the wall and sent to the poor house. if a woman gives birth out of wedlock she should receive child support in the same amount as state welfare mandates, not a percentage of the mans income. by the way, i am the mother of a child born out of wedlock. the most her father ever did was once bought her a package of huggies "for boys" and ran off to texas, still and all i am disgusted at the way men are treated under the present child support laws. let the poor man get on with his life.
by Duchess on November 14th, 2008
A couple weeks ago there was a DR. Phill show on this exact issue and there is actually a Father's rights issue trying to get it's way to congress. I feel sorry for men because they always get the shaft when it comes to children and support. I think that women should be forced to contact the father and let him know as soon as she is pregant so that the father can decide weather or not he wan't to be active in the life...and if he doesn't want to he should be able to sign away any rights to the child without consequence and never have to pay child support.
by Anonymous on November 11th, 2008
If a man does not want to become a father, yet is a smart enough man to know that the only 100% effective form of birth control is abstinence and he does not wish to practice this form of birth control.... he should draw up a legal (it may seem strange or ridiculous to some but they do exist) agreement which he has the woman sign agreeing, that in case of pregnancy the woman agrees to either abort or accept full responsibility for the child and the expenses related to said child.
Really guys, if you want to play but not pay, be smart, make them sign! It's kind of like a prenuptial, think of it as presex, no sign, no sex.....
by randomness - is now a Maestro on November 14th, 2007
yep. twas his choice to get her pregnant. if he wasnt ready for child support he shouldnt have got her pregnant.
by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on January 8th, 2009
Men have always been allowed to keep it in their pants.
by Anonymous on October 19th, 2007
I posted this question just as that- a question. I'm female and the question I asked is not a reflection of my "current situation" in any way. I asked it to get different opinions while going through a debate with a few friends.
by HunnyBuns on October 19th, 2007
Yeah. Beacuase the father impregnated the woman. It's his fault. He needs to be responsible for his actions.
by Anglzndskyz2 on June 24th, 2007
Yes he will have to pay for support no matter what. If he ever ask for a DNA test tell him you will get it done if thats what he wants. If the child ends up being his he will have to pay for the test. Most of the time once the father finds this out he will admit the kid is his and start paying unless he still wants to push it. The court can force to take a test if he refuses but keeps saying the child is not his. If the DNA test comes back as the child being his then he will owe back support starting from the date the child was born. Get a contract for visitation set up if he wants that later (he might you never know expectually once he finds out that he might not have to pay as much if he shares custody) also ask that there be a set child support amount on the contract and that the contract be redone every 3 yrs to keep everything up to date. Watch out for two things though some states the father will get away with only paying $50 a month even if the set child support is way more. (because he can claim its all he could aford that month even though the rest of that monthes support will go to his past due support.) Also if he win joint custody (which he could if he shows he's trying to be a good dad after the child is born and it is proven it is his)and you make more then him you might have to pay him child support. Things are going to get sticky before they get better. The best thing to do is get a lawyer.
by Franklin on July 7th, 2009
There should be. Pro-choice means that both men and women should have a choice. Unless a person is just pro-abortion. In that case, men have no choice.
by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on July 28th, 2008
Sorry, but if he didn't want to be a father, he should have kept it in his pants. You can't unring a bell. Why should that child have to pay with his life for dad's irresponsibility? The best thing for dad to do now is to suck it up and be a man.
by singwell-is off researching a lot on November 14th, 2007
No one can force anyone to undergo a medical procedure against their will. Since the man got the woman pregnant (ie he didn't take precautions), he is responsible for the child.
by gj3823 on August 25th, 2010
You know what? after reading all this... it seems like someone forgot about the baby's consquences.... the baby has a soul and has emotion and feelings... do you realize what the baby is going to feel or think when he/she finds out the dad wants abortion and the mom is a harlot just for going with a guy once? guess what im the one... mom gave me up and dad didnt want to have anything to do with me and i in the end had to pay the price... i have feelings and felt really pissed about the whole thing but here i am. everyone is going back and forth on the male and female issue but what about the child doesnt the child's identity mean anything to anyone? alot of people said they are so glad i exist because i make the difference in their lives so therefore.... a child has a right to born more right than the parents or based on their selfish reasons.
by AnonymousGirl on August 16th, 2010
Yes. If the man can't handle that, he shouldn't have been having sex. I have no pity for him.
by Marky Mark on July 6th, 2010
Yes and isn't it wonderful how this question exposes the hypocrisy and double-standards of women who claim to be mentally-liberated and yet continue playing the part of the victim.
by vanessa2010 on April 30th, 2010
If a man is trying to get his wife or girlfriend an abortion honest he don't love her at all. i've been there
by Davjohn on April 24th, 2010
It's his child, his responsibility. No one should even risk pregnancy unless they are fully prepared to take full responsibility as a family. Father, mother, children, together as a family; to raise the children until they are on their own. Divorce and abortion should never be options.
by kinzee on July 12th, 2009
By all means the father can be made to pay child support.as far as any current laws being considered...try having some consideration and wearing a condom.
by BabyJenn on February 21st, 2009
In Ohio the state only goes after someone for child support if the mother is on a welfare program.
