Paternity-What Rights Do Men Have?

[Winter Storm]

Soooo sorry to create a thread based on another Anna Nicole Smith mess but the latest headline in CNN has me thinking.

For Larry Birkhead, who believes he is the father, what rights does he have to request a paternity test? And what happens if he isn't granted any? Right now, no one has said that the baby needs to be submitted to DNA testing and I wonder what if she never does? Does Larry have any right to know because someone else was listed on the birth certificate? And even if he proven to be the father, will he then still have to fight to get custody of his child?

I just think the laws are screwy concerning men and their paternity and wonder what the hell happens when the mother isn't present such as in this case.

Any thoughts? Anybody know what the law will uphold in this sticky situations? I jus think it would suck horribly to not to be granted the opportunity to know and possibly have someone else raising my child.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/13/anna.nicolesmith.ap/index.html

[WorkInProgress]

I don't know.

I don't know what rights they do have. I don't know what rights they should have. Before or after a child is born.

I have some general feelings on the subject, but they're not all thought-out and I'm not sure they're logical or defensible.

[Winter Storm]

I have some general feelings on the subject, but they're not all thought-out and I'm not sure they're logical or defensible.

Come on, give! Before I lose interest and move on to another thread.

[meatwad]

I think if a father presents a credible case that he may be the father of the child, a paternity test should be conducted at his expense. If the child is his, and there was probable cause that the mother intentionally tried to keep the child from him without a credible reason (abuse etc.) then he could file suit against her for custody, damages whatever. A father should have the same rights to his child as the mother unless he's a legitimate danger to the child's well-being.

[pisces2473]

The fact that Anna Nicole said before going to the Bahamas that Larry was the father would be enough evidence for me to allow a paternity test. I don't see what the problem is--take the test. You're not the father? Okay, then go away.

[meatwad]

The fact that Anna Nicole said before going to the Bahamas that Larry was the father would be enough evidence for me to allow a paternity test. I don't see what the problem is--take the test. You're not the father? Okay, then go away.

Exactly. And if he is the father, he should get custody of Baby Trainwreck.

[Winter Storm]

I think if a father presents a credible case that he may be the father of the child, a paternity test should be conducted at his expense. If the child is his, and there was probable cause that the mother intentionally tried to keep the child from him without a credible reason (abuse etc.) then he could file suit against her for custody, damages whatever. A father should have the same rights to his child as the mother unless he's a legitimate danger to the child's well-being.

I agree with all of this. I was just wondering what would happen if the courts decided that they couldn't enforce the DNA testing. Then Larry gets nothing and may have to live with knowing some dude may be raising his daughter?

[meatwad]

I agree with all of this. I was just wondering what would happen if the courts decided that they couldn't enforce the DNA testing. Then Larry gets nothing and may have to live with knowing some dude may be raising his daughter?

That's just my opinion. I gave up trying to figure out the laws of this country a long time ago. Throw in Bahamian jurisdiction and laws and I'm even more clueless. Maybe they should go all King Solomon on the little girl.

[cache]

I don't know much about the status of the Anna Nicole stuff - but was the money/inheritance thing ever resolved? if not, then the father has a right to argue for that money on the child's behalf, doesn't he?

[WorkInProgress]

Oh all right, since you asked nicely. You've been warned, though.

I don't understand how there's any way to keep just anybody from demanding a paternity test for any child on a whim. Or because he feels like harassing the mother/named father.

If a child already has a named father, why should some other guy be granted the right to a paternity test on the child? Especially in a case like this, where, presumably, so much money (rather than the interests of the child) are at stake?

There's more, but we'll see if this garners some reaction.

[Winter Storm]

I don't know much about the status of the Anna Nicole stuff - but was the money/inheritance thing ever resolved? if not, then the father has a right to argue for that money on the child's behalf, doesn't he?

Oh geez, I can't remember but I think everything was left to Daniel, her now deceased son as Anna didn't update her will in time. Although she never got a dime of that money so I'm clueless as to how that works; rewarding money yet to be paid, inheritant, dead.

[WorkInProgress]

Oh geez, I can't remember but I think everything was left to Daniel, her now deceased son as Anna didn't update her will in time. Although she never got a dime of that money so I'm clueless as to how that works; rewarding money yet to be paid, inheritant, dead.

Unrelated, of course, but I'd think that if she's dead, then her estate can't inherit.

[Winter Storm]

Oh all right, since you asked nicely. You've been warned, though.

I don't understand how there's any way to keep just anybody from demanding a paternity test for any child on a whim. Or because he feels like harassing the mother/named father.

If a child already has a named father, why should some other guy be granted the right to a paternity test on the child? Especially in a case like this, where, presumably, so much money (rather than the interests of the child) are at stake?

There's more, but we'll see if this garners some reaction.

That's what Im talking 'bout! Bring it on.

And I thought the same thing too, especially when Anna was alive and denying him the test. Then I wondered how much right he has to demand this test in the first place. And is she further refused, could the courts then step in and enable the test?

