Male reproductive rights -- a mother fights back

Boo-Hoo

Uhh, do you really think immature (cartoon watching?), uneducated, non-working boys should be having sex?

I am sure he told his mommy all about how this young girl tricked him as he would never EVER consider sex before asking her about precautions, you know how 18 year old boys are concerned about stuff like that.

I have the same criticism for the girl, and I do wish unwanted babies would be put up for adoption - But mom needs to back off and let her little boy grow up, speak for himself and let him take care of his own situation.

I don't believe anyone told her it could be "one of three" except her own son trying to dilute his involvement. When you get served with paternity papers, no information like that is included. And although the mother keeps claiming her son was "duped" into becoming a father, she never explains how.

Her irresponsible ADULT son had sex with an equally irresponsible girl. Now there is a baby. My advice would be to disconnect from mom and be the leader of your own family and try and raise the child.

My only concern is that the baby's mother will get welfare if she needs it, handouts and full custody while the father/boy gets to pay child support. I would prefer that help and responsibility be distributed equally as it sounds like this young father could use some help getting a career and independence as his own mother was unable to help him achieve these things. (I'm wondering where his father is at)

I don't understand or agree with the $759/month child support for an 18 year old part time worker. I know fathers that make a fair amount working full time and pay less than that for two kids. Usually the father's income and expenses is documented and a formula of calculations is used to determine child support. How can it be more than you make as the mother indicated? I'd like to know what's up with that.

...if for any reason judges gave custody to teen fathers and let the teen moms struggle to pay child support for 18 years and see their children. If teen mothers faced imprisonment if they failed to pay the extortionate orders. If this practice became routine.

How's that for "cry me a river"?

Maybe this little reversal would instruct these "girls" on how to become adults. Perhaps a little tweak in the law would change women from demi-children to true adults with responsibilities as well as rights. Afterall, the U.S. was founded NOT to have a nobility—gender or otherwise.

The MRM would do well to concentrate more on custody because all of these so-called "rights" arise from it. And, individually, we must not allow women to use that obnoxious be-a-real-man shaming language to cow us into silence.

I have been saying for years that mothers need to have more fear and risk when it comes to child support and custody. I have no problem turning the tables a bit. When it comes to situations where one parent must be assigned full custody (i.e. parents live too far apart, or teenagers that still live at home) then men who want full custody should have as good as chance as women with mothers paying support to them.

When it comes to paper abortion for men, IMO, you will never get politicians and the general public to support something so anti-family as abandoning a living child. It's not the same as adoption or safe haven at all as it does not include transferring rights and responsibility to some one else to ensure the child is cared for.

I personally think MRAs are tying a noose around their necks and perpetuating the stereotype that men are anti-family and have no connection to their children when they support paper abortion.

I also find the support of paper abortion very contradictory with the MRA belief that courts and society need to see the importance of fathers and that CHILDREN have a right to their fathers. MRAs are frequently arguing that courts push fathers away and have no respect for the father/child relationship, and MRAs frequently criticize mothers who believe babies only belong to them. But now you want the support of the courts to help fathers disconnect with their children and to say that a father had no part in the decisions that led to creation of a child. And you want the courts to officially acknowledge that mothers are the only legal parent?

It is this contradictory that I cannot support and why I think fighting for fair child support and custody issues are the answer to entrapment of fathers, and I think you would get alot more sympathy if you approached it from that angle.

"When it comes to paper abortion for men, IMO, you will never get politicians and the general public to support something so anti-family as abandoning a living child. It's not the same as adoption or safe haven at all as it does not include transferring rights and responsibility to some one else to ensure the child is cared for."

You can just say you disagree but as for saying nobody else will agree, ie "your on the fringe", is unnecessary...

Fatherhood is sacred. Life is sacred. A father simply being an ATM is not sacred. I don't think I'm the one with the mixed up priorities.

IMO = In My Opinion

I stand by what I said.

In my opinion, it will be tough to get people on board with abandoning a child.

And I don't even understand how your other comments relate to what I posted.

"When it comes to paper abortion for men, IMO, you will never get politicians and the general public to support something so anti-family as abandoning a living child."

But people can accept and legalize having unborn babies killed and legally enforced (or voluntarily) single parent homes and it being quite common? The only that isn't allowed is fathers not being ATMs (their irreducible role).

Giving fathers the option to opt out early on, like women already can without penalty, is only right. He should not be subject to whatever she chooses alone. Furthermore it would empower would be fathers as actually being necessary willing participants in building families.

And there's alot more to fathers rights than just that.

Abortion is just barely legal. Usually there are protestors outside of clinics, so it is not all that socially acceptable either. Also many people do not consider an early embryo a human life. Hell, some people don't consider any unborn child a human life.