If you don't want to be a father don't have sex.
by InGod'dHands on January 8th, 2009
to yorkshireMAN, it is your thought against the the whole U.S Court system. It is good for children that the laws in the United States have changed in favor of children to be protected and making the sperm donors cough up child support. That is why many babies get aborted, because men tell wome how much the love them and they really don't... to a lot of men, it is just a second-moment-thrill that often begins a life. That's why sex should be for married couples as ridiculous as it may sound. A lot of people have turned away from God and His Commandments and we have an out of control population explosion due to immoral conduct and most want the quick solution of waiting-to-be- born-baby-genocide...yorkshireMAN, are you thankful that you weren't aborted? I sure am! Each day, waiying-to-be-born babies, get poisoned inside the mother's womb; pulled out by their tiny feet, while leaving the head inside and with surgigical scissors,but through neck to kill them. There are other procedures.Think
by Chigg on January 8th, 2009
Whether to abort is the mother's choice, where that choice exists by law.
Whether to inseminate is the father's choice and you can't go shirking your responsibility by treating a morally debatable luxury (abortion) as a human right.
If you made the baby, you made the baby and its too late to do anything but support it for the rest of its life.
by Anonymous on January 8th, 2009
What if the woman wants to abort the child but the man wants her to carry it to full term? There was court case about the issue in question but I don't remember the ruling! If he's forced to pay child support it should only be one fourth what he would normally be expected to pay!
by Rule Britannia on January 8th, 2009
Tough shit to the dad is what I would say. Where a condom!
by jflanagan on July 28th, 2008
You're joking right. You took on that responsbility when you had sex with her. Birth control would have been a wise decision. You can't make a woman abort her child. You have rights and they start when the child is born. Now grow up!!!
by Rince on June 20th, 2007
I can only answer on UK law, KyraLou is right, the father will still have to pay child support, Its his child.
by Yo_Casey on February 23rd, 2011
If you can't feed em, don't breed em.
by Eric on August 16th, 2010
There should be. You aren't pro-choice if you don't support men's rights as well. You're pro-abortion and pro-hypocrisy.
by ny_princess82 on January 22nd, 2009
He still has to pay thats for sure - I mean the order would be put out through court for him to pay but then comes the part on whether or not he actually will pay. My oldest daughters father wanted me to have an abortion and i didnt obviously - he then skipped town and i went to court without him a custody order and support order was put into place and he was ordered to pay 300 a month til she turned 18 yrs old. Well, he never paid a dime until her 7th birthday when the courts apparently caught up to him and are garnishing his wages. sucks to be him because now because not only has the judged garnished his wages but they now said he has to pay until she is 21 not 18
by Blar on January 8th, 2009
The woman carries that baby. It is entirely on her physically. Beforehand, she held an egg, he held sperm. In my opinion, men can control/try to control (condoms break) what happens to their sperm. Women can control/try to control what happens to their eggs. And women can control/try to control what happens with their foetus. For the woman, the point of no return is somewhere around 25 weeks up to the birth. For the man, the point of no return is when he comes. Once that sperm's gone off, that's the man's last say in the matter - he can't control an abortion, and many say for the same reason that he can't control legal parentage.
However, I do personally believe that just as a child can be given up for adoption and parental rights terminated by CPS and the like, a man should have the choice to not be that child's father and not pay child support. But I believe it would be absolutely pig-headed and revolting for that choice NOT to include the fact that that man would then have absolutely no legal right to that child, to be that child's legal parent, visitation rights, etc.
by Anonymous on January 27th, 2008
No you sick jerk!! You are responsible for the baby you made. You will not get out of your obligation just because you want to kill it!! That is NOT a father's rights issue. You are horrible. Your baby has a right to live!
by harmony on November 17th, 2007
There are some procedures where a father can relinquish his parental rights; however, that is generally only if there is someone else willing to adopt. If a woman gets pregnant and the guy wants her to have an abortion, that won't happen, and generally speaking, he is still responsible for the support of the child. There are ways to prevent children from being conceived....
by S.H.I.T on November 14th, 2007
he did it wit the lady
no its his trun 2 pay the pric3!!!
by Lord Knows on November 14th, 2007
I don't believe there are any "pre" father rights although even as a woman I feel there should be!
