Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 05 Dec '13 16:23
    It seems to me that when it comes to reproduction and the law men are being treated unequally. Why should this be? I can see how this view of men and reproduction came into being, but the world has changed and men's rights when it comes to reproduction should change as well.

    What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander.

    In other words, a baby is the result of both a man and a woman. Whatever rights a woman has, a man should have too. Once the child is born women and men should have the exact same responsibilities and the exact same options.

    After a child is born a woman has the right to put the child up for adoption. If a woman gives up her rights as a parent she is no longer legally responsible for the child in any way. She does not have to support the child she created with money. She is free to go on with her life as if the child did not exist.

    Does a man have the option? No, if the woman decides to keep the child the man is forced to by law to financially support that child. Why don't men have the same rights as women? Why is the law biased against men? Why shouldn't men have the right to give up the child for adoption and give up all parental rights to the child?

    If men should be required to be responsible for his actions and support the child by taking on extra stress and giving up time to make that money, why shouldn't a woman be held to the same level of responsibility?

    This is just one aspect of a man's reproductive rights, I'll mention more when I feel like it. If something comes to mind, then I'd appreciate further input.
  2. Standard member vivify
    rain
    05 Dec '13 16:29
    It's because abortion has wrongly been turned into a women's rights issue, when it's not. This is mainly because of stupid arguments from the left.
  3. 05 Dec '13 16:41
    Originally posted by vivify
    It's because abortion has wrongly been turned into a women's rights issue, when it's not. This is mainly because of stupid arguments from the left.
    Once the baby is born, abortion is no longer an issue.

    Women give up their children to adoption after the child is born so this is not an abortion issue.

    I think it is based on traditional gender roles which are no longer supposed to apply.
  4. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    05 Dec '13 20:21 / 1 edit
    I can't speak for the US but UK law is based on the rights and interests of the child and not those of either parent. A child is not a piece of property.

    The day when men take on the same responsibilities and commitments as women do for children will be a historical one and the day when the price for men - in terms of lost life opportunities, such as continuing education or career progression - comes even close to that for women will be fascinating to see.
  5. 05 Dec '13 20:29
    Originally posted by finnegan
    I can't speak for the US but UK law is based on the rights and interests of the child and not those of either parent. A child is not a piece of property.

    The day when men take on the same responsibilities and commitments as women do for children will be a historical one and the day when the price for men - in terms of lost life opportunities, such as co ...[text shortened]... education or career progression - comes even close to that for women will be fascinating to see.
    You are saying that a woman in the UK is not allowed to put her child up for adoption?
  6. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    05 Dec '13 20:34
    Individual rights are fine for liberals when it comes to killing the unborn. Liberals don't like individual rights so much when it comes to bearing arms. Progressives of both stripes – liberal and conservative – want to use the government to enforce their views on other people. Right now, it seems that liberals like government power because they have it. They don't like government power when they don't have it. Maybe the ass whipping they take in next year's midterm elections will temporarily cure them of their delusions regarding this power of government fantasy in which they indulge.
  7. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    05 Dec '13 20:45
    Originally posted by Eladar
    You are saying that a woman in the UK is not allowed to put her child up for adoption?
    Is that a question? You can tell me. Read the words what I did write and tell me is that what they say or do they say what they say and not what you say? What do you say?
  8. 05 Dec '13 20:49 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Is that a question? You can tell me. Read the words what I did write and tell me is that what they say or do they say what they say and not what you say? What do you say?
    Yes, that's the question. Shouldn't men have the same rights as women when it comes to their children once the children are born?

    If women as allowed to put their kids up for adoption and to renounce their rights as parents, then why aren't men allowed to do the same?

    Women do not need the man's permission to renounce ties to the child and all obligation to the child. Why should it be different for men?
  9. 05 Dec '13 21:17
    Originally posted by Eladar
    No, if the woman decides to keep the child the man is forced to by law to financially support that child. Why don't men have the same rights as women? Why is the law biased against men? Why shouldn't men have the right to give up the child for adoption and give up all parental rights to the child?
    If the man decides to keep the child, does the woman have to pay child support? It is my understanding that she should.
    I also do not think that a woman can give a child up for adoption if the father is willing to keep the child, and I do not think a man could not give up a child for adoption if the mother is not willing to keep the child.

