How about if the man wants the baby but the woman doesnt? Or she wants to give the baby up for adoption? This was featured on a tv show recently.
In this case the woman decided to keep the child but put it up for adoption, even though the man wanted to keep the baby. Long story short, the father had no legal leg to stand on due to ignorance, and the girls parents found a local couple to give the baby to. Result: father has no rights, cant see the baby, grandparents and mother can go visit the baby every day all day if they want. Terrible.

I cant remember the name of it, but a lawyer who advocates for fathers rights said that there is a list of some sort where by if a man puts his name on it, it indicates he wishes to retain all rights in relation to the baby. In other words, every time you sleep with someone and you'd want the rights if there's a pregnancy, you HAVE to insert your name on the list. Else kiss it goodbye legally.

I don't think many guys would have a problem paying for the abortion considering the alternative.

I think abortion should always be the woman's right, but that if she decides to keep the baby and wants to put it up for adoption, the father should have the first option to take the baby. In this case, I think the woman should be on the hook for child support totally.

As a father of a 1.5 yr old daughter who was not planned, I can tell you the following:
- even after the first "shock" [doh!] I Thank God for every little second I spend with this adorable princess.
- after becoming a father who was on psychedelics for approx ten yrs I also became very very much against abortion.
- The father should pay for sure, no blah-blah, everything else is bullshit. If you don't take care of your family you'll NEVER be able to look in the mirror again (neither take Acid or Mushi and stuff..) and you are simply a Fucking Bad Man.

I was not in love with the girl, I was not living with this girl, but after she told me she is pregnant I rented a flat, prepared for the child's arrival, always went to the doc with her, took the "parent course" and so on. I was a pothead punk, and this thingg changed my entire life in a very very good way. Now I am a responsible father who smokes a splif in the evening and think with big smile on my face of the nice partytimes I have had in the last years. :pimp I don't regret nothing, this situation is very OK to me - and I hope I will tell you the same if you ask me 10 yrs later :D :D when i will have 2-3-4 children ;)

In this case he's known to be the undisputed father by all parties and all lawyers. The mother simply didnt like him and didnt want him to be able to be the father, and her plan was to disallow him the priviledge by putting their baby up for adoption. And it wasn't even an open adoption, her parents found some friends of theirs who took the baby privately.

There is a list that men should be aware of if they never want to be in that horrifying position. It retains your legal rights as the father. Men are disadvantaged in that they dont get pregnant, and dont "show". Even though without him, it's just another monthly cycle like any other to the woman. Thats the womans blessing and burden.. so be it. But in order for the father to retain his legal rights, an ultrasound doesnt cut it, he needs his name on a piece of paper at city hall, or it's all over legally.

I dont disagree with you in that it would be *nice* if the mother who didnt want the baby would give the father the option to take the baby. But it's all sort of after the fact. If he is the legal and biological father, he actually does have rights.. IF he retains them on paper the instant he knows of the pregnancy.

It's a woman's body and a woman's choice; The man has no rights here. Once you strip away his rights in the decision process, you also remove all of his obligation.

If "Bob" and "Cindy" date for six weeks and Cindy discovers she's knocked up, it's her decision to have a baby. Bob agreed to have sex with her, not father a child with her, and not enter into some kind of relationship that requires an eighteen year commitment. The man has no rights and is not legally part of the decision making process to have the baby.

Before I met wife, I dated a woman named Karen. Karen had dated a man named Vince prior to me meeting her, got knocked up, but decided it wasn't in her best interests to Vince as a father. She broke it off with him and had the baby without his knowledge. Somewhere along the line the father's name got mentioned in some paperwork, and Vince woke up one day and discovered that he owed five years of back support for a child he never knew he had. Not only did he have no rights and no part of the decision making process, he had no knowledge of the child. So he got socked with a $20k bill, had to make child support payments, and was only allowed to see his child once a month - a child who wanted nothing to do with him. How's that for fair?

everyone says "it takes two" etc.

but the fact of the matter is that "two" has almost nothing to do with the legal system and how men are treated. it may take two to get a woman pregnant... but it doesn't take "two" to make the decision to have a child. it doesn't take "two" to make the decision to get an abortion. it doesn't take "two" to make every decision for that child. As Rochard is pointing out... in many cases, it takes "one"... the man basically has few to no rights in this area and the entire system is weighted against men and he is expected to pay in every single case like he is some kind of asshole just for having a dick.