by asweetguy4u2know saya R.I.P Nelson on October 19th, 2007
Sweetie sorrry you are going through this. The guy is a jerk and doesn't deserve the title father. He is nothing more than a sperm donor.If he wants nothing to do with the child I would suggest he look into having his rights terminated. If he refuses or stat laaw prohibits this from happening then he is responsible for support. You can choose not to seek it but I think it would be a bad move on your part. If you go that route and ask for help in the future from the state ie welfare medical card or food stamps you will have no choice but to take him to court for support as a condition of receiving any help from the state. I wish you luck with that.
by ShirleyB on October 17th, 2007
As of now you must pay whether you want the child or not, but i think that you need to really think abou it, that is if you want to be a part of that childs life. Maybe if she knows this she will not ask you to, or put u on the birth certificate so that when she meets someone he can easily adopt the child. If you have money though ur prob screwed. I am a woman and i think that men should have the same opportunity as woman to choose whether they want to be a father. If you decide at the beginning then fine, but if you ackowledge it then change your mind u should be obligated
by ladyness on April 12th, 2011
if he doesn't want to pay he shouldn't of stuck it in her.
by trueservantminn on April 7th, 2011
The moment he had sex with her??? His right's were revoked!!!
by Eagle Scout Rolf on March 29th, 2011
What was the man doing having unprotected sex if he didn't want a child.
by krysrieon on November 3rd, 2010
Okay, I do think if a guy gets a woman pregnant he should be a man and accept FULL RESPONSIBILITY. Just like a woman should take FULL RESPONSIBILITY. Getting an abortion is a cop out! But if it is done early, then I say okay, but if after a while months go by, I think killing a fetus that is developing a heart beat is just wrong. Yes, I do believe that adults should be responsible. Men should watch who they sleep with, as women should too.
But I do think if a man doesn't and I do mean JUST doesn't want to be around(he may be better off NOT being in the child's life if he doesn't want the child that bad.) he should just relinquish his parental rights INSTEAD of forcing a woman to abort her child. I understand that it takes two to make a child. But honestly these days, it doesn't take two to raise a child. Even if you are married doesn't mean squat!!! A woman could be married/ but seperated and the father still doesn't do that much for the child and both parties agreed on the child.
So either way it goes, both adults need to take full responsibility for their actions, and stop being so damn selfish. You don't have to be together in a relationship but be there for the child. Realistically, there are a lot of single mothers in the world. Just as there are single fathers in the world. If a woman walks out I think she should either pay the father child support or give up rights. But we all should think about the child. Children are expensive yes! But you know what, CONDOMS are like what $5.00 a pack!!!
Do custody papers have to be notarized?
by Answerbag Staff on May 21st, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Can your spouse make you move out until a divorce is final?
by Answerbag Staff on May 20th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Who gets custody in a divorce?
by Answerbag Staff on May 17th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Should the Judicial system be reviewed in the context of alimony cases?
by Masculinist on December 5th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
brother got a girl prego she wants to sign her rights over to me what kind of lawyer would i have to get and how would we go about that?
by babygirl3 on September 8th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
You're reading Hi. If a woman is pregnant and the father requests she abort (because he doesnt want to be a father) and the woman refuses, can he still be made to pay child support if she choses to carry? Are there any current laws being considered for father's rights?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Thank you.
by broken on October 17th, 2007
Wonderful answer AR!
by Anonymous on October 17th, 2007
Thanks. Do you like Salem's new threads?
by AntigoneRising on October 17th, 2007
I can't tell what he's wearing, unless you mean the hat?
by Stableboy on October 18th, 2007
Yeah, his new hat. :)
by AntigoneRising on October 18th, 2007
I love Salem's new hat! But I love seeing you around here a bit more often :) I miss you when you're not around as much.
by Anonymous on October 18th, 2007
I'm around most every day. The problem is that I'm still on India Standard Time. I don't see many people...at least not the people I used to see.
by AntigoneRising on October 18th, 2007
Well, I'll just have to stalk you more often :)
by Anonymous on October 18th, 2007
AntigoneRising, you rock.
by Michie on October 19th, 2007
Very well put, AR!
by tamarakh is ready for a vacation on October 19th, 2007
well said with respect, and tact, to the responsibilities of both.
by ssuess on January 8th, 2009
Thank you.
by AntigoneRising on January 8th, 2009
Paternity Suits.
