This was posted on the "other" board and it's a very interesting concept.

SPRING SAYS:
"I have no children. I'm largely deterred by the unilateral control a woman has to control the parental phenomenon. A mans only control is to abstain entirely from sex in order to be 100% responsible. Birth control... yadda yadda. Risks to well being, etc..

My point on this issue:

Men should have the right to decide in the first tri-mester of any pregnancy they are party to, that they will either "YES" be responsible for the well being of that offspring, or that they will "NO" ... NOT be responsible for the choice ultimately under complete control of the woman (and rightly so), to go thru with the term of the pregnancy and bring a child into the world. Outside of rape, ultimately, a woman has the FINAL level of responsibility in choosing to conceive or risk conception, and currently, because of the lack of ANY RIGHTS WHATSOEVER for men in the way of a choice in the matter per current laws, current laws can be seen as CLEARLY in-equitable. A woman is basicaly in complete control of this matter outright, totally, and as is apparent to most men in this great country of ours, unfairly. When potential single mothers find themselves "unexpectedly pregnant", they know that they have complete control over EVERYONES life who is involved. This is something they know going into any sexual relationship as well.

I believe that the number of single mothers on welfare, and the undeniable existence of "predatory conception" for the social net's invoked, will be drastically reduced if not eliminated by incorporating this simple and above all FAIR idea I am putting forth.

If a man has made his mind up in the first tri-mester, he is bound to that decision. If he says "YES"... (there would surely be paperwork involved), then current social mechanisms would apply, if he says "NO"... she has made the choice to go it alone. Consciously. Period. Accepted all burden and cost related thereto, and rightly so, she would enjoy all the rights to the unilateral up-bringing of that child w/o the father having any rights whatsoever to that child.

This is not a cop-out mechanism for men alone, this is FAIRNESS being added to a currently unfair system.

Specifically on whether men should have any say on their financial or social obligations generated by the conception and carrying to term of any pregnancy to which they are a party.

That if a man makes the clear statement within the first trimester that he will not bear any liability or obligations to that child once born, he becomes "free and clear" of any future related responsibility. And that a woman upon making the decision to carry to term said child, bears all financial burden, thereby relieving the state, and the man from said obligation. Conversely, if he declares his desire to "participate", he is forever inextricably obliged in the current manner to be fiscally and emotionally responsible for that child.

It may seem like an irresponsible and cruel stance but it actually injects a complete level of fairness to the "dilemma" faced by all adults involved in issues of pregnancy & subsequent financial obligation.

I only say first Trimester as a "deadline". I actually think that the discussion should take place before any pregnancy can occur. Obviously that is an even better idea, however, for some reason, it has always taken "2 to tango" as they say.

The idea that a man should abstain, extends to women as well. The mere fact that the woman has the option available to her for an abortion, infers the fair idea that a man can also have the right to make clear (ok.. up-front) that regardless of pregnancy or no pregnancy, he is not willing to raise any children, or that he WILL be there.

When 2 people "get together" they have both assumed equal risk of pregnancy by virtue of the function of said activity at a biological level, regardless of birthcontrol options available to either. There is not always a rational decision making process involved once a "threshold of drive" has been passed.

Right now, and rightly so in my personal opinion, the woman has complete control as to whether or not she will receive an abortion. It is her body. She made the decision to risk pregnancy in the first place. Period. Now that she is pregnant, she has a choice to carry and raise, or to not. That is unilateral control, and the fairness of it can only be offset by giving males the legal out, up-front.

I believe that when (not if) this type of law eventually comes to pass, there will be a LOT less promiscuity per women realizing that now, finally, they do not hold all the cards involved in the economics of procreation. I say "When" vs "If" because, unless abortion becomes illegal (I am opposed to revoking the availability of abortion), a woman will continue to have "all the power" over reproductive rights.

I am never advocating a mans right to prevent an abortion. As I say, I believe that "she" makes that decision. HE DOES however need to make his intentions clear at the (or before the) beginning, and once that is done, it becomes binding, whatever the decision. And this is FAR from ludicrous and FAR from irresponsible... I think it is quite the opposite. When 2 people "get to that point", they go into it KNOWING what will come of it and nobody gets "burned". That is a LOT different than what we have now.

I like 2 things about this idea.

One, I strongly believe that the "unwanted" or "abandoned" baby phenomenon would be reduced nearly entirely. People would be more "careful" about whether they can live with the guilt, or the hurt feelings BEFORE they get into the situation, simply because they have to make a binding decision for every "event", and since I am an optimist in my evaluation of the average conscience of the average person, I doubt that my view on this can be changed by any argument and especially any statistics. As soon as you take the room away to avoid being human about the situation, and you MAKE someone think ahead of time, you put a quantitative minimum on the amount of regard that has to go into the situation... Unlike what we have now. Right now, either party can just "disregard" the issue until later.. and generally they do.

