For anyone who skipped the link, the basics facts: Guy and girlfriend get pregnant and have a kid at 19, guy rushes to the hospital, but when he arrives, girlfriend gives the daughter up for adoption and sneaks out a side door before he even gets there. He has no say in the matter. He hires a lawyer, but a month goes by before they find out the girl is across the country in Utah. Having failed to claim her within 30 days, he's apparently given up all parental rights, and she's adopted somewhere in there. 3 years later, he's still fighting for her.
Now, the part of this that really gets me is that everyone involved, the court, the adoptive family, and the girlfriend, all know that he's there and not only ready to father the kid, but demanding he be allowed to, but still he's basically brushed aside in this entire argument.
Now, I pop up from time to time to argue male rights in general, and paternal rights specifically (it's the one I care the most about, though I'm not even close to being a father), so if someone falls on the other side of this, please help me understand how this could possibly be fair for the dad and the daughter.
For a society that spends so much time railing against deadbeat dads, I just don't understand how a willing father isn't just muscled out of the decision making process, but even though he immediately contested the decision, can be totally cut off from his daughter after only a month on a technicality in a situation he had ZERO control over. It seems in this case that the system was almost designed to deny him any sort of decision making power, and yet, had she kept the baby, he certainly would have had to pay child support (and of course, he's more than willing, but the point is that he has no choice in the matter).
Now on abortion, that one's dicey, and while it's frustrating, I'm willing to relent in that a man shouldn't be able to force a woman to carry a baby to term. I consider that a compromise though, as in my personal opinion, when two people have sex, they're tacitly agreeing to suffer the consequences of a potential conception, so as far as I'm concerned, she gives up her veto when she has sex. But I know that's not a very popular argument for a lot of people.
But here, when she agrees to give birth, how is the father's role still that diminished? How doesn't he get dibs if she turns it down? Yeah, Utah gives the father 30 days, but hell, the baby was transported all the way across the country, and even as he was getting a ruling from the VA judge, he was already out of time thousands of miles away.
And yes, even three years later, I still think the girl should be with her father. It might be confusing to her at first, but 3 is a resilient age. If she were older, it'd be trickier, and that's why every day they keep her there, it makes the situation harder.
Obviously I'm a little worked up about this, so tell me, am I way off base?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have plenty of indignation for this man's plight, but I can also understand how the adoptive family at this point would have a very hard time giving up the child.
The man makes a point of saying they are aware that he is trying to get his baby back, but the article doesn't explain what legal obstacles he is facing, or whether there's a reason the adopting family isn't budging.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I find peculiar is that you can apparently give up a baby for adoption within minutes of it being born (fine) and that's apparently. The father rushed to the hospital and the implication is he arrived soon after the birth but it doesn't in fact say how soon after the birth he arrived at the hospital or exactly what happened for the events to transpire in the way they did.
That is to say, the baby ended up in Utah within what... hours? days? a week? Was the baby in the hospital when the father arrived? Why was the "20 days of claiming" not sufficient with his arrival at the hospital presumably while the baby was still there and the question, "Where is my baby?" If the baby was, somehow, already gone from the hospital surely a quick visit to the social service involved would have been sufficient to register a request within 20 days track where the child was (surely not out of the city) and have the paperwork started on releasing her into the father's hands.
However, while there has been some miscarriage of common sense I can see how difficult it would be for the family to now give up their daughter after three years of raising her. Not only thinking of themselves, but thinking of the kid, who might be very happy.
I don't really understand how this occurred and it's making me very slightly suspicious: either the father missed some kind of crucial step that made this ludicrously or there has been some very deliberate breakdown in the chain from someone involved (possibly because he was a nineteen year old, who don't have the best track record as parents, especially single parents, although this is not an excuse unless there's some different law concerning very young single parents on the books, which I doubt).
quote:But I know that's not a very popular argument for a lot of people.
No kidding.
All said, I don't think that this is an issue where legality is against the father. It sounds like there are allowances for a father to reclaim their child should they be given up for adoption against their wishes. 20 days is ample time for this kind of father who really wants to raise their baby, as well as in this specific case.