It is an unfortunate fact that persons involved in a unintended pregnancy are not always ready to accept the weighty responsibilities of parenthood. In the case of a woman, the United State Supreme Court decision on abortion (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973)) has made it illegal for a state to impose motherhood. The ERA will extend this decision and make it illegal for a state to impose fatherhood. It should be noted that a man saying “no” to fatherhood will not force the woman to obtain an abortion—she may place the child up for adoption, raise the child herself, or find a partner who wants to be a father.
by ssuess on January 17th, 2009
We used to have that in the days before paternity suits and child support. Men who had children - especially outside of marriage - had descretion as to whether or not to recognize and how (if at all) to support the child (and with how much money). The sex without responsibility was one-sided. With what you are saying, the rolls for child welfare will bloom, as will child poverty. Roe V. Wade says nothing about imposing motherhood - it is about imposing pregnancy and childbirth which are exclusively female issues (abortion also being closely tied to poverty, see CDC report). Motherhood wouldn't be imposed unless a woman was forced to raise her child instead of giving the child up for adoption, and is a separate issue not addressed by Roe V. Wade.
by AntigoneRising on January 19th, 2009
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187227,00.html
by ssuess on January 22nd, 2009
This is a good answer.
ssuess. I can understand what you are saying. However if men could decide after conception that they didn't want to be a father you'd have thousands of men changing their minds the moment their relationships broke down and yet another escape route for people to opt out of taking responsibility.
The state can't impose fatherhood as it stands already? Choosing to be a father is still very much up to the individual man. It can only impose financial responsibility for actions taken (or not taken) at time of conception. Hence why men need to start understanding that contraception is not just in the womens interest.
by sweetielowe on March 28th, 2010
They claim that he should have no right to decide whether the child is to be born or not, that it's not his property and he should have no say. Therefore, he should have no responsibility unless he opts to. Both parties should have a choice, not just one. Otherwise, that is pro-abortion, not pro-choice.
by Vazzini on November 30th, 2010
I've heard this argument many times about 'fathers say over whether or not a woman aborts'.
Just as a woman couldn't physically force a man to have a vasectomy against his will because she didn't want children, nether should a man every be able to physically force a woman to go through a pregnancy because he does.
Forcing someone to go through something financially against their will and forcing someone to go somting physically against their will are 2 very separate things that no matter how much people try to compare them to try and make a point, they are very much different.
I'm sorry but that is reality but realise how unfair it sounds.
by sweetielowe on December 2nd, 2010
A man cannot get a vasectomy without his wife's consent. Hell would freeze over before the same would be required of women getting a man's permission. This is the same pattern of unfairness that continues.
But, you are right about one thing. They are different situations. One lasts a few months, the other lasts 18 years.
Being forced into an 18 year sentence against one's will is unconscionable. He should not be able to force her, nor should she be able to force him. No one should be forced into parenthood, men or women.
by Vazzini on December 2nd, 2010
One lasts a few months!? That makes no sense since we are talking about rights over abortion and not duration of pregnancy.
Men CAN get vasectomies without their wife's knowledge or consent. I'm aware of the clinic in the USA that had a 'requirement' on their consent form but it wasn't legal (I personally think they were covering every angle against future potential law suits form angry wives but still not legal to enforce) They wouldn't be able to enforce it because there isn't any written law in the USA or any other country in the that I am aware of that actually makes a woman's permission legally required. You must know this and are just using is as a way to try and make this a comparison between the rights of the sexes.
Lastly being forced into a 18 year sentence? Should men just be able to opt out of supporting their own offspring then?
If that scenario came to pass a man could lie to his partner during the duration of pregnancy (because he didn't like the idea of abortion) then change his mind and walk after. Or only support the family he's part of at the moment.
To be honest that still happens a lot anyway. Like I said before authorities can try and force a men to financially look after their offspring but they can't force them to be a fathers.
by sweetielowe on December 3rd, 2010
OK, so what a woman must endure takes a couple days then, vs. 18 years for a man.
If a man can't get a vasectomy without his wife's consent, it doesn't matter whether it's a legal requirement or not. He can't get it, nor can he do it himself. Your argument that is prevent lawsuits is bogus. Evidence? Women do not need their husband's consent to get abortions or tubal ligation.
If a woman can kill her offspring, certainly a man should not be held to any standard. I would much prefer my father not support me than my mother kill men. Also, a woman can lie and get an abortion and never tell her husband.
It's wrong to force anyone to be a parent. That's what abortion is all about. To force a man to become a parent but not a woman is pro-abortion, not pro-choice.
by Vazzini on December 3rd, 2010
This is just ONCE CLINIC that you are trying to twist into giving the impression that it is all.
Almost all of clinics don't ask for a woman's permission and the 1% that do don't have a leg to stand on legally because it is illegal.
'Quote your argument that is prevent lawsuits is bogus'
My argument?? That was just a personal opinion which I quoted as just a personal opinion (hence the insertion in brackets), please read my answers thoroughly and stop using them to interpret just what you want to hear out of them.