Who knows about law, here?

[pisces2473]

Oh all right, since you asked nicely. You've been warned, though.

I don't understand how there's any way to keep just anybody from demanding a paternity test for any child on a whim. Or because he feels like harassing the mother/named father.

If a child already has a named father, why should some other guy be granted the right to a paternity test on the child? Especially in a case like this, where, presumably, so much money (rather than the interests of the child) are at stake?

There's more, but we'll see if this garners some reaction.
But what if you were Larry? And you were told that you were going to be a father? And the baby's mother makes it public that you are the father?

Then, the baby's mother runs off...and the child is born and another man was put down as the father? Wouldn't you want a test?

[WorkInProgress]

And another question: would all parents (especially fathers) want every child to be tested to know for certain about the child's parentage?

I suspect it could be easily done along with the other tests given to babies right after birth. But would people choose it? Or opt out? And who, exactly, would have final say? The mother? The alleged father? And then, if a woman and her husband opted out, would a second man have a right to demand one?

[Winter Storm]

But what if you were Larry? And you were told that you were going to be a father? And the baby's mother makes it public that you are the father?

Then, the baby's mother runs off...and the child is born and another man was put down as the father? Wouldn't you want a test?

Yeah I certainly don't blame him. I think he may be the father.

[WorkInProgress]

But what if you were Larry? And you were told that you were going to be a father? And the baby's mother makes it public that you are the father?

Then, the baby's mother runs off...and the child is born and another man was put down as the father? Wouldn't you want a test?

Probably.

[WorkInProgress]

What is "reasonable" proof that a man could be the father? (I'm talking in general, not in the illustrative case.)

And if we're going to "equalize" rights of men towards children, what then happens to their rights to unborn children/fetuses/whateveryouwanttocallthem? Do the fathers get a say in whether or not the mother aborts? Do they not? Does a man's rights kick in only after birth? What if he's not the mother's designated medical advocate? Could a man force a woman to have a child if she wants to abort if, say, he agrees to bear the full cost for the child and the mother terminates her parental rights? If so, could a man exercise that same option if he wants the pregnant woman to abort and she doesn't?

This is where it gets slippery.

[Winter Storm]

What is "reasonable" proof that a man could be the father? (I'm talking in general, not in the illustrative case.)

And if we're going to "equalize" rights of men towards children, what then happens to their rights to unborn children/fetuses/whateveryouwanttocallthem? Do the fathers get a say in whether or not the mother aborts? Do they not? Does a man's rights kick in only after birth? What if he's not the mother's designated medical advocate? Could a man force a woman to have a child if she wants to abort if, say, he agrees to bear the full cost for the child and the mother terminates her parental rights? If so, could a man exercise that same option if he wants the pregnant woman to abort and she doesn't?

This is where it gets slippery.

I think as long as the mother is carrying the child, the father doesn't have the same rights. Not ones to tell her what to do with her body. After birth, I'm not sure what his rights are, though I'm curious about them.

[SmilesSoSweet]

From my understanding, when Anna Nicole was still alive, a DNA test of the baby was denied because Anna being the mother, said she did not want a DNA test done on her kid.

Supposedly the mother has the final say in whether or not a DNA test can be done (since the child isn't old enough to speak for herself).

But now that Anna Nicole is dead, I think the courts just want to have a DNA test done so that the rightful father can be known.

I really think it's Larry's kid (or someone else's but not Howard's) because why would she not get a DNA test done if she was positive that Howard was the father?

[WorkInProgress]

I really think it's Larry's kid (or someone else's but not Howard's) because why would she not get a DNA test done if she was positive that Howard was the father?

Dunno, but I'm pretty sure my mother would have emphatically denied having a paternity test done on me or my brother, and there is no doubt who our father is.

[and1grad]

I dont think they can make a legal case for why a paternity test should be granted. Only the father, as of the birth certificate, can legally demand a test and he doesnt want one. I think you open up a real slippery slope if you start letting outside parties demand paternity tests.

[meatwad]

What is "reasonable" proof that a man could be the father? (I'm talking in general, not in the illustrative case.)

And if we're going to "equalize" rights of men towards children, what then happens to their rights to unborn children/fetuses/whateveryouwanttocallthem? Do the fathers get a say in whether or not the mother aborts? Do they not? Does a man's rights kick in only after birth? What if he's not the mother's designated medical advocate? Could a man force a woman to have a child if she wants to abort if, say, he agrees to bear the full cost for the child and the mother terminates her parental rights? If so, could a man exercise that same option if he wants the pregnant woman to abort and she doesn't?

This is where it gets slippery.

If it were up to me? Yes. But I've pretty much accepted the fact that it will never happen that way.

[cheshrcarol]

Unrelated, of course, but I'd think that if she's dead, then her estate can't inherit.
I think the way it would work is that her estate would get the money and then be distributed to her heirs. Just because she's dead doesn't mean Howard K. Stern gets the $$.