So what went wrong must be some kind of breakdown in communication or understanding of the situation. If the request was registered, why did it not go through. Why did the father have to "track down" the child when he arrived at the hospital presumably while the child was either still there or still in the city? I can imagine, perhaps, him intiially being stonewalled by the hospital but surely the local social service department through whom the adoption was arranged was accepting calls.
I want to know what went wrong in order to fix it. This isn't about the rights being there for a father to claim his child: they exist. Why did the not work in this situation and is this endemic?
Also, that guy looks waaaay more than 22.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I consider that a compromise though, as in my personal opinion, when two people have sex, they're tacitly agreeing to suffer the consequences of a potential conception, so as far as I'm concerned, she gives up her veto when she has sex.
Realistically, when a girl has sex, and is 'tacitly accepting' the consequences of a potential conception, she gets to medically frame what those consequences are, since it's her body. So what she is tacitly (or actively, clearly) accepting can be a 0% chance of having a baby.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Now, the part of this that really gets me is that everyone involved, the court, the adoptive family, and the girlfriend, all know that he's there and not only ready to father the kid, but demanding he be allowed to, but still he's basically brushed aside in this entire argument.
It sounds like the possibility of it playing out this way may be peculiar to Utah laws, which (if I am reading correctly) are designed to make adoption easier than elsewhere, especially if the biological parents ae not married.
quote:It seems in this case that the system was almost designed to deny him any sort of decision making power ...
Again, in Utah at least, if he hasn't married the pregnant woman, this seems to be the case. I think the claim against Utah may have merit, but I don't think this would happen that way in most states, and I'm not sure the criticism of society generalizes well.
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: That is to say, the baby ended up in Utah within what... hours? days? a week? Was the baby in the hospital when the father arrived? Why was the "20 days of claiming" not sufficient with his arrival at the hospital presumably while the baby was still there and the question, "Where is my baby?"
The timeline is made a little more clear in the Washington Post link above.
I don't know much about this case other than a few articles I just read. I can't make sense of it, but it does make me curious about how the relevant laws differ from state to state and how that is adjudicated with reference to state lines.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Similar cases that resulted in the child being returned to the biological parents: Baby Jessica Baby Richard
In these cases, though, the biological parents reconciled and married. The mothers did try to discourage the fathers from getting the kids - one said the baby had died, the other put another man's name on the birth certificate. But in both cases, the children were taken from the adoptive parents at ages 2 1/2 and 3.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Illinois had a 30-day time period for the dad to contest the adoption, and he missed it (the Baby Richard case). But he (and the bio mom) got custody anyway.
I brought these up because the kids were about 2 1/2 and 3 when taken from the adoptive parents. There's a case now where a Guatemalan woman says her daughter was kidnapped and the girl was adopted by a couple in Missouri, who are of course contesting having to return the girl. She is 6 now. That one isn't resolved yet - a Guatemalan court has ordered that the girl be returned but the adoptive family is resisting.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, what a horrible situation! Kidnapped, taken away from her family, and then placed with a new family, who want to keep her, while her real parents want her back...I can't even imagine the torment of both sets of parents.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is indeed an infuriating case. The baby was born on Feb. 10. The father filed request for custody with the court on Feb. 18, BEFORE the adoptive parents even filed the adoption papers!
I find the adoptive parents unconscionable in this. Once they knew that the adoption was contested, and that it was contested by the baby's father before they even filed the paperwork, they should have relinquished custody. It would have been hard, and would have torn their heart out in that moment, but it will be much harder to tear their hearts out when the child is three or four and is rightfully returned to her father. They should have put the welfare of the child first, and returned her then when they knew she was basically kidnapped away from her father. They at least knew about it when the baby was four months old, because the article says they sent the father pictures of her from four months to seven months. That means that some time before the child was four months old, they had to know their adoption was invalid. I could not live myself raising a baby that was stolen away from her parents. By all accounts, even that of the birth mom, this is a young man who wanted to do the right thing from the very beginning. He deserves to be with his daughter.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I consider that a compromise though, as in my personal opinion, when two people have sex, they're tacitly agreeing to suffer the consequences of a potential conception, so as far as I'm concerned, she gives up her veto when she has sex.