Its not wrong to force a person to financially support their already born offspring through childhood to adulthood (they can't be forced be a parent as i've said previously).
Almost half of families now break down and if the main financial pillar in the family (ie in 99% of cases the father) were just able to change their mind and opt out of raising their children that would be half of all children abandoned and left in supreme poverty when the relationship broke down.
To force a man to become a parent is pro abortion?? You are trying to compare the uncomparable again and so it makes no sense whatsoever.
Once a child is BORN he/she then becomes a legal citizen and BOTH parents are required to at least financially support him/her. If a man has custody of that child the women then can be forced to financially support the child just like a man.
It is dependant on who has full custody of the children and who is working, not gender.
The fact that it is so largely tilted to one gender is due to the fact that most women raise the children and most men are the financial breadwinners. A well known example would be Brittany Spears who pays her ex child support.
I'm agreeing its not fair but financial support for existing children and rights over abortion are too different to compare.
by sweetielowe on December 4th, 2010
RE: your statement: "This is just ONCE CLINIC that you are trying to twist into giving the impression that it is all."
One? HAHA! Not even close. The facts show that I'm not twisting anything; Your position is at best completely wrong. I can't say every clinic requires it; however, it's clearly a very common practice at the very least. Evidence?
I did a 30 second Google search, and these are just some available forms and explanations that the wife must sign one. And this was just a quick and dirty search. Obviously, most doctors don't put their consent forms online, so clearly this is a common practice.
By contrast, a husband's consent is NEVER required for abortion and tubal-ligation. The wife controls what the man can and cannot do to his own body; but, he has no say whatsoever over hers. Explain how this is right. Please explain it.
http://www.setxua.com/VasectomyPacket_102010.pdf
http://www.droliverlynn.com/default.asp?ID=27
http://www.vasectomycenter.com/pdf/VasectomyCenter_consent.pdf
http://phoenixmerc.com/Documents/vasectomy_drp.pdf
http://www.vasectomyservices.ie/vasectomy-consent.html
http://fpsrichmond.com/documents/vasectomy_consent.pdf
http://www.ggturology.com/pdf/GGT-ConsentForm.pdf
http://www.capitalurological.com/images/Vasectomy_Consent_Form.pdf
https://www.arizona-urology.com/files/ConsentforVasectomy_000.pdf
http://www.stlurology.com/documents/Vasectomy%20Consent.pdf
http://www.drwilliammulchin.com/doc/7Vasectomy_Information/Vasectomy%20Consent.pdf
http://www.hsc.stonybrook.edu/som/urology/urology_cp_vasectomy.cfm
Men can't dictate what a woman does or does not do with respect to abortion. Men are forced to take on the responsiblity of a parent, whereas women are not. The point here is that both men and women should have a choice. As we have seen men typically are given none, not even over their own bodies.
Women have the choice to kill their offspring, no less - and it's considered a right. It is far worse to kill than to not support. Give him a choice too. Children can survive poverty but not killing.
"To force a man to become a parent is pro abortion??"
If abortion is the only choice given, yes. To give a woman choice but not a man is not pro-choice, it is pro-abortion because the only choice offered is abortion for her but nothing for him.
I agree, this whole thing makes no sense. Both should be given a choice. Or neither.
"Once a child is BORN he/she then becomes a legal citizen and BOTH parents are required to at least financially support him/her."
Those are the facts but it's wrong and discriminatory. Why should she be given a choice but not him? That's discrimination and wrong.
Choice for both or choice for neither. That would be fair.
by Vazzini on December 4th, 2010
"Once a child is BORN he/she then becomes a legal citizen and BOTH parents are required to at least financially support him/her."
Those are the facts but it's wrong and discriminatory. Why should she be given a choice but not him? That's discrimination and wrong.
Its not discrimination because men DO have choice! They have the choice to use contraception to prevent these scenarios from ever happening. Every time someone has sex without taking precautions they are potentially making the choice to have children, yes fairly or unfairly women then have the additional choice to continue or not with the pregnancy solely because she is the one physically pregnant. Because men's choices are limited to nonexistant once pregnancy occurs it is more important for men to take charge of contraception even more so than women. Men have the choice to stop pregnancy from happening themselves and thus avoid this unfair rule of the sexes. But for some reason so many men don't, some cling to the old fashioned rule that its a women's responsibility and then complain about lack of choice after.
As for those links you provided. I read through them and apologise I was under the impression this was a isolated requirement. I don't live in the USA and I am quite frankly shocked that American clinics do seem to expect this?? (although again I would like to know for definite if this is in your countries law and if challenged whether it would be able to hold legal ground if challenged?).
This is something America need to address and challenge otherwise things will never change. Only with challenging unfairness can anything ever be changed.
