Jump to content
IGNORED

Men Should Veto Women's Abortions,Says Fox News Psychiatrist


Toothfairy

Recommended Posts

Men can't opt of parenting either if a women decides to carry a baby to term. It's a complicated issue but ultimately women retain control over their bodies.

Actually, they can and they do, all the time. Now, maybe they can't opt out of paying child support, but that's not parenting. My child's father has opted out of parenting, from the get-go. For the first 10 or so years of our child's life, I repeatedly encouraged him to spend more time with him than the bare minimum, but he always claimed he was unable to give him any more than one Saturday per month, and one week-night dinner. It's now down to one Saturday per month, which he routinely either changes around to suit his schedule or skips altogether.

So I completely disagree with your statement, as phrased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally a man can't legally opt out of parenthood, even if the mother wants him to, if there is any sort of state aid involved. Of course, if no aid is involved, or no father is named, the parties can agree for him not to participate. Or he can fly under the radar, and evade responsibility, as is often the case. Sometimes mothers do the same.

But generally, to actually formally terminate or relinquish, parental rights ( at least in my state) there is a whole lot of paperwork, and , I believe, it's usually reserved for cases where either the state steps in and terminates, or a step- parent adopts ( only with the agreement of the absent biological parent).

As far as abortion and men, I understand it isn't practical to have the father have a right to the child -- due to the increased burden and risk to the woman - which he can't possibly take on.

But I think it's pretty callous to completely discount the man's opinions and feelings and brush it off as if it has no impact on him. We don''t say to women who have are grieving a miscarriage that it's no big deal and it was just a clump of cells. How is the impact not similar for men who may have wanted the child?

True, if the mother of that child receives state assistance (WIC, low income housing, health coverage for her child due to being under a certain income level, etc.), then the state wants the father to contribute his fair share.

And yes, it would be callous to completely disregard your partner's feelings in the matter. In a healthy relationship, the two parties involved would discuss the pregnancy, its ramifications, how each one feels about it, etc. However, since it is the woman who will bear the risks of pregnancy and childbirth, and the emotional impact on her life whether she chooses to keep it or give it up, I believe that the final decision should be completely hers.

If the man is able to impregnate a woman and really wants a child, yet his partner does not - my suggestion would be that he start looking for a woman who shares his desire for children, enter into a relationship with that woman, impregnate her and hey, ho!

There is a vast difference between the effort it takes for a man to ejaculate, and a woman to carry a baby to term for nine months, go through childbirth, then the aftermath of childbirth (weight gain, hormonal ups and downs, sometimes PPD, time lost from work, and the general wear and tear on her body). So yes, his opinion should be taken into account, but the woman gets to decide and men don't get to veto a woman's decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently had a heated argument over this with a male friend. He's going through a nasty divorce, his wife is keeping their toddler daughter away from him, & he's bitter & angry. He also has made new friends who are steering him into MRA territory. He sent me a couple of links & asked me what I thought about it all. He was not pleased with my answer, & doesn't talk to me much anymore.

Makes me sad, cause he really was a decent guy.

I'm sorry that his soon to be ex is keeping his daughter from seeing her dad. However, I presume they are going through the court system to establish custody and child support issues. As long as he isn't deemed a danger to the child or the mother, I would think that the family law court would grant him some percentage of custody. It might be a lesser amount than the mother, because the child is still a toddler. But he should still have perhaps every other week-end, and perhaps 2-3 days during the week where he could have her for several hours at a time. I'm basing this only on my own experience when my son was young and I went through this with my son's father. (In my case, the dad wanted the least amount of custodial time as possible, while also hoping he could pay the least amount in child support. Doesn't work that way pal.)

Then when the child is older, if the parents live in the same town, custody might become closer to 50/50. But that really works best if the parents can at least be civil and courteous to each other, and that usually takes some time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Just to clarify, my brother did step up and is a great parent, and things have actually worked out quite well, all considered. And yeah, I know, he was a dumbass for not using a condom.

I'm glad it has worked out because that child has two parents who love him/her and are involved in their life. And my son is tired of hearing me tell him that if/when he becomes sexually active, he should always, always, wear a condom unless he and his partner are actually trying to get pregnant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the best way to avoid this kind of issue is individually-- by discussing what you will do in the case of an unplanned pregnancy. It's not 100% guaranteed, of course, because facing the reality of an unplanned pregnancy is different than facing the concept of one (plus, sometimes people are just plain dishonest).

But ideally, that would give both parties the option of solving things before it's an issue. He doesn't think he could stomach an abortion, but she would want to get one? He can decide the risk isn't worth it and break up. She would want to continue the pregnancy, but he says he wouldn't want to be involved in a child's life? She can decide it's better to be with someone whose plans in that regard are more compatible with hers.