"i had an unplanned child and it is the best thing that ever happened to me..." -- Really? who gives a shit? Does that mean that all families work out just perfectly fine? does that mean that every unfit, immature retard should be a parent because you think you are having a experience.

I think some of you should actually grow up in foster homes or come from very dysfunctional families before preaching about "whats best for a child".

If you can't afford a baby, have an abortion or give it up for adoption. People shouldn't consider having babies if they are not in a financially stable position. I would never bring a kid into an unstable life, it is irresponsible and selfish.

I personally don't want kids so my views are probably odd. I also think the world population is large enough.

No, the man DOES have rights even before he knows if the woman is pregnant. They just arent aware of it in most cases. Even lawyers are unaware of "putative fathers registries"
ie: http://www.putativefather.org/

You can retain your legal rights as a parent, if you know about them.

You have to register, and make attempts (as you naturally would do) to contact, help and support the care and interests of your baby. But above all, you have to quit saying that men have no rights.

Call information and ask for your local Putative Fathers Registry. If you are on the list, your baby can NOT be put up for adoption right out from under you.

Exception to the rule and you know it.

the courts make men pay for kids that DON'T have the same DNA. If a woman hoodwinks a man into thinking a child is his and he comes to find out years later that it isn't, they can still order him to pay support for that child.

the lack of rights for fathers in the systems is atrocious.

that's it

whoever lays with a girl has to face possibilities

I'm not sure that it has to be bad for the kid, maybe the girl has a caring family etc who help in raising the kid up.

This makes complete sense. If the woman wants to keep a child that the father doesn't, she should be prepared to do it on her own, but if the father wants visitation or whatever, then he should be prepared to pay.... can't have it both ways.

There should be a legal form that the father can fill out that relinquishes all visitation or custody rights at the same time he is released of all obligations as well. :2 cents:

I've posted links and information already where you as a man CAN retain your rights in the decisions! It's NOT 100% the womans choice in other words. If you are on the putative fathers registry in your state (21 states have it currently), and the woman seeks an abortion or adoption, they MUST notify you before the procedure or process commences, else they are criminally liable! From there you all go to court to argue for paternal rights and who is better fit to decide YOUR babies future. YOUR is plural, not singular to either party.

Time to put down the stone knives and bearskins and get familiar with your rights and responsibilities as a man in the year 2008. You have to check your local states rights and not get caught in ignorance or you legally forfeit!


I will say again though that to the question actually posed in the thread: yes the man who factually is the father by paternity test should be responsible because he IS responsible. Just because he maybe didnt know the woman or realise he was so close to making a baby is no excuse and does not relieve him of any moral obligation. The law tries to reflect that, but as with all laws based on trying to fulfill a moral obligation, there are problems. Be that as it may, if his sperm was accepted by her egg, it's his and hers baby and as such, his and hers responsibility jointly.

there is still the legal fact that the woman, on her own, has the right to relinquish all financial obligations by putting the child up for adoption and not have to pay anymore, the man should have the same right protected by law :2 cents:

You are not reading, as I've stated several times already that is NOT true everywhere! Good lord, you can lead a horse to water...... hehe

If you are registered and your woman tries to get an abortion or adopt out, she is bound by law to involve you in the decision. She legally CAN NOT make it on her own. Sinking in now?

