Interesting debate over there .....

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Its not to say a child would always do well with both of its parents present but i guess its better than an invisible dad that didnt want to have a kid in the first place forced to pay support ..which further cultivates ill emotions in the man ...and who is trapped in between all this mess?..an innocent child that didnt even ask to be born into this world..
Anyhow, that's my take on the subject.

[Old Baby]

I'm not for laws that encourage irresponsibility. I consider myself both pro-Choice and pro-Life, meaning that I think ultimately it should be a woman's choice, but I also think that we should revere human life enough not to think of the human fetus as an intruder or body waste. Granted, I'm not a woman, but I can't relate whatsoever to those who talk about abortions being great experiences. I'm pro-Choice for pragmatic reasons, because I don't think that forcing a child to be born when it's not wanted is really fulfilling any moral obligation to that child. It seems to me that the pro-Lifers aren't really fighting for the child so much as they are just fighting their cosmic battle of good vs. evil. Once the child is born, they lose interest. Not me. If the child is not wanted and can't be assured the opportunity to grow up in an environment where they're loved and encouraged to be all they can be, then pro-Lifers haven't done anything. However, even though I'm no longer a theist, I still believe we have a responsibility toward the unborn, and I'm still pretty disturbed by the lack of respect for life, even in its early stages. With the abundance of contraceptives available today, there is really no excuse for rampant irresponsibility. After a certain point, perhaps sterilization procedures should be strongly encouraged.

[robvalue]

Pool: I agree that both parents wanting it is ideal.

But do you really think forcing a woman to have an abortion is the next best option? That has serious implications as well, giving the man a lot of power over the woman.

If you do, that's fine. It's great you're thinking of the child, but I wouldn't agree with the method.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

I don't think the power would be unevenly distributed.
If a woman don't want a child then she can abort it,regardless of the take of the man on the subject.
Same with the case of a man.
If both of them consents to having a child then they can do it.
Both parents would have equal power over the issue that way, perhaps you could point out in what aspect the power would be unevenly distributed?

[robvalue]

The man would be able to have the woman forcably restrained/drugged/whatever, and put through an abortion she may not want, just by saying he doesn't want the kid. I think this is a massive violation of the woman's autonomy, and isn't worth the trade off.

A dickhead man could hold power by threatening to "give the call" if the woman doesn't do whatever he wants, basically blackmailing her over the life of the baby she still wants. How would it work? Would the police come round and take her? Would she get a court order telling her to go to the hospital, or else?

I know that technically the woman can do the same thing right now, but the woman actually has to go through with the whole abortion to carry out the "threat" whereas the man can just pick up a phone.

That's my concern over the power. But either way, I couldn't get on board with retraining people and making them have an abortion, unless it was absolutely necessary.

[Alex K]

I think it's best for a child to be born into this world with both its father and mother consenting to it's birth.. If atleast one of the parent goes "no i dont want to",its not fair to the child to be forced into this world...i guess im vouching more for the child in that regard..

That's sensationally stupid. Force a woman to abort her child because there's no immediate father figure in sight? Should there also be mandatory abortions after divorce or if the father dies? That's crazytalk.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

I'm not saying a woman has to be dragged in,drugged and then have the kid aborted by force. I'm saying, if both parties don't consent then they shouldn't be allowed to have a child - that should be the norm. Of course i'm not saying no to single parents - provided they are capable of providing properly for the child.
A single mom/dad unable to provide for the kid yet still insisting on having one is a no brainer - not to mention a huge injustice to the child.

[vorlon13]

---

I haven't mentioned this for a while, but to this day, I remain amazed at how many of the men I know at (gay) 12 Steppers that have fathered children.

It's like 1/3 of them.  I don't have a clear read if impairment of judgment from addiction makes them more 'prone' to inadvertently father offspring, or if some degree of bisexuality added to the addiction process gets them to 12 Steppers in numbers larger than their occurrence in the general population for some reason.

FWIW, the large number of gay friends I've lost to HIV didn't father too may kids (off the top of my head, maybe 4 or 5 kids by 2 of them out of 40), and of my still living gay friends not in 12 Steppers (the few that are left), I'm not recalling or aware of very many kids at all.

As for specifically addressing the topic as an 'outside observer', I'm surprised at the lack of societal pressure to force most/all men that have fathered children to play a part in their lives, financially and with their time/attention.

A contractor I know is $70,000 behind in his child support.  How the fuck does that happen?  How does that number go past, oh, let's say $1000, and he isn't waking up in jail every morning?

Also, governmental payments to support children, in my opinion, in almost all cases, should be distributed 50/50 between the bio mom and the bio dad.  And either party failing to use that $$$ to support the kid(s) should be imprisoned, post haste, till the kid turns 18, or the parent has an attitude shift.

But like I said, I'm an outside observer, and the hetero-world can set their own rules, but to me, the rules I'm seeing look and seem really weird considering most everyone involved from parents to lawmakers and judicial types, say the kids come first, whatever is in their best interest, etc.  From my vantage, I sure don't see that.  I don't see that at all . . . . .