    I also think you should take responsibility for your children.
  10. 05 Dec '13 21:23
    Originally posted by vivify
    It's because abortion has wrongly been turned into a women's rights issue, when it's not. This is mainly because of stupid arguments from the left.
    Why do you hate men?
  11. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    05 Dec '13 21:57 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Yes, that's the question. Shouldn't men have the same rights as women when it comes to their children once the children are born?

    If women as allowed to put their kids up for adoption and to renounce their rights as parents, then why aren't men allowed to do the same?

    Women do not need the man's permission to renounce ties to the child and all obligation to the child. Why should it be different for men?
    I am going on on a limb here but I am prepared to lay a small bet that not only does the US have legislation in these matters but also it has a reasonably accessible source to get that explained to you, including an explanation of the reasoning behind each feature of the law. You set about a debate like this with wide eyed innocence as though you have just thought of something that nobody else has thought about at all. It is highly unusual for legislation to arrive on the statute book in any democratic country without being debated and without having a background of substantial research and evidence that must be also available if you were to take that much interest in the subject. There will also be countless reports of decisions made by the courts in which the reasoning for a court decision is set out in full. So there is no real justification for starting this discussion without doing any homework.

    However, while I am not a lawyer in any jurisdiction never mind the US, I have a few suggestions I could make.

    Firstly, there is a vast difference between caring for a child and paying for one. It is reasonably possible to induce someone to pay maintenance. It is virtually impossible to force someone to care for a child properly. So there is no logic whatever to suggesting that the two different decisions can be equated with each other. [To the best of my knowledge women do get ordered to pay maintenance when the situation requires it - there is no exemption for women here]

    Secondly, in deciding who can care for a child a UK court will not ignore parental rights, and that will entail investigating the wishes of both parents in a custody decision. However, the priority and the determining factor will be the court's judgement as to the best interests of the child, and in this matter neither parent can be assumed to have property rights over the child. Indeed the court will appoint a lawyer to act for the child independently of the parents and, if necessary, in conflict with both parents. A lot of argument and confusion over custody decisions arises from a failure to understand that the court is acting to do the best by the child and no parent has rights that get priority over those of the child.
  12. 05 Dec '13 22:25
    Originally posted by Eladar
    It seems to me that when it comes to reproduction and the law men are being treated unequally. Why should this be? I can see how this view of men and reproduction came into being, but the world has changed and men's rights when it comes to reproduction should change as well.

    What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander.

    In other words, a baby is ...[text shortened]... ention more when I feel like it. If something comes to mind, then I'd appreciate further input.
    What exactly prevents the man from adopting the baby?
  13. 06 Dec '13 01:46
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    What exactly prevents the man from adopting the baby?
    A successful adoption by a single man is rare indeed. In general it is difficult for a single person to adopt. If it's his own child, then I do believe he could get custody if the mother wanted to give the child up. My guess would be that would involve paternity tests, though.
  14. 06 Dec '13 01:49
    Originally posted by finnegan
    I can't speak for the US but UK law is based on the rights and interests of the child and not those of either parent. A child is not a piece of property.

    The day when men take on the same responsibilities and commitments as women do for children will be a historical one and the day when the price for men - in terms of lost life opportunities, such as co ...[text shortened]... education or career progression - comes even close to that for women will be fascinating to see.
    Men staying home to raise children is becoming more common. I stay home with our three kids. Technically the older 2 are in school, but still. Also, unless we are talking about rape, you are trading one life opportunity for another. If you consider it losing life opportunities, you shouldn't be having kids.
  15. 06 Dec '13 02:58 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by dryhump to USArmyParatrooper
    A successful adoption by a single man is rare indeed. In general it is difficult for a single person to adopt. If it's his own child, then I do believe he could get custody if the mother wanted to give the child up. My guess would be that would involve paternity tests, though.
    Have you watched any of the films 'Shadowlands' about the tragic
    relationship between C.S. Lewis and Joy Gresham (nee Davidman)?
    I recommend the 1985 BBC film with Joss Ackland and Claire Bloom.

    C.S Lewis, hitherto a 'confirmed bachelor', married Joy Gresham, a
    US citizen, in order to enable her to stay permanently in the UK.
    It was supposed to be a marriage in name only, yet C.S. Lewis fell
    deeply in love with Joy. Her death from cancer devastated C.S. Lewis,
    almost leading him to forsake his Christian faith. Then C.S. Lewis, who
    never had expected to become a father, adopted Joy Gresham's two
    American sons from her first marriage.