If you're saying that you want to be able to splash sperm in every woman you meet and never have to pay money, well your priorities are so out of whack anyway that it's useless. lol

sorry PR_Tom, I took your quote out of context as it fit the concept I was discussing, you are coming at it from the point that you want the man to have more rights in seeking custody or control, whereas my point was that the man should have similar rights to the woman in not wanting custody or obligation.... similar issues I guess, but coming at it from two completely different viewpoints

Abortion isn't birth control. Pretend it doesn't exist and then re-ask the question.

Its very sad that most of you are just talking about the father and the mother forgetting the most important: the child...

what do you mean? adoption into a two parent family that really wants a kid is much better for the child in many of these cases

I've read that too.

Just goes to show that no good deed ever goes unpunished.

Always bring your own rubbers.

If a woman ignores her duty to tell a man about a child that he helped concieve over a given period of time, then I think he should be off the hook for back payments, and maybe even off the hook completely. You can't have a man coming in and out of a child's life like. It's not fair to the child or to the father. Moreoever, if he rarely gets to see the kid like you said, he should not have to pay at all.

In the more usual situation where the man agrees to sex and spawns a baby, he is partially responsible if he knows that the woman became pregnant. When you have sex you accept the risk of having a kid whether you want one or not (just like you accept the potential of contracting an STD even though most people don't want one of those), and you know beforehand that the ultimate choice will be the woman's, not yours, since the child is going to grow inside her body.

I never take a woman's word that she doesn't want kids or that she's on the pill. I bag it and use spermacide.

get insured against that kind of fault, possible?

I know beforehand that if I give a loaded gun to a psycho that he might use it to kill me. If I go ahead and give him the gun, I'm partially responsible for empowering him and I have to accept that my destiny is now in the hands of a psycho. The ultimate consequence would be him shooting me.

This is all known beforehand. So the thing to do is not to give him the gun. If you have sex with a woman, you're [potentially] voluntarily giving up a certain amout of control and putting it in her hands if it leads to pregnancy. If she wants to be a 'bitch' and have a kid when you're dead set against it, there is nothing you can do. But you already knew this but didn't care enough or didn't think about it enough when you were hitting it between the sheets.

I don't know if the gun analogy works. It's certainly not the best but I couldn't think of anything else lol.

Seriously, who gives a shit?

A lot of the people posting here don't seem to understand the fundamental facts behind DNA, child support and who has to pay.

Child support has to do with the CHILD not the MOTHER that's why it's called CHILD support.

Even if a woman pokes holes in a condom in order to get pregnant, that's an incredibly shitty, shitty thing to do, but in the end, if she doesn't abort or miscarry, guess what? There's a whole other human being now with rights of his or her own. One of his or her rights is financial support from both biological parents if they are able to provide it and will willingly provide or may be forced to provide it as allowed by the law.

The BABY has rights which cannot be taken away once it's here. Period. Is it fair? It is to the baby. The parent's rights are secondary at this point.

And for the record, I support FAIR child support and FAIR shared visitation/custody rights so don't get it mixed up. It's all about the kid. Mothers and father with agendas and egos don't and shouldn't factor in.

is that really a right?? if the biological parents sign away custody and adopt the kid out to another family, the child loses the rights of any money from biological parents, don't they?

well said. I have a cousin he was 17 and she was 19. They hooked up once at a party and she got knocked up, didnt want a abortion. Now this kid is stuck with a mess and she has drug problems.

No other posts would make sence beyond this point. WELL SAID. Congrats to the winners!

I think if you are ready to play the game of life then you accept that there are consequences to our actions even if they are accidental. Now, as a woman, I probably wouldn't want to subject a child of mine to a parent that made it clear they didn't want them but I think there are only so many 'but, but, I didn't mean it' cards you can play in life and with a kid involved it is even fewer.

My super sperm would never fit through a hole in the condom.

They're like fucking tadpoles!

Hey look... I'm not a lawyer, and I can't say exactly what all of the ins and outs are in terms of adoption. What I said applies to regular pregnancies and births as far as I understand the law. This is not legal advice, all that good stuff, etc, etc.