Realistically, when a girl has sex, and is 'tacitly accepting' the consequences of a potential conception, she gets to medically frame what those consequences are, since it's her body. So what she is tacitly (or actively, clearly) accepting can be a 0% chance of having a baby.
There's an interesting way of reframing what I said. Doesn't make it any more palatable.
quote:From Teshi: No kidding.
Hey, at least I'm aware of that. I don't think it's a crazy argument really, but, I recognize that it would make women's lives a lot less carefree, and thus it's unpopular. Personally I just don't think that's a very good counterargument. But again, I'm willing to live with the status quo on abortion, so long as adoption rules aren't set with as many obstacles against men.
CT -
That's a good point, if Utah truly is the exception to the rule. Do you know of any sort of comprehensive online database detailing adoption rules where the father's rights are concerned?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hey, at least I'm aware of that. I don't think it's a crazy argument really, but, I recognize that it would make women's lives a lot less carefree, and thus it's unpopular. Personally I just don't think that's a very good counterargument.
Sure, if that's the counterargument being offered (usually, it is not).
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the father got the child back, who would pay the couple for the 3 years they spent raising the child? And would they be refunded the cost of the adoption?
I don't understand the fathers indignant attitude towards the adoptive family. At the time of birth, the mother felt the best option for the child would be adoption. I would understand anger towards her because her decision basically said, "I don't think you're fit to raise this child" and/or "I can't raise her but I won't let you either."
And where was the father during the pregnancy? It's interesting that he "doubts the integrity of the adoptive family" when there are equally, if not more so, valid reasons to doubt his integrity.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hey, at least I'm aware of that. I don't think it's a crazy argument really, but, I recognize that it would make women's lives a lot less carefree, and thus it's unpopular. Personally I just don't think that's a very good counterargument.
Sure, if that's the counterargument being offered (usually, it is not).
What's a more likely one?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Medical. Pregnancy is a medical issue and it entails risks to the physical bearer of the child. That makes it solely the right of the pregnant party to determine if she wants to bring the child to term. This is non-negotiable. Few people's core argument for abortion is "a right to be carefree," it is a right to medical control over one's body.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why can't he at least have visiting rights? Why is it that when they DO remove these children they don't bother to do it gradually? They just snatch the child away. It's like Solomon all over again. Why not find some way to put aside differences and do what's best for the child? Letting them get to know BOTH sets of parents, but respecting their feelings in this too. Stuff like that leaves me torn.
Also, Utah's laws about this suck. The father should have a say when it comes to these things since they help in the conception process. I like that he is trying to be a father, but on the other hand, it's agonizing for everyone.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Well, a pregnancy can turn dangerous at very short notice. You can be fine all the way through right until the last moment when everything suddenly goes pear-shaped.
So for me, it needs to a choice freely made, to take such a risk. No-one gets to tell other people what to do with their life and their body.
As for the story - it's horrific. But I do wonder what the effects as far as emotional and attachment issues etc would be for a child taken from their adoptive family at this age. I'm not sure three or four is such an adaptable age at all. Having known people who were taken or sent away from their families at that age, in my limited experience they often end up pretty scarred and traumatized.
As a side note - There's an ongoing news story in Spain at the moment about children who were stolen from their mothers by nurses and nuns during and after Franco and given out to people considered more suitable for political, social and religious reasons. This went on from the 1940s until the 1980s, and it is terrible for the parents and the children concerned - but some of them have even been reunited by the detective work of the adoptive parents who couldn't bear the guilt of raising a stolen child knowing that other people out there were suffering. So, it's usually not the adoptive parents to blame - they're as much victims as anyone.
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: The father should have a say when it comes to these things since they help in the conception process.
Just recently here at hatrack there was a big discussion concerning abortion and other related issues. Apparently there isn't a lot of concern about father's rights. But I don't remember that thread ending well so I see no reason to re-hash it.
There seems to be some very strange elements in this case and a whole lot of unknowns. The hospital's actions seem particularly shady. They didn't put much (maybe not any) effort into ascertaining the fathers decision. Then they hustled the mother out the side door, knowing the father was just meters away. There are more than a few shoulder-shrug characters in this odd debacle.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
'Awareness that there are multiple very serious sometimes competing rights' is not at all the same thing as 'not a lot of concern for the rights of fathers'.