For example for as long as history can be recorded wives and children were the property of their husbands and she as his property had no say over her body or the children she produced. It took a long time for women to hold the rights over their own persons.
In islamic countries today this still goes on and women are forced to go through more pregnancies than their bodies can cope with.
As the the comparison over vasectomies verses abortion again. The reason these two cannot be compared is because abortion (although permanent for the ending of that pregnancy does not affect long term fertility. If a man is forced to endure his partner going through a termination that he didn't want, although upsetting it still wouldn't stop him from having children in the future. A termination on the other hand is a permanent stop to all future children and if a wife was under the impression when she married that future children were part of the bargain she could have grounds to sue (this is what I was trying to explain when I gave my person view on perhaps why this is asked). However the fact that women are not required the same when going for sterilisation is unfair. This is the only circumstance that is comparable and is unfair I agree.
At the end of the day in a ideal world both sexes would be given the choice over abortions but the fact is that if a woman doesn't want to continue a pregnancy and a man does someone has to have the deciding choice.
by sweetielowe on December 5th, 2010
"Its not discrimination because men DO have choice! They have the choice to use contraception to prevent these scenarios from ever happening."
Women have the same choice but also the choice to terminate during pregnancy. Men should have the choice to do the same thing, in effect.
"Only with challenging unfairness can anything ever be changed."
True. However, the feminists have things so skewed and so one-sided that challenging anything where males are treated unfairly is political and social suicide.
"If a man is forced to endure his partner going through a termination that he didn't want, although upsetting it still wouldn't stop him from having children in the future."
That particular child will never come back, no matter how many more children he has. Ask any parent if they would rather one of their children die or become sterile. I guarantee you that they would rather keep that one child alive than have them killed even if they could subsequently have others.
Whether she agreed to it or not, or was aware of it or not, a woman has no more legal grounds to sue after a vasectomy than a man does after an abortion.
by Vazzini on December 5th, 2010
Women have the same choice but also the choice to terminate during pregnancy. Men should have the choice to do the same thing, in effect.
I am tired of repeating myself.
Only women can get pregnancy = Only women having control during the duration of the physical pregnancy.
Women cannot force men to impregnate them = Men have the choice to take charge of contraption and therefore never let women put them into this situation until it is agreed by both.
FAIRLY or UNFAIRLY women have the additional choice because of natural biology not a misogynistic/feminist war on rights.
It would not be possible to enforce overriding a woman's most basic human rights without either tying her to a bed for nine months or forcing her kicking and screaming into theatre for forced invasive surgery against her will.(and please do not start comparing the rights of the child etc because that is another debate altogether. This debate is about the rights of the parents over the rights of abortion/financial support).
If the tables were turned and men were forceable able to have control over a woman's pregnancy it would take away every basic right a woman has over her own body and reduce her to a living incubator.
Just as a woman would not be able to tie a man down and foreably snip him.
And Yes I realise the two things are different comparisons but thats the thing, THEY CAN'T BE COMPARED because pregnancy is something only women can go through hence the biological unfairness.
The only choice men have got (whether or not you like it) is to take charge of their own actions and make sure never to 'accidental' get a woman pregnant, or to get a woman pregnant without actively trying for a child. That would mean putting something on the end of it themselves and not relying on her to do it. Because although society thinks because a woman gets pregnant she's got more to lose, its actually the opposite when it comes to consequences.
Regardless of if men like using them or not condoms are the only way to take charge of potential pregnancy (until the male pill is released on the market that is), because once a woman is pregnant he has no rights over her body or what happens within it.
Women may be able to manipulate but they cannot actually force men to impregnate them so that is the one thing men have on their side.
Quote (I hate the quoting system on this site)
'That particular child will never come back, no matter how many more children he has. Ask any parent if they would rather one of their children die or become sterile. I guarantee you that they would rather keep that one child alive than have them killed even if they could subsequently have others.'
This is not a pro-abortion/pro-life debate it is a debate on how much influence men should have over women's pregnancies or opting out of financial support.
I have my own views on abortion which are completely different from my views on this topic.
by sweetielowe on December 7th, 2010
"Only women can get pregnancy = Only women having control during the duration of the physical pregnancy."
Uh, true. However, they can terminate their future parental responsibilities by killing their offspring during pregnancy. That is far more drastic than simply giving the child up for adoption by someone else. That is all that father's would need, CHOICE.
If she wants to go ahead and have the child, that would be on her. If she wants to raise it or agrees with adoption, he should have the choice to have nothing to do with it, if he doesn't want to - so long as he decides during pregnancy.
BOTH men and women have the choice to use birth control prior to pregnancy, so there's no reason to only put it on the man, as you suggest. Men don't "impregnate" women without their consent, unless it's a case of rape.