As a side note, with my strong desire for children one day, I will admit that if I were a man, a potential partner having an abortion would gut me. I have total respect for the grief men face in those situations. It's probably very much like the grief fathers face when a woman miscarries a child they both wanted. (Which, just to clarify, doesn't mean I think that men should have any control over a woman's access to abortion.)

In theory, this sounds fine, but I'm not sure it translates to real life.

There have been times in my life that stuff has happened, and my views on a particular issue totally changed. I can very easily picture somebody who was always intending to abort if there was an unwanted pregnancy suddenly having an "I can't do this" moment. I can also easily picture somebody who was staunchly anti-abortion suddenly panicking when the reality of their own pregnancy hits.

The other thing is that if a couple was level-headed enough to sit down and plan ahead what would happen with an unwanted pregnancy - why wouldn't they ALSO make sure that such a pregnancy did not happen?

Now, I do remember a case where the husband (and basically his staunchly Catholic parents, who were bankrolling the case and pushing everything) swore out a big affidavit about how he was a good Catholic boy and totally devastated that his now-ex had aborted not once, but twice, even though he had begged her not to. Quite frankly, that sounded like complete bullshit to me. For starters, it was totally unnecessary since the courts weren't allowed to consider conduct unrelated to ability to act as a parent, and having an abortion says nothing about her ability to care for a baby once it is born. This statement was made out of pure spite. Second, while I do believe that his parents had issues with the abortions and the ex in general, the "important to me as a Catholic" part didn't ring true. The ex wasn't Catholic, she was Muslim. He obviously didn't have a problem sleeping with her before they were married, and he didn't have a problem staying with her and having more sex even after the first abortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory, this sounds fine, but I'm not sure it translates to real life.

There have been times in my life that stuff has happened, and my views on a particular issue totally changed. I can very easily picture somebody who was always intending to abort if there was an unwanted pregnancy suddenly having an "I can't do this" moment. I can also easily picture somebody who was staunchly anti-abortion suddenly panicking when the reality of their own pregnancy hits.

The other thing is that if a couple was level-headed enough to sit down and plan ahead what would happen with an unwanted pregnancy - why wouldn't they ALSO make sure that such a pregnancy did not happen?

Now, I do remember a case where the husband (and basically his staunchly Catholic parents, who were bankrolling the case and pushing everything) swore out a big affidavit about how he was a good Catholic boy and totally devastated that his now-ex had aborted not once, but twice, even though he had begged her not to. Quite frankly, that sounded like complete bullshit to me. For starters, it was totally unnecessary since the courts weren't allowed to consider conduct unrelated to ability to act as a parent, and having an abortion says nothing about her ability to care for a baby once it is born. This statement was made out of pure spite. Second, while I do believe that his parents had issues with the abortions and the ex in general, the "important to me as a Catholic" part didn't ring true. The ex wasn't Catholic, she was Muslim. He obviously didn't have a problem sleeping with her before they were married, and he didn't have a problem staying with her and having more sex even after the first abortion.

I completely agree about the feelings / opinions possibly changing when faced with real life situations. And the part about the unintended pregnancy discussion. Sure, birth control can fail, but a great deal of the time an unplanned pregnancy that leads to abortion is likely to be the result of unprotected sex - which is not usually proceeded by a rational conversation about proffered options should a pregnancy occur.

Also, the talk about how men should sit down and consider their options and just not have sex if they don't agree with their partners stance ......is a little too close to the whole " well if she didn't want to get pregnant she should of kept her legs together" concept.

Maybe it's just me, but I know quite a few Catholics who use birth control, have non- Catholic partners, live together outside of marriage etc.....but are pretty strongly anti- abortion ( except for mother's life, rape, fetus incapatible with life, etc ) . They aren't the type to go out and protest about it, and it's certainly not their primary voting issue, they are liberal in most other areas, and strongly pro - social justice but in conversation, and in life, they are generally anti- abortion. Is that a regional/ cultural thing? Or is that common? Anyone know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, they can and they do, all the time. Now, maybe they can't opt out of paying child support, but that's not parenting. My child's father has opted out of parenting, from the get-go. For the first 10 or so years of our child's life, I repeatedly encouraged him to spend more time with him than the bare minimum, but he always claimed he was unable to give him any more than one Saturday per month, and one week-night dinner. It's now down to one Saturday per month, which he routinely either changes around to suit his schedule or skips altogether.

So I completely disagree with your statement, as phrased.

But that's an issue that could apply to either parent. There are definitely more non- involved father's than mothers, but being an absent or deadbeat parent isn't confined, by any stretch, solely to men.

Once the child is here, either parent can screw it up.