I could just as easily say that in this country, we're also not very much concerned with fathers' responsibilities as well.
--------
quote:If it's a dangerous pregnancy, fair enough.
Others have noted: how and when is this to be determined? What degree of reliability should the decision have to be binding? Those are just a couple of easy questions that are key, thought of in less than a second because they follow in such a straightforward way.
As for the story itself, it seems very bizarre and if even some of the elements within it are accurate, it's very troubling and unjust. This case seems to illustrate the weirdness and inefficiency of our adoption system, and the way we handle things. We just don't handle it very well.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: 'Awareness that there are multiple very serious sometimes competing rights' is not at all the same thing as 'not a lot of concern for the rights of fathers'.
Yes, in the last discussion we discussed competing rights as well as the way burden translates into right. As I remember it, the father didn't fare too well.
quote:As for the story itself, it seems very bizarre and if even some of the elements within it are accurate, it's very troubling and unjust. This case seems to illustrate the weirdness and inefficiency of our adoption system, and the way we handle things. We just don't handle it very well.
Unjust it is, but for whom is the discussion. It's unjust for everyone but more so for the child and her current family, I'd argue. Someone mentioned visiting rights for the father. This approach wouldn't be one the father favors but it would be a solution that doesn't entirely destroy the relationship between the girl and her adoptive family.
If this problem was common I'd be more concerned about adjusting the adoption process in order to avoid cases such as this. The system isn't perfect but this situation is very atypical. The first thing I would do is investigate the adoption agency.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Do you know of any sort of comprehensive online database detailing adoption rules where the father's rights are concerned?
That may be out there, but I do not know where. All I can find are second- and third-hand reports, and I don't yet know how to suss out which are most reliable.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If it's a dangerous pregnancy, fair enough.
Otherwise, I disagree.
I can yet again just bring up In re A.C. — a subtle reminder that a pregnant woman's body is her own, and we cannot go back to the condition in which it is not and that we can override a mother's conscious individual decision in this matter under pretty much any circumstances. For all the good intentions of those who want to say that there should be a 'revokable veto' in the dilemma of mother's rights versus fetus rights (and without a doubt I am sure you have good intentions) they have past and present been completely consistent in what road they have paved, and to which destination.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I wonder if inalienable body rights could be argued to abolish the draft.
The idea of inalienable body rights must also be disregarded for things like the consumption of tobacco and alcohol (to name a few) and assisted suicide. Of course, it's not uncommon for the courts to be inconsistent.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I wonder if inalienable body rights could be argued to abolish the draft.
The idea of inalienable body rights must also be disregarded for things like the consumption of tobacco and alcohol (to name a few) and assisted suicide.
No, there's absolutely no requirement for it to be disregarded for either of these things.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The father should have immediate rights equal to that of the mother as soon as the child is born..
Something I don't understand, if the baby was born on the 10th, and he arrived on the 11th, how the heck did the lady manage to leave the hospital so soon AND put her kid up for adoption so fast ._.
Giving that my daughter was literally just born 12 days ago ._. my woman had to stay in the hospital for 3 days, being that she had to get a c-section... but after just 1 day and leaving after child birth O_o that don't even seem right they told my girlfriend if she went vag birth that she would be there 2-3 days and if she went c-section 3-5 days....... ..............
Besides all of that I had to fill out some weird paperwork called affidavit... just so I can be LEGALLY registered as the father... -------------------------- If the adoptive parents realized the father of "Emma" is looking for her, why the hell did they not give her up asap, the longer they were to hold on... the more they could use their incredibly crappy excuses like "WE ARE ALL SHE KNOWS" +frowny faces... --------------------------- On the side note, how the heck would you falsely fill out an affidavit, they will not accept the form if there even LOOKS like there's an error anywhere, let alone a made up name, social security number, and fake address, fake signature, and of course fake work information provided NOT TO MENTION, the legal implications of lying on a government contract which can be quite harsh if it is intentional ._.
Providing ya'll badly structured sentences since 1992......