---

In the UK, the opposite is true, sometimes fatally so. An organisation called the Child Support Agency was set up to track down 'absent' fathers and force them to pay maintenance. It pursued this end so intensively that it drove some fathers to suicide. It's since been disbanded and is being replaced by the Child Maintenance Service, the transition is due to complete next year. Its mandate includes less compulsion to pursue claims and will be driven mainly by request from the other parent.

So, another curiosity arises:

why don't we want Darwin involved then?  And publicizing such occurrences might get the rest of the 'stags' behaving a little more responsible.


(just shows how different my viewpoint is, I guess, and how, for lack of a better word, mysterious the heterosexual world can look to an outside observer.


I'm imagining now a 'first contact' scenario between advanced aliens (like the ones that set up the "Arena" for Kirk and the evil Gorn) and humanity, and (FLOABW) how lame some of our explanations for ourselves and our actions are going to sound to them.


(I suppose I'd have a tough time explaining buggery to those same aliens too . . . . . . )

[Alex K]

I'm not saying a woman has to be dragged in,drugged and then have the kid aborted by force. I'm saying, if both parties don't consent then they shouldn't be allowed to have a child - that should be the norm. Of course i'm not saying no to single parents - provided they are capable of providing properly for the child.
A single mom/dad unable to provide for the kid yet still insisting on having one is a no brainer - not to mention a huge injustice to the child.

Here's another crazy idea: we don't let the right to have and raise a child depend on economic status and instead introduce state sponsored child support. Oh wait, we already have that! Those sneaky communists!

[Joods]

In my opinion, a woman should not be forced to carry a child and give birth just because the man wants her to, alternatively a woman should not be allowed to carry a child and give birth if the man refuses to be a father.
A child should be born only if both the man and woman consents to its birth, it's only fair to the child and the other two parties involved.

On behalf of single parents everywhere - OMGUS. Being a single parent takes twice the work, but we will always love our children no matter what. Single parents make many sacrifices too. Some have to work two jobs. Many miss out because while they are working, their kids are in daycare, being raised by someone else. You cannot fathom the amount of stuff we go through when there is no other adult around for us to share with, vent to or have help in raising kids. Yet despite all of that - sometimes being a single parent is the best thing we can do for our kids because the other parent just wasn't parenting material. As was the case with my 20 year old.

I'll share a three short stories with you that happened to me, two of which have to do with your "opinion".

When I was 18 years old, I lost twin girls. It was a traumatic experience to me, one which I would never want anyone to suffer. Every March 24th, I cry because that is the birthday of my twin daughters. This year, they would have turned 26 and I will never know what it would have been like to celebrate holidays, birthdays, school events, college and possibly families of their own by now.

At age 24, I gave birth to a daughter, who was born with Down syndrome. She's now 20. Ten days before I had her, I found out she was going to be born with Down syndrome because I had a very late amniocentesis done due to complications throughout my pregnancy. When I told her father, he stated to me that he was going to exit the picture because (and I'll never forget these words) he said he "couldn't be a parent to a child that wasn't perfect." Granted, she was born with many medical issues. However, she was raised by me - a single mother - taking care of a physically and mentally disabled child, with no help from her father.

I, as a single mother, put in all the hard work. I, a single mother, slept at the hospital with each surgery she underwent, from the day she was admitted until the day she was discharged. The parent lounge of the PICU at the University of Maryland Medical Center was my home as was Hershey's Children's Hospital, where I, a single mother, roomed in with her, on many occasion. I, a single mother, never left to get a break. Nope. I, a single mother, stayed there for each and every time she was hospitalized. I, a single mother, took her to countless doctor appointments to see at least six specialists due to her medical conditions. I, a single mother, took her to four different therapies every week for four years. I, a single mother, made sure she received what she was supposed to in school. I, a single mother, kept her fed. I, a single mother, kept her clothed and kept a roof over her head. Her biological father did NOTHING. That did not sway me in the least and I, a single mother, still did what I, a single mother,had to do to give her the very best start in life. Through five surgeries up till the age of nine, she has grown up to be a wonderful, loving, polite, funny, compassionate and empathetic young lady. No thanks to her biological dad.

Do you get it now?

So, based on what you have so eloquently opined above, I should have had to suffer the same loss of my now 20 year old, missing out on what could have been, as I have missed with my twins? You're saying that because her father chose not to be in the picture, I should not have been entitled to the memories I now have? And that every September, for the last 20 years, I should have been crying over the loss of that beautiful young lady simply because her biological father wanted nothing to do with her because he didn't want to parent a child born with Down syndrome? 

That is fucking bullshit. You are too young to realize what you are saying now, but when you finally grow up and you have children of your own, I presume your opinion may change. And I strongly hope that it does.

Both of those situations didn't just affect me. I have family who will never know what it would have been like to celebrate my twins growing up too. And most certainly, if we were to be forced to live with your opinion on single parenting, having the added heartbreak of being forced to abort my 20 year old, would have been unbearable for me.

Furthermore - my own father - at the age of 33 suffered a brain aneurysm and was unable to financially or physically care for my sister and I. He ended up having to live in a VA nursing home where he could receive round the clock care as it was too stressful on my mother at the time. This was 1971, by the way. My mother was pregnant with me at the time this happened. So basically what you're also saying is that I have no right to be on this earth today simply because my father was unable to contribute to my upbringing.