But the choice about the child being here in the first place, ultimately, Is the mother's. I think that's the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently had a heated argument over this with a male friend. He's going through a nasty divorce, his wife is keeping their toddler daughter away from him, & he's bitter & angry. He also has made new friends who are steering him into MRA territory. He sent me a couple of links & asked me what I thought about it all. He was not pleased with my answer, & doesn't talk to me much anymore.

Makes me sad, cause he really was a decent guy.

I don't think he's automatically an indecent guy for starting to get involved in MRS groups as a response to his ex trying to keep him and his child separated. You've put him in a no-win situation. Either he "respects" her choice by bowing out of his daughter's life and is a deadbeat for it, or he does what options are available, even if they're not great, and you look down on him. Instead of calling your brother indecent, how about calling his wife an indecent bitch for hurting their daughter by depriving the girl's father of access to her, which deprives the child of access to her father?

If courts routinely saw paternal involvement as equally important as maternal involvement, and went about it as 50/50 to start, and then adjusting if needed (say, a mother is breastfeeding an infant, and the father works so many hours that the baby would be fed from a bottle by a babysitter most of the time the baby is with the father), that would head off a lot of the MRA stuff. Instead moms routinely get majority custody and dads have to fight for their equal share, or even access, since courts aren't generally very hard on mothers who withhold visitation (no good, safe parent should be demoted to being a visitor anyway), and tell fathers to just get an attorney and go to court, because clearly all dads can afford attorneys on top of child support. It is a shitty system that is against dads, and people wonder why a lot of dads turn to MRAs for help, or bail altogether since they've already been railroaded out, and bailing is just reaching a point of accepting what they can't afford to fight anymore.

If we had a system that didn't treat kids like property of a mom and instead was fair and not sexist about it, dads wouldn't need to turn to those groups for help. I applaud the fathers who do whatever they have to to be there for their kids, even if it means turning to unsavory groups to try fighting a system that routinely says moms matter more than dads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think he's automatically an indecent guy for starting to get involved in MRS groups as a response to his ex trying to keep him and his child separated. You've put him in a no-win situation. Either he "respects" her choice by bowing out of his daughter's life and is a deadbeat for it, or he does what options are available, even if they're not great, and you look down on him. Instead of calling your brother indecent, how about calling his wife an indecent bitch for hurting their daughter by depriving the girl's father of access to her, which deprives the child of access to her father?

If courts routinely saw paternal involvement as equally important as maternal involvement, and went about it as 50/50 to start, and then adjusting if needed (say, a mother is breastfeeding an infant, and the father works so many hours that the baby would be fed from a bottle by a babysitter most of the time the baby is with the father), that would head off a lot of the MRA stuff. Instead moms routinely get majority custody and dads have to fight for their equal share, or even access, since courts aren't generally very hard on mothers who withhold visitation (no good, safe parent should be demoted to being a visitor anyway), and tell fathers to just get an attorney and go to court, because clearly all dads can afford attorneys on top of child support. It is a shitty system that is against dads, and people wonder why a lot of dads turn to MRAs for help, or bail altogether since they've already been railroaded out, and bailing is just reaching a point of accepting what they can't afford to fight anymore.

If we had a system that didn't treat kids like property of a mom and instead was fair and not sexist about it, dads wouldn't need to turn to those groups for help. I applaud the fathers who do whatever they have to to be there for their kids, even if it means turning to unsavory groups to try fighting a system that routinely says moms matter more than dads.

You're defending MRAs now? Holy shit.

There's a world of difference between making men equal parenting partners and the misogynistic bullshit MRAs spew.

And the OP mentioned a friend, not her brother, btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're defending MRAs now? Holy shit.

There's a world of difference between making men equal parenting partners and the misogynistic bullshit MRAs spew.

And the OP mentioned a friend, not her brother, btw.

Yeah, that's so much bullshit. It sucks that men don't get enough custody in divorces, but it's no cakewalk for women, either. I think the unfair custody arrangements are rooted in some very sexist views of what mothers should be doing as much or more than they're undervaluing the contributions of fathers. It's lot easier to "move on" from your bad relationship if you have less parental responsibility. The Second Shift is real, even in egalitarian-minded relationships.

That is one thing that I actually admire about fundies. While I despise the idea that parenting is all women are good for, at least fundamentalism attempts to make some accommodation that it is work.

And this guy is a jerk - no one should have their biological child out in the world without their consent. Just because it is able to happen to one gender, doesn't mean we should allow it to happen to the other gender just so the world will be fairly unfair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think he's automatically an indecent guy for starting to get involved in MRS groups as a response to his ex trying to keep him and his child separated. You've put him in a no-win situation. Either he "respects" her choice by bowing out of his daughter's life and is a deadbeat for it, or he does what options are available, even if they're not great, and you look down on him. Instead of calling your brother indecent, how about calling his wife an indecent bitch for hurting their daughter by depriving the girl's father of access to her, which deprives the child of access to her father?