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:From Rakeesh: I could just as easily say that in this country, we're also not very much concerned with fathers' responsibilities as well.
In what sense? If you mean that fathers aren't active enough in taking responsibility, then I'd say this becomes less true with each passing year. There was an Op-Ed fight a few months ago between a couple of men at two different newspapers where one was exhorting men to take a more active role in their kids' lives, and the other answered back with a list of studies and polls that show men in recent years take a surprisingly active role. More and more, men are primary caregivers, they spend time hanging out with their kids, one-on-one child/dad time, they help them with their home work, and this number has increased at a far faster rate than has the number of households where men are the primary breadwinners has decreased, which means even the large number of working dads where mom stays at home are more and more involved in their kids' lives.
The movement among men to exhort other men to take their responsibilities is still somewhat weak, in my opinion, but as a whole, fathers are stepping up more and more every year, and comparisons to the 40s-60s when men had relatively little contact with their kids, especially their daughters, are striking in their differences.
quote:From Bella Bee: Well, a pregnancy can turn dangerous at very short notice. You can be fine all the way through right until the last moment when everything suddenly goes pear-shaped.
So for me, it needs to a choice freely made, to take such a risk. No-one gets to tell other people what to do with their life and their body.
For the sake of playing devil's advocate:
Would you say an abortion or more or less dangerous than a stereotypical pregnancy? The argument during this thread seems to be largely that a pregnancy is inherently dangerous, alright, then would it seems like it would be far less invasive to let a man have a veto right in carrying a pregnancy forward, since an abortion is less dangerous and less invasive.
And as for the part in bold, your statement only works if you end it with the words "unless you're a man," otherwise, you suggest that men should have equal control over their own lives, which means a measure of shared control over a pregnant woman's body. Since that shared control is rejected, the woman has ultimate power over the man's life once conception has occurred.
It seems like the only fair compromise would be for men to absolve themselves of financial responsibility for the child. But then the child is the one who ultimately suffers, and I don't think that's particularly fair.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would you say an abortion or more or less dangerous than a stereotypical pregnancy?
1. Do you think that there is any chance that legal abortions are equally or more of a health complication than a typical pregnancy? How about an equal or larger medical expense?
2. If it were, would that void the argument about someone having the privilege about deciding what medical choices they want to make with their own body? What precedent does this set?
quote:And as for the part in bold, your statement only works if you end it with the words "unless you're a man," otherwise, you suggest that men should have equal control over their own lives, which means a measure of shared control over a pregnant woman's body.
That doesn't make any sense. A woman's choice over her own pregnancy is not a violation of the potential father's choices over 'their life and their body.'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This topics going off the tracks, so off topic discussion needs to stop and just to make this post relative. --------------------------
Fault is on the mother and the hospital, and possibly the adoption agency, seriously the baby was literally just born and it's almost as if they were just waiting to collect O_o
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know what you mean by "violation," since men don't really have any rights at all in that situation.
But there's no one even pretends they have the same level of control. Once the baby is conceived, the man gets to make almost zero decisions over his own life.
What if he never wanted the child at all, and doesn't want to pay child support?
What if he does want the baby, but the mother wants an abortion?
What if he wants the baby, but the mother decides to carry it to term but denies him access?
Whether the father wants the baby or not, it doesn't much matter. The mother chooses what kind of father he'll get to be or not be, and thus exerts MASSIVE amounts of control over his life.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Added: I know Lyrhawn mentioned this above. I just want the information to be clear -- feel free to carry on. Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:From Samprimary: 2. If it were, would that void the argument about someone having the privilege about deciding what medical choices they want to make with their own body? What precedent does this set?
I'm not sure how the precedent would extend beyond pregnancy. Most of the basis for my belief comes from the notion that when two people have sex, there's a tacit understanding that they could get pregnant, and at that point, there's an obligatory shared responsibility, and shared control. The opposing argument is that there's only shared responsibility (and at that, only if the woman wants there to be).
One of the arguments in this thread would be that there's no such thing as a safe pregnancy, so okay, abortions are very, very safe. We're compelled to do things all the time that may be dangerous as a result of consequences of our actions.