No way. Why put that on some guy you don't know.

then there is male birth control http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3543478/

If your fucking..... your responsible!! What if he gets diseases?? She should pay for that?
http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k2...zw-pamplan.jpg

Abortion is not a option.
When a guy thinks this easy about it, he is not worthy to own a pair of balls.
When a woman thinks easy about this, she is not worthy to have breasts.

The guy will get screwed in the end no matter what.

"..or does he lose the right to make further choices when he agrees to have sexual intercourse?"

You answered your own question.

The kid deserves to be supported; it's not about the father, it's about the kid.

Everybody is ignoring the most important question here:

Amelia who did this to you?

:1orglaugh Being female, I don't have to worry about sperm-jackin' gold-diggers to the same extent the gents do. I think the whole issue has a lot of bearing on women's rights, so it just occurred to me to ask the question. So far, I think it is interesting and a little surprising that more women I come across seem to feel that it shouldn't be all on the guy, than guys I come across do.

The state assumes the role of the biological parent in cases such as this, when the biological parents are too financially and/or morally bankrupt to provide for the child.

I agree but then the question becomes "Is this morally right?"

Your on crack. (Sorry, I like saying that. Has a ring to it. )

You mean me that if I have sex with a woman using protection with the intention of having sex and not a baby, and she pokes holes in or grabs the used condom later and conceives a child without my knowledge, without my consent, and without my permission that I have to pay for it for the next eighteen years?

So the court and rape me over how much I have to pay in child support while restricting my rights to spend time with my child and have no say in how she is raised?

Child support doesn't work. You basically tell one parent he or she is responsible for the upbringing of the child, while the other parent has restricted access to their kids, no say in their upbringing, and tell them that a portion of their salary goes to the other parent?

And we wonder why society is so fucked up. Fathers walk because they can't afford to pay out 30% of their salary to the woman who won't let them see their child.

What a bullshit system. I thank god every day I never knocked anyone up. I have child, by my wife, and we are still going strong.

Nobody ever said life was fair... that being said, I do believe that the father is starting to get his fair due when it comes to the child's upbringing these days, at least much more so than it used to be.

My daddy always said...... you do the crime, you do the time......
Al Bundy always said its only cheating if you get caught......
sex with strangers is like vegas ........ beating house odds may or may not be worth playing but if you do and loose its your ass..... my 2 cents

Just breezed right over the very first word in the thread title did ya? :winkwink:

I say if you are a girl..do not rely on the sperm donor for anything and you will not be disappointed in the long run. IF the guy steps up and acts like a man instead of a whiny cunt.. then you luck out.

The babys well being is the only thing that counts after the initial conception .

Men should have more rights when it comes to making decisions for their child when not in a marriage or committed relationship. I do not think they have the right to demand an abortion or adoption.

Sex can cause babies..... never forget that as you are dick deep in some gold digging pussy , boys...

why do you think i was addressing you? there is a whole conversation going on... ego maniacal much?

I agree with you that things aren't working very well as they are. I never said that the way things are right now is perfect. However, I do believe that babies have the right to support regardless of whether their mother was a gold digging bitch or their father was a loser alcoholic or whatever. The laws happen to agree with me in that respect, but they still have a lot of work to do to set things up so that actual parenting is shared equally.

Also, I don't understand this part: "Fathers walk because they can't afford to pay out 30% of their salary to the woman who won't let them see their child."

They wouldn't have to pay the support unless they, as you put it, "walk" so I'm not sure I follow the logic there.

the issue for most men is that the law also supports the mothers attempts to entrap the father... i.e. the woman that blew a guy in california, ran to the bathroom and inseminated herself and won a claim for child support. the law supports denying the fathers rights as a parent. the law doesn't require the mother to account for how money is being spent or to insure its being spent on the child etc etc etc etc etc etc.

the entire system is backwards and unfair to men. i am not saying that a man should have no obligation... but the system should be a little more balanced.. and the system shouldn't be encouraging women to have child out of wedlock