If courts routinely saw paternal involvement as equally important as maternal involvement, and went about it as 50/50 to start, and then adjusting if needed (say, a mother is breastfeeding an infant, and the father works so many hours that the baby would be fed from a bottle by a babysitter most of the time the baby is with the father), that would head off a lot of the MRA stuff. Instead moms routinely get majority custody and dads have to fight for their equal share, or even access, since courts aren't generally very hard on mothers who withhold visitation (no good, safe parent should be demoted to being a visitor anyway), and tell fathers to just get an attorney and go to court, because clearly all dads can afford attorneys on top of child support. It is a shitty system that is against dads, and people wonder why a lot of dads turn to MRAs for help, or bail altogether since they've already been railroaded out, and bailing is just reaching a point of accepting what they can't afford to fight anymore.

If we had a system that didn't treat kids like property of a mom and instead was fair and not sexist about it, dads wouldn't need to turn to those groups for help. I applaud the fathers who do whatever they have to to be there for their kids, even if it means turning to unsavory groups to try fighting a system that routinely says moms matter more than dads.

1. MRA groups are worse than useless when it comes to providing advocacy for dads. They aren't paying anyone's legal bills, and the best thing for a decent dad is to stay as far away from misogynist angry dads because he needs to show the court that he is different.

2. Lawyers are not cheap, but "unbundled" legal services can be an option where he at least gets help with the court papers. Many court offices also have some sort of assistance desk.

3. Laws vary from place to place, so generic complaints about "the system" don't make much sense. I also find that even when the law is officially gender-neutral (as it is in my jurisdiction), many people simply assume that it favors women so they don't bother to fight. It pays to find out what the laws in your area actually say.

4. 50/50 sounds great on paper, but it doesn't take into consideration the best interests of any particular child. I find that my cases that end up with 50/50 often started off with a dad who was extremely involved prior to the separation. It doesn't work as well for kids that have a hard time with transitions, situations where parents don't live that close to each other, or situations where the parents are simply incapable of working together. I have a friend in the last category - he and his ex-wife are in constant conflict, but mistakenly think that they've somehow protected the kids. Every single decision becomes World War III. The kids are constantly getting different messages and values from each parent, they are learning to play on parent off the other, and they are constantly caught in the crossfire. Each kid is struggling in their own way, and the parents don't seem to recognize what is obvious to anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry that his soon to be ex is keeping his daughter from seeing her dad. However, I presume they are going through the court system to establish custody and child support issues. As long as he isn't deemed a danger to the child or the mother, I would think that the family law court would grant him some percentage of custody. It might be a lesser amount than the mother, because the child is still a toddler. But he should still have perhaps every other week-end, and perhaps 2-3 days during the week where he could have her for several hours at a time. I'm basing this only on my own experience when my son was young and I went through this with my son's father. (In my case, the dad wanted the least amount of custodial time as possible, while also hoping he could pay the least amount in child support. Doesn't work that way pal.)

Then when the child is older, if the parents live in the same town, custody might become closer to 50/50. But that really works best if the parents can at least be civil and courteous to each other, and that usually takes some time.

I'm curious, why would the mother get a larger amount of custody based on the child's age? Except in the case of a breastfeeding infant -- why would mom automatically get more time?

I know strictly 50/50 doesn't always work ( although I know quite a few people who manage it even with very young children - as long as they live in the same town ) -- but I don't quite get the basis for every other weekend and a few hours on week nights?

2xx1xy1jd -- I get your point about conflict and difficulty with parenting decisions etc.....but in my experience -- those kinds of differences in parenting style and rules are actually more easily managed the more equal the parenting split is. The main trick is to present it as " yes, sometimes mommy does things differently than daddy. Just like there are different rules at the park and at school. " the problem is if mom and dad both insist on saying how their rules/ lifestyle/ home are correct, and the other parent is doing it wrong.

if they are at both houses a lot most kids can adjust back and forth fairly easily . If they are only with one parent a small segment of the time they are more likely to either idolize the " fun" parent and/ or demonize the parent who is more strict. I think the parents even tend to do that - if time is vastly unequal. Dad who only has the kid on the weekend doesn't understand why mom is a screaming wreck - who kid tunes out regardless - who can't get him to turn in his homework. Meanwhile mom is seething that her kid jumps up to do whatever Daddy wants and is thrilled when his car pulls up--because he doesnt see him enough for the novelty to wear off.

Plus, again, in my experience, - adjusting to two different houses isn't as big a deal if each house is "home" - which is easier if the child is there half the time.

Not that there wont still be conflict, I just think its a lot easier to manage if both parents are primary parents - even if they live apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.