[spokes]

hopefully that all involved in the ANS circus remember that one day Dannylynn is going to grow up and read all about this circus........so i would hope that those fellas claimaing to be the proud poppa have a legitimate reason (i.e. they were intimate with ANS and she later told them that they were the father to be) to beleive that they are infact the father - ratehr than just looking to get their name in the media.

given that ET has been on this case almost non-stop for the last month i am surprised that they have not covered this interesting sidebar.

as for my own feelings - I had an ex who went and got an abortion - at the time I felt I had a limited say over what she could do with her body and given the sad state of our relationship it was probably for the best - so I kept me feelings to myself but I sometimes wonder what my/our life might have bene like if she had not made the decision she did or if I had spoke up.....

[capella]

I sort of think that if men want/should have "equal" rights over matters like this then they ought to have equal responsibility. It's far easier for a dude to cut and run without a lot of hassle. A man can walk away a lot easier than a woman can. And before anyone mentions child support... Ugh. My dad still owes my mom thousands and thousands of dollars in back child support (I'm 26 years old now by the by). It's insane and it's a hassle for the mom involved. If the dudes can cut out then I don't see why they should have a say over a woman's body and what happens in her life. I imagine most cases that involve paternity weren't people who should have been in the business of being parents in the first place. Just my 2 cents.

[meatwad]

I sort of think that if men want/should have "equal" rights over matters like this then they ought to have equal responsibility. It's far easier for a dude to cut and run without a lot of hassle. A man can walk away a lot easier than a woman can. And before anyone mentions child support... Ugh. My dad still owes my mom thousands and thousands of dollars in back child support (I'm 26 years old now by the by). It's insane and it's a hassle for the mom involved. If the dudes can cut out then I don't see why they should have a say over a woman's body and what happens in her life. I imagine most cases that involve paternity weren't people who should have been in the business of being parents in the first place. Just my 2 cents.

Because those 'dudes' aren't men. They're scumbags.

EDIT: If women have the right to terminate a pregnancy without the man's input, then a man should have the right to 'opt out' of fatherhood. Maybe make him pay an 'opt-out' fee equal to the price of an abortion and give it to the child as either a trust or some kind of child support payment. Then he can walk away no questions asked. I don't think I could do that since I don't consider myself a scumbag, but it would level the law out a little more.

[wordsmith]

EDIT: If women have the right to terminate a pregnancy without the man's input, then a man should have the right to 'opt out' of fatherhood.

That's already a given. Men already have the ability to opt out of not only fatherhood, but of dealing with a pregnancy altogether should they choose to.

[meatwad]

That's already a given. Men already have the ability to opt out of not only fatherhood, but of dealing with a pregnancy altogether should they choose to.

Is it? I thought women could sue for child support if they decided to keep the baby.

[wordsmith]

Paying money isn't exactly being a father. And suing doesn't necessarily even get you that.

[capella]

Is it? I thought women could sue for child support if they decided to keep the baby.
My dad sure as hell opted out of raising me. My mom was constantly hounding the courts and taking time out of her single parent work schedule to drive 2 counties over and force the court to enforce the child support order (a whopping 200 a month to raise me in the late 80s and 90s... riiiight).

My dad never worked steadily (he worked seasonal jobs like heating oil delivery truck driver and asphalt crew for new roads). He often worked under the table and changed jobs that were aboveboard every few months. Try keeping up with the red tape on that. He did everything imaginable to dodge paying child support.

So yeah. Men certainly can and do opt out with little repercussions other than someone calling them a scumbag.

[dacrunkest]

my cousin's father bailed pretty early...and holds a respectable job in Florida...he owed so much child support I think they had arrest warrants out for him in our jurisdiction (I was about 13 when he split, my cousin was 7 or 8). You know what he did do though? When my aunt (my dad's sister) started working her ass off as an NP to put her son through college, she had the fortitude to call and ask my ex-uncle for a little contribution...he filed an injunction in absentium to block her from sending the kid to school so that he wouldn't have to pay claiming that college wasn't a neccesary expense...so she put him through school without his help. This guy and his dopey brother (who also had run out on his kids - another real stand up himself) started a father's rights organization down in their county in Florida...basically their argument was that they shouldn't be held liable for child support if the kid isn't living with them...

so, I bet you can pretty much imagine what my opinion is on father's rights...

[Bman120]

Nobody should be forced by the state to give up the rights to their bodies. So as long as the child is inside the woman, she should have the final say about what happends to it.

Having no control over the fate of that child when it could well have been created in part by me is a bit frustrating but this is the way it should be.

Once the child is out of the mother, I don't see anything wrong with DNA tests if a man believes he is the father. All the test does is provide evidence to that claim and there is no reason not to have it if it is requested.

[WorkInProgress]

Winter, apparently the verdict is few to none, with varying degrees of satisfaction with that situation.