If women have the choice to give birth against the man's wishes or kill their offspring against his wishes, he should at the VERY LEAST be able to choose to terminate his involvement whether she agrees or not. Anything else is misandristic unfairness.
This is not a pro-abortion/pro-life debate it is a debate on how much influence men should have over women's pregnancies or opting out of financial support.
Agreed, it's a pro-choice vs. pro-abortion debate. To not give men a choice is to only support abortion, not choice. Pro-choice gives BOTH parties a choice; it doesn't just demand for abortion. Anybody that supports the choice of abortion but not choice for men is pro-abortion not pro-choice. That's what this is about.
by Vazzini on December 7th, 2010
Here we go again :/
"Only women can get pregnancy = Only women having control during the duration of the physical pregnancy."
'Uh, true. However, they can terminate their future parental responsibilities by killing their offspring during pregnancy. That is far more drastic than simply giving the child up for adoption by someone else. That is all that father's would need, CHOICE.'
So to force a woman to give up a child to adoption you would therefore need to physically FORCE her to go through the pregnancy.
You have the opinin that it would less drastic than having an abortion but that is not your or any other mans choice to make.
'BOTH men and women have the choice to use birth control prior to pregnancy, so there's no reason to only put it on the man, as you suggest. Men don't "impregnate" women without their consent, unless it's a case of rape.'
Yes of course its both their responsibility but if the woman then has the extra choice which the man doesn't have then its in his best interest to take charge of contraception is it now??
I do not understand how I can be clearer? Again not fair but thats life you saying it should be both their responsibility although true won't change the fact that once pregnancy happens men have no choice.
The world is not 'fair' and in this women have a advantage over men once the pregnancy happens. Most women talk it though their partners and decide to stay together and make the best of things, but some women lie and say they are on the pill etc and trap men this is wrong, of course it is!. This is the sole reason why men need to take charge and prevent this from happening because as I previously have said again and again, women cannot physically force a man to get her pregnant (unlike men) she can manipulate and lie so its up to him to take charge and not leave it up to the one that holds all the cards should an accident happen.
If a woman is careless then she has the choice to abort. It is unfair but that is the way it is and (unless women lose all their human rights) it will stay.
'Agreed, it's a pro-choice vs. pro-abortion debate. To not give men a choice is to only support abortion, not choice. Pro-choice gives BOTH parties a choice; it doesn't just demand for abortion. Anybody that supports the choice of abortion but not choice for men is pro-abortion not pro-choice. That's what this is about.'
Hmmm
to not give men a choice is to only support abortion eh? Makes no sense whatsoever, the comparison sounds daft. You see the label term could completely contradict itself if a man wanted a women to abort and she didn't and went through with the pregnancy against his wishes, it would still be as little choice for him but couldn't be classed as pro-abortion just because he didn't have the choice.
FAIR? NO!!
REALITY?? YES!!
I'm sorry that you don't like reality but this all comes down to the financial hardship cutting men's financial payments to their offspring would entail to the country.
The government would then have to pick up the excess bill and they will not allow that to happen. Or let single families starve on a mass scale. Someone ends up picking up the bill thats just life? It might not seem fair but the person who fathered the child should have more responsibility than a government that had no involvement.
Just to finish off (because i'm not going to repeat my posts again and again) young men don't take enough responsibility over their sexual choices or partners as it is.
Women's consequences are either to be single mother (very hard being a actual parent even more than being a financial burden) or to take the sole decision to abort and the roller-coaster of emotionals that entails.
There are always consequences and whining about the injustices of it on a forum won't change reality.
by sweetielowe on December 7th, 2010
said it all :)
by MariahAndiMurder on March 10th, 2011
That was really nicely written.
by HayleyVenus07 on April 5th, 2011
'as long as it's working well for your team, eh sweetie?'
All i did was explain reality but some people just don't seem to like that and would rather rant on the internet.
by sweetielowe on April 21st, 2011
Quote:
'poor little dumb blonde princess- being forced to vigorously defend a hateful set of attitudes.
That's quite a day's work.'
'Other than proving that your fembot tape runs in a really short loop, you've managed to emphasize how STUPID and IRRESPONSIBLE you believe WOMEN are- and to think: I'm the one your cheering section will call a misogynist.'
'It's no wonder some of you broads will soon be thrown out of the sack in favor of a rubber dummy with nice figure and better attitude'
Unquote.
Yes I would call you a misogynist, not because of your views, but because of the insulting, degrading and hatefully patronizing manner in which you wrote to me.
The moment you lower yourself to insults is the moment an argument is lost and adjured. I won't lower myself to insulting you and your intelligence using jibs about your gender (because unlike you I don't hate the opposite sex).
