Laws regarding children and the parents.

**Thanatos** · February 09, 2011, 08:07 PM

Please correct me if I am incorrect in any way, since I would like to receive an answer regarding this.

From what I know, it would seem that in America if a couple has a child, and the woman wants to keep it but the man does not, the man is still required to either father the child or to pay child support.

However, if a couple has a child and the man wants it but the woman does not, the woman can get an abortion without consulting the man to get his consent.

If this is true, this seems to be pretty screwed up. How on earth does anybody get by looking at this and calling it fair or just?

**Elfdude** · February 09, 2011, 08:28 PM

Unfortunately under US law the baby is not technically a person but rather a part of the female's body during the time that abortions are legal.

While I can understand the objection to this I can't think of a better way to do it without being unfair to one party even more. The general idea is that since women must suffer the pain and burden of childbirth (including not being able to work, etc) men must help them if they decide to carry the baby to term since the man made a contribution. Of course if a woman's intention is to trap a man with childbirth she can and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Seeing as a man doesn't have to worry about carrying the baby for months it would be fundamentally unfair to force that burden on the woman if she didn't want it. Of course to make up for this men who pay child support etc have significantly more rights over their children than men who the mothers never see or talk to again.

Still I can't help but feel there's a better way to do it all together but the only real option I can think of is not to have children until the two agree which is fine and dandy when it works but leaves us back at the starting point when people forget or simply don't intend to have children but coincidence conspires against them.

**Col. Tartleton** · February 09, 2011, 10:19 PM

Women should decide and men should be able to choose involvement or not.

Or we could practice abstinence until we have legitimate marriage babies...

**hellheaven1987** · February 09, 2011, 10:27 PM

There is no such thing as fairness before feminists.

**Col. Tartleton** · February 09, 2011, 10:32 PM

Originally Posted by hellheaven1987

There is no such thing as fairness before feminists.

Yeah but they're bigoted far left sexist scum not worthy to raise the seeds. I can tolerate Radical Islam but I'll die fighting the feminazis.

**chriscase** · February 09, 2011, 10:53 PM

As a man, you do have a legal right to control where your sperm goes. If you can show that you did not consent to the donation - i.e., you were raped or your sperm was taken from you against your will - I'm fairly certain you have legal grounds to contest paternity.

Of course, culturally, a man who claims rape or otherwise does not affect a masculine desire to spread his semen far and wide can be held up to ridicule and general disbelief. So in practice the only way to avoid this is to be very strict about birth control. As an older man, I would definitely get a vasectomy if I were single.

**hellheaven1987** · February 09, 2011, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by chriscase

As a man, you do have a legal right to control where your sperm goes. If you can show that you did not consent to the donation - i.e., you were raped or your sperm was taken from you against your will - I'm fairly certain you have legal grounds to contest paternity.

The problem is how to prove you were raped - unless you have a video shows you have been tie up and rape I don't think there is a way to prove it.

**chriscase** · February 10, 2011, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by hellheaven1987

The problem is how to prove you were raped - unless you have a video shows you have been tie up and rape I don't think there is a way to prove it.

Hence the maxim about an ounce of prevention...

**CamilleBonparte** · February 09, 2011, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by Thanatos

If this is true, this seems to be pretty screwed up. How on earth does anybody get by looking at this and calling it fair or just?

What is your solution to this injustice?

**Thanatos** · February 10, 2011, 12:47 AM

Originally Posted by CamilleBonparte

What is your solution to this injustice?

The problem is that I am not sure if I have an answer to that. Everything I can come up with is open to possible exploitation.

**Matthias** · February 10, 2011, 12:47 AM

Originally Posted by Thanatos

Please correct me if I am incorrect in any way, since I would like to receive an answer regarding this.

From what I know, it would seem that in America if a couple has a child, and the woman wants to keep it but the man does not, the man is still required to either father the child or to pay child support.

However, if a couple has a child and the man wants it but the woman does not, the woman can get an abortion without consulting the man to get his consent.

If this is true, this seems to be pretty screwed up. How on earth does anybody get by looking at this and calling it fair or just?

It's just and fair precisely because childbirth itself in our society is anything but. Women of course must carry the child to term, which is no small matter, and usually are the ones burdened with raising the child alone if there is no father. Pregnancy is much more disruptive to a woman's life than a man's in this way. The woman's personal liberty is restricted far more than the man's. And single women with children are looked down upon in society in many ways and discriminated against as well in the job market. Indeed, all women with children, married or not, are discriminated against in their careers for fear that they won't be able to devote as much time to it.

Since childbirth only effects the woman's body, it makes sense that they have full control over the choice to keep the child or not.

If you think it's unfair, blame biology and society's attitudes towards pregnancy and single mothers that make pregnancy and child rearing a much larger burden on women than men.

**Elfdude** · February 12, 2011, 05:33 AM

In several states (if not all) rape is defined as penetration meaning a woman can't have conventional sex with a man and have a man claim rape. Although if she puts something up his bum he might have a case. So the only way a man can prove he didn't consent to the child is if they can prove that she got the semen through another activity other than sex.