Two, the male will finally have the same ability to decide "not to continue" any conception, accidental or otherwise. This is only about "fair" between the 2 people involved in the conception and doesn't extend into biomass rights or fetal rights, the legality of abortion etc. "necessarily", but what "policy" doesnt share borders with at least SOME other policies?

One intriguing caveate, this COULD have the added benefit to "pro-lifers" of strengthening their long-term stance depending on the "outcry", but I doubt it."


Since my H had asked OW to get an abortion and she refused, this hit a chord in me. Had my H been able to say "no, I do not want this pregnancy" and been allowed to give all legal and financial responsibility to OW, without future repercussions, he would have. It doesn't seem fair that women are the only ones with the right to choose. Despite my H not wanting to have a child with this woman, he is still made financially and legally responsible, even though he had no choice in the matter.

Interesting and thought provoking concept. What do you think?

Your H lost his opportunity to say "I don't want this pregnancy with OW" the moment he made the decision to have sex with OW.

It's not "fair". It's life.

Well, I have sympathy for your situation - but you answered your own question ------

"A mans only control is to abstain entirely from sex in order to be 100% responsible."

That is what I always say to my DD.

A Victim, I certainly understand your dilemna as my H has an OC too. However, I blame HIM for making the choice he made to have unprotected sex with OW. I don't care what she did to "manipulate" the sitch, he made the final decision to put himself in that position so to speak. Unfortunately, now WE have to pay for his poor decision.

Why isn't it:

A woman's only control is to abstain entirely from sex in order to be 100% responsible?

Why shouldn't the man have a choice?

"Despite my H not wanting to have a child with this woman, he is still made financially and legally responsible, even though he had no choice in the matter."

Ummmm, I think he DID have a choice, or OW wouldn't be PG.

Could you FORCE your H to get a vasectomy?

Same answer about forcing OW to have an abortion.

Well, actually from my POV it is.

A woman has a choice:

Even after she becomes pregnant she can decided whether or not to keep the baby.

If a woman chooses to keep the baby, she may at her discretion file for support from the man.

The man's choices stop at the act of sex. My H chose to have sex, but he didn't choose the pregnancy. A woman, after becoming pregnant, has all of the control and all of the choices, the man has NOTHING.

It's not life, it is completely and utterly UNFAIR.

In this day and age where choices are limitless, it seems odd that the choices of the father are so limited. The father is held 100% responsible for a choice he didn't make (to keep the pregnancy).

It is not fair... so what?

Pep,

I'm not saying FORCE an abortion!!

I am saying that if the man doesn't want the baby, then he shouldn't be FORCED to support the child if the woman decides to keep the pregnancy anyway. Why should he?

They both chose to have sex, she chose to keep the baby and he is FORCED to support the child whether he wanted it or not.

What I meant was I don't see abortion as an option. What about the man? He can walk away and never be heard from again leaving the woman to raise the child alone. That is not "fair" either. That essentially happened to me with my older DS. His father walked away and barely paid any CS over the years. I was left to nuture and raise my DS by myself until my H came along. The he took over DS father's role in his life.

If the man didn't want a child, he should have used protection.

What exactly don't you understand about this issue?

You know what AVNL? I think the real issue here is acceptance. You were the one with no control of the sitch. You did not force your H to have sex with OW thus creating the OC but you are left with the responsibility if you choose to remain M'd to your H. I believe we need to ACCEPT that which we have no control over.

Believer, I truly believe this is about AVNL's helplessness in this sitch. I know because those feelings come and go for me. Especially when OW wants to control the sitch and not allow the W to have C with OC yet it is partly HER money going to support the child.

I was a single mother for a long time, too. I know what it's like to raise a child alone.

What about adoption? That's another option.

If a pregnancy is not wanted by both parties, and the father makes it clear within the first trimester that he does not want to be a father to the child, why should he be FORCED to support the child?

FF - I will defer to your judgement. I have not been through the situation, and probably know nothing about it.

I think all you can pray for is OW to find a good man that will want to eventually adopt the child. Is your H going for C?

I wasn't trying to cause a fight, I didn't want to be bashed all over the place for it....I just thought it was an interesting perspective and a thought provoking perspective.

My H is supporting and loving his child, whether he had a choice or not.

Maybe it is about me and my lack of choices.

I'm considering divorce. Because I am still paying for the choices I didn't get to make.

My relationship is scarred forever because my H chose to sleep with a liar and manipulator and now my whole family is paying for it.

If OW wanted a father to support her child, she should've slept with a SINGLE man.

No fight just differing perspectives. I am happy to hear that as my H is NOT stepping up as of yet. That is the perspective I was guessing you were coming from. Very helpless feeling isn't it? I still find myself incredibly angry at times yet I want to meet and have a chance to love OC. I am reay to be a step mom to him. Yes, she should have chose an available man, in fact she should have waited until she was married but the fact is OC is in your life and your only control is whether you choose to stay M'd. Sucks big time doesn't it?