I've reported your post because it is personally insulting to me and until you can speak civilly and not insult me because of what I look like, my hair colour and what is 'not' between my legs I won't lower myself to reply to what is actually in the contents of your post. Although we didn't agree, Vazzina didn't lower himself to personal insults hence why I took his posts a lot more seriously than yours.
Have a good day and I hope those 'fembots' are made soon (the one thing we agree on) to relieve real women of you.
by sweetielowe on April 22nd, 2011
Ooh that hurt.
"I won't lower myself to insulting you and your intelligence using jibs about your gender (because unlike you I don't hate the opposite sex)."
I have all the security I need in my own intelligence, and I have all the confidence I need in my own set of beliefs and my argument.
You, on the other hand, are representative of the typical female supremacist entitlement princess.
I say that because you've spent the entire thread enunciating your dripping contempt for the notion of real reproductive choice for men, and then you have the gall to say that you don't hate men.
I don't buy it.
"I hope those 'fembots' are made soon (the one thing we agree on) to relieve real women of you."
Point of fact- those who regurgitate feminist dogma are known as "fembots".
I haven't heard a vernacular term for the rubber dummies. At any rate, you'd better get busy notifying the high ranking feminists of your actual desire that these things be perfected and sold. They hate the idea; it will lessen women's sexual control over men.
They don't actually appeal to me, by the way. I think they're creepy, and I have a real woman who doesn't WANT to be relieved of me- because she's not put off by a man who isn't afraid to go against the grain.
by woggy on April 22nd, 2011
Haha being relived of men? Would love to know where i said that or even give that impression, sound like the ramblings of a looney.
Love the sarcasm by the way, your a real witty one.
You've found a woman that puts up with your degrading and hateful attitude have you? congratulations lets hope you are a different person in real life and just spout your hateful and misogynistic nonsense from behind a computer screen.
I've been happily married for 13 with a gem of a man that values me as a equal and would never refer to women in the patronising manner in which you do. we respect each other as equals as it should be and are teaching or children to do the same.
My condolences to your partner x
by sweetielowe on April 22nd, 2011
"to relieve real women of you."
Those are your words, from your first reply to me, last line, or did you forget?
Neither of us used the exact words "relieved of MEN". Whatever...
What kind of woman did I find? I found one who doesn't hate men.
I can hear you already: "I never said I hate men!".
I doubt you're stupid enough to say a thing like that, but you espouse attitudes that add up to genuine contempt for men- and contempt turns to hatred when it's convenient, or watches hatred being carried out against the object of contempt, saying "It must suck to be you".
"It must suck to be you" is pretty much what your entire message in this thread has been, where the rights of fathers are concerned.
As it stands right now, a woman has the advantage of "carrying the package" the man has entrusted her with, and the lawmakers seem to see no need to even the playing field where forcing a woman (if it comes down to that) to consider the wishes of the father of her child. None.
Women would NEVER settle for that. If the laws of nature weren't in their favor, they had man-made laws ensure that they be treated as equals- even in realms where they clearly were and are not equal.
Police and firefighting positions immediately leap to mind, with their differing physical requirements for women applicants.
It's silly, and not really in the interest of public safety, but the rules were changed to make women "equal".
I'm misogynistic?
Yes, I've heard that before- more shaming language from someone who doesn't have a better argument- but I'm treating you as an equal. I'd talk the same way to any man who said the same things you've said.
I don't know your husband, but I'm fairly confident that even if he never says so, he aquiesces to your opinions just so he can be welcome in your bed.
Men have gone to war for sex, don't kid yourself by thinking they won't go along with feminist man-hating to get it.
Mrs Woggy is quite happy, thank you, but I'll be sure to pass along your condescending concern.
You claim to have reported my post to a A'bag mod?
Is that supposed to scare me?
In case you haven't been paying attention: As a man, I can be falsely accused of rape/sexual assault(in the UK, a woman gets paid for making such a claim, no?) and then drain all of my personal wealth trying to establish my innocence and restore my name.
A woman can make a false claim of sexual harassment and take my livelihood.
What makes you think I'll roll over and play dead just so you won't report me to the man-haters that run this site?
I couldn't care less; so if it makes you feel better, go right ahead.
by woggy on April 22nd, 2011
Quote:
"The man has authority only over his own body and its functions. He is responsible for them. Thus, he will have to pay child support no matter if he wanted her to terminate her pregnancy or not. The woman is the one who has authority over her body."
Yes the woman has authority over her body. She can and should be able to choose whether or not she wants a child, that's up to her.
BUT that does not mean she should have an automatic authority over the man's bank account.
by Unicorn Man on July 24th, 2011