If it all comes back to "None of that matters, a woman has the final say!" then we're simply at an impasse. In pretty much every other case, I'd agree. This is also why I don't have a problem with abortion in the case of rape.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Whether the father wants the baby or not, it doesn't much matter. The mother chooses what kind of father he'll get to be or not be, and thus exerts MASSIVE amounts of control over his life.
So far as this is true, it's a reflection of the different hands we're dealt by our biology. Why *should* a male have an equal right to that decision when he takes fewer risks and bears fewer burdens during the pregnancy? Shall there be an outcry of injustice that men may safely get drunk during their mate's pregnancy, while women cannot? How much time in a hospital does a man have to undergo even during a routine pregnancy? How much risk to health?
Why should the law protect equivalent rights when our unalterable biology (well, for now) makes each party so inequivalent?
As for your remarks about paternal responsibility, well, they appear to illustrate my point. You point out that we're *improving* on that issue, in terms with male focus on domestic duties, child involvement, financial obligation. All of this improvement implies a poor starting point.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:...there's an obligatory shared responsibility, and shared control. The opposing argument is that there's only shared responsibility (and at that, only if the woman wants there to be).
But there isn't an (equally) shared responsibility, nor an equally shared burden. Only women can get pregnant. No man has had a caesarian section. No man has had major bleeding as a response to labor or miscarriage. No man has had to stop drinking (minus a glass or two-I forget the current medical standard) during a pregnancy. No man etc etc etc.
When the baby is out, things change, though slowly-men don't nurse, after all. We didn't come up with the name 'humanity ward' but rather 'maternity warr', and we did that for a reason. Does this result in imbalances in control? Yeah. But how much control should I have over issues over which someone else is carrying much of the burden?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, but that starting point was like five decades ago. I don't have numbers on what parity with mothers would be, so I don't know what the stopping point is, do you?
I'd argue that there's also a far more fundamental problem (and I think you'd agree with this) with regards to paternal roles in families. We've yet to really establish as a society what the male role should be. We have more or less created a stereotypical role for a mother in a family. There's no such role for a father. It's sort of an ad hoc exhortation to "get involved!" But boys growing up have no idea what that means. Considering that obstacle, I think fathers are doing pretty well with the learning curve. They need to do better, but they're deserving of praise as a whole.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Most of the basis for my belief comes from the notion that when two people have sex, there's a tacit understanding that they could get pregnant, and at that point, there's an obligatory shared responsibility, and shared control.
Under your notion, is the 'obligatory shared responsibility and control' supposed to be exactly equal between the man and the woman?
Does the man have exactly equal rights as the woman regarding the decisions made about whether the pregnancy is to be brought to term?
If not, why not?
If so, what does your 'notion' do in the event of needing a tiebreaker?
Can the man veto the woman's desire to abort?
Are you perfectly okay with the morality of abortion as the outcome if the two parties completely share the decision to abort?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:...there's an obligatory shared responsibility, and shared control. The opposing argument is that there's only shared responsibility (and at that, only if the woman wants there to be).
But there isn't an (equally) shared responsibility, nor an equally shared burden. Only women can get pregnant. No man has had a caesarian section. No man has had major bleeding as a response to labor or miscarriage. No man has had to stop drinking (minus a glass or two-I forget the current medical standard) during a pregnancy. No man etc etc etc.
When the baby is out, things change, though slowly-men don't nurse, after all. We didn't come up with the name 'humanity ward' but rather 'maternity warr', and we did that for a reason. Does this result in imbalances in control? Yeah. But how much control should I have over issues over which someone else is carrying much of the burden?
Okay, what about what happens for the next several decades after the first 9 months are over? In the case of the abortion, the burden is minimal.
A situation where a man would like his child born but the money chooses an abortion is only one scenario that I've proposed, there are others. As I said at the very top of this thread, I've pretty much made my peace with this biological imbalance. It's not fair, but the only way to settle that fairness is to have a nice long argument with Evolution, who isn't exactly around to argue with. So it's not fair, oh well, can't fix it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Most of the basis for my belief comes from the notion that when two people have sex, there's a tacit understanding that they could get pregnant, and at that point, there's an obligatory shared responsibility, and shared control.