And that's what I am getting at. If people don't consider something to be human, they tend not to care what you do to it. But no one can dispute that a child that has been born is human - so people will have stronger feelings in regards to legal policies that pertain to a child versus those of an unborn embryo/fetus...At least that's my opinion.

I suspect there will be many people that are pro-abortion but anti-father abandonment because one deals with an "unhuman" embryo and the other deals with a human child.

I feel father abandonment is morally wrong. So is bringing a child into the world w/o the father's consent. But each person is in control of there own moral decisions. So even though a father can't control the immoral decisions of the mother, he should still make moral decisions himself.

That's why I am in favor of men getting shared custody w/o paying support to the mother, or mothers losing custody to the fathers and paying support to them in the event of pregnancies to uncommitted couples. That way a father can do the moral thing without rewarding the mother for her immoral decision.

Abortion is legal period! In all fairness we should give men a short period to opt out like women can.

You also say contradictory things, that its not accepted but it is accepted to make your point... The only real point is that it is legal.

It makes no sense to find fathers opting out any more objectionable than abortion and regular fatherless homes. The only thing this would really add to the equation is that fathers not with the kids would not necessarily have to be paying child support. That is why I told you my priorities which is that life is sacred and fatherhood is sacred, and both of those have already been very cheapened in our system. So I don't think it makes any sense to say father's opting out early on is too anti family for society to accept.

It is legally unjustifiable to force men into a role because of their part in conception but not do the same to women. Women under the current system have no fundamental obligations to what they conceived. They may legally server all ties by having an obortion or early adoption. I find it morally wrong that a loving father can do nothing to save his unborn child against the mother if she choose abortion then turn around and say he has the sacred obligation to be a father to his children should the mother not choose abortion.

You don't like the idea of paper abortion. Well how would you like it if fathers could actually impose real abortions, not just severing their ties but severing your child from you and life all together. All the bonding and hope you had for your unborn baby would literally be dead.

As long as abortion is legal paper abortion for men should be legal too. Men should not be obligated subjects to whatever women choose and giving men some of the same choices as women would give would be fathers greater status aiding the selection process for whole families.

Fondueguy, as you read my posts, please keep in mind the difference between morally acceptable and legally acceptable, and perhaps you will understand my position better. I realize that abortion is legally acceptable but that doesn't change my view of father-abandonment as morally UN-acceptable.

>fondueguy says: "It makes no sense to find fathers opting out any more objectionable than abortion and regular fatherless homes"

In my opinion those things are all "objectionable". I object to abortion, fatherless homes, and father's opting out. And since the article is on "father's opting out", I focused my objection there.

However, I think pro-abortion people will not consider an unborn child as human, so to them abortion is not as bad as abandoning a human child. (as I explained above).

> fondueguy says: "That is why I told you my priorities which is that life is sacred and fatherhood is sacred, and both of those have already been very cheapened in our system. So I don't think it makes any sense to say father's opting out early on is too anti family for society to accept."

You and I both seem to have the same priorities about life and fatherhood. Everything I write is pro-life and pro-fatherhood, so I am not sure why you think differently as previously you implied I had "mixed up priorities"

You write as if you believe life begins before birth (please correct me if I am wrong in my assumption). If that is the case, then why base your argument for father-abandonment on abortion which is something you believe is wrong? (I'm sure you've heard the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right")

Even if you believe life does not begin until birth, but that life is sacred, why would you promote something that would be emotionally damaging to that life just to spite the mother? It has been posted many times the negative effects a absent father has on a child. It is not good for children or society.

And if you believe fatherhood is so sacred, why would you promote something that takes away a father's rights ? You do realize that paper abortion will give ALL parenting power to mothers. Rights and responsibilities go hand-in-hand. If the mother gets all the responsibility she will also get all the rights. It will make no difference on whether the father wants to be a parent or not. He will lose rights even if he wants them. BTW -This also takes away from the belief that a child has a right to their fathers.

You and other men focus on the issue of money/child support that men are ordered to pay. You have legitimate concerns. In my argument I am separating *parenting* from monetary *child support*. These are two separate issues to me and IMO should be legally recognized as such. As I promote father's parenting and influencing their children I am not automatically ordering them to pay child support to the mothers.

I am envisioning shared custody w/o any support paid to either parent. If that is not possible or a parent is unwilling only then should support be paid. I would also like to see fathers get full custody more often.

This arrangement takes away a woman's incentive to get pregnant on purpose w/o fathers consent, and it prevents women from having babies all to themselves and purposely as well as legally cutting the father out. It also prevents some men from not caring if they impregnate a woman or not as they will have some responsibility for their choice (either provide some care or minimal child support).

This is shared risk and shared responsibility with no support paid to anyone (as long as both parents provide care).
It also respects the child's right to both parents.