• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Parents rights

Should we amend current law?

  • Father gets veto rights for his unborn child

    Votes: 7 15.6%

  • Father is not responsible for child support

    Votes: 15 33.3%

  • Keep current law (fathers rights don't matter)

    Votes: 17 37.8%

  • I like making babies

    Votes: 6 13.3%
  • Total voters
    45
I would like to see more information about the actual law then the Tl/Dr version.
 
The man has the right to not stick his cock into a woman's body. Should he decide to forfit that right and impregnate a woman, then he should shut the fuck up and deal with whatever the consequences are. Men's "rights" end at penetration.
 
I am with you on number 2. I think it's bullshit that girl decides to fuck a dude while not on a pill or if the dude has no rubber, and if she is prego it's all a guys fault, that is bullshit! If she wants to have the baby the guy should not pay child support unless he also wants the kid.
 
As soon as he can carry it for nine months he can tell me i have to do the same.
 
mel3535 said:
I am with you on number 2. I think it's bullshit that girl decides to fuck a dude while not on a pill or if the dude has no rubber, and if she is prego it's all a guys fault, that is bullshit! If she wants to have the baby the guy should not pay child support unless he also wants the kid.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he had nothing to do with fucking her.

You fuck someone that's an assumption of the risk.
 
We need pre-coital agreements....
 
I say he assumes the risk that our legal system can force him to contribute to the child's well being. I don't agree with it 100% but if you play with fire you will get burned.
 
Look, having to carry a child for nine months is exhausting. I know from experience.

I wouldn't carry some dude's kid to term unless we were in a serious relationship. I was married when I conceived. No, it's not fair that a guy can get stuck footing the bill for a kid he doesn't want. In an ideal world people would take precautions.

I'll have to think of what I might do to improve the system but I also think #1 and #2 are two separate but related issues and I'm on my phone and this could get long.

Also, i repeat: no one is going to make me carry a child I don't want for 9 months. My ex wanted more kids and I was done after one.
 
teg916 said:
I feel that current law has very un-equal rights for fathers.

If a woman wants to keep a child, she has 100% choice, and the father is responsible for paying child support. If a woman does not want a child, she has an abortion and the father has no say in it (his child is terminated).

I feel that a father should have equal rights. That amounts to 2 options in my mind.

1. The one that makes most sense to me is that if either parent wants to keep the child, then it should be carried to term and raised by the parent that wants to keep it or both parents if they both want to be involved. Father could veto an abortion, unless a case could be provided that for some reason the mother would suffer some kind of harm beyond those expected during a normal pregnancy.

2. If the woman has 100% right to choose if the baby is born then the father cannot be expected to pay child support for a baby that he does not want.


What say you barf?
Click to expand...

This whole discussion is moot. You can't force a woman to carry a baby to term under Roe v. Wade, so that takes care of question 1. As for #2, if the woman exercises #1, who else is going to pay? The government? Fuq that.

It's the man's responsibility to make sure he's using birth control and to act as if he doesn't believe the woman if she says she is, unless he wants to pay for 18 years of raising a kid. Otherwise, request a handjob.
 
Regardless of how much a man wants a child, he doesn't have the right to force a women to endure an unwanted parasite in her body for 9 months. Yeah, it's not fair he doesn't get to have a say, but it's also not fair that men can have sex and not have to worry about getting knocked up. Life ain't fair.
 
teg916 said:
Why should the government have to pay. Her boy, her choice, her money.

She is just as responsible for getting pregnant as the man.

I don't think Roe Vs Wade is a good fit for question 1 because Roe VS wade considers a complete ban on abortion. It does not consider a father's rights.
Click to expand...

It's a perfect fit, because a court can't bar a woman from getting an abortion. The father has no rights because he has no property or other kind of legally recognized interest.

Government will have to pay (and does, in the form of SCHIP, WIC, TANF, etc) because somebody has to take care of innocent children if the parents won't. Are you saying a child should be punished for a parent's irresponsibility? More than they are now, that is?

I think you should read Roe v. Wade. A highlight:

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent."
 
Nitewaif said:
Regardless of how much a man wants a child, he doesn't have the right to force a women to endure an unwanted parasite in her body for 9 months. Yeah, it's not fair he doesn't get to have a say, but it's also not fair that men can have sex and not have to worry about getting knocked up. Life ain't fair.
Click to expand...

Would not your classification of an unwanted pregnancy as a "parasite" not extend to the father upon birth of an unwanted child? Would not the child be a parasite on the fathers resources for the following 18 years?

I agree that a woman should not be forced to endure a pregnancy she does not want but I also believe a man should not be forced to support a child he does not want. Are not these things the same?
 
Shotline said:
Would not your classification of an unwanted pregnancy as a "parasite" not extend to the father upon birth of an unwanted child? Would not the child be a parasite on the fathers resources for the following 18 years?

I agree that a woman should not be forced to endure a pregnancy she does not want but I also believe a man should not be forced to support a child he does not want. Are not these things the same?
Click to expand...

While I get your point, for a woman, the fetus is actually a parasitic relationshiop. Not figuratively, but literally. It's leeching calcium from her bones, oxygen from her bloodstream. Every element that goes into the formation of it's body is taken from the mother, and it gets first dibs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top