Under your notion, is the 'obligatory shared responsibility and control' supposed to be exactly equal between the man and the woman?
Does the man have exactly equal rights as the woman regarding the decisions made about whether the pregnancy is to be brought to term?
If not, why not?
If so, what does your 'notion' do in the event of needing a tiebreaker?
Can the man veto the woman's desire to abort?
Are you perfectly okay with the morality of abortion as the outcome if the two parties completely share the decision to abort?
Obviously the responsibility can't be exactly equal in every regard, but so far as over the life of the child, if you were to quantify the contributions, yes, that would be ideal. And as for control, yes.
Well, there are potentially three people involved, so I suppose the baby is the tiebreaker. This answers your next question as well.
quote:Well, there are potentially three people involved, so I suppose the baby is the tiebreaker.
So what happens under your notion when the mother and the father agree to abort (let's say, perhaps, they agreed before any potential pregnancy too). Do they get to override the vote of the 'third person' involved, by a vote of 2 to 1?
quote:Well, there are potentially three people involved, so I suppose the baby is the tiebreaker.
The fetus can't consciously vote in the process, so you are accepting per your notion that the fetus is counted as an automatic vote for "carry to term" in 100% of situations involving conception? Or just in cases of willing conception (i.e., is the baby's vote discounted in the case of rape) ..?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any 'point at the end' i might make hinges a lot on understanding the particuarities of your notion, which is why i am asking the questions in the first place.
Do you not want to answer them, or?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This adoption case is ridiculous. The man hired a lawyer and contested within a few days. That is reasonable. He had plans of being a supportive dad from the beginning and seemed to be supportive from the start.
I do have trouble feeling much for the adopted parents. In this case, they knew he didn't consent but they didn't care. They decided that them having the baby was better and to heck with the father's viewpoint. They didn't respect the father or his role in his daughter's life. And that was wrong and kidnapping- legal kidnapping but still kidnapping. We don't let a kidnapper keep the kid just cause they treated the kid well. While yes, it might be easier to do duel custody, the father lives in virgina. Should he have to uproot his life to go live in the place his child's kidnapper lives? Or pay the expenses and time to fly across the country regularly? If the Utah family moves to Viginia, I'd be more behind the shared custody idea.
I find men's rights to usually be whiney and spoiled, but in this case, there is a clear injustice. If these cases were what men were complaining about, I would be much more supportive of the men's right movement.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
I couldn't tell if you were genuinely interested and if this was going anywhere or not.
I think I already answered both of your most recent questions. Are you just seeking clarification?
scholarette -
quote:I find men's rights to usually be whiney and spoiled, but in this case, there is a clear injustice. If these cases were what men were complaining about, I would be much more supportive of the men's right movement.
For example? Just curious.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For example- I can't choose to abort the kid so I shouldn't have to pay child support. If a woman gets a special 15 minute break to pump, I should get a break and my own special room too.
I'm generally in favor of increased paternity leave, but it really pisses me off when men take paternity leave and use it to write papers/books/grants and forward their career. I would be annoyed at a woman doing the same, but I don't know any that have.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said, if they both decide to abort, then they do, but I'm not comfortable with it.
And as I said, I'm more or less okay with abortion in cases of rape. The sex wasn't consensual, so it doesn't fall within my tacit agreement sphere.
It seems like your questions are geared towards finding out whether I have a problem with abortion or not in general, is that what you're really asking? If it is, I'll answer plainly. I'm not really a big fan of abortion. I think using it as a tool for birth control without some sort of specific overriding consideration, be it a health issue, or rape, or insert your extenuating circumstance, is wrong. However, I'm uncomfortable with exerting my personal morality on this issue on the population as a whole in a legislative fashion, which is why I tend to support pro-choice candidates, despite my personal reservations.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: For example- I can't choose to abort the kid so I shouldn't have to pay child support. If a woman gets a special 15 minute break to pump, I should get a break and my own special room too.
I'm generally in favor of increased paternity leave, but it really pisses me off when men take paternity leave and use it to write papers/books/grants and forward their career. I would be annoyed at a woman doing the same, but I don't know any that have.
FWIW, I agree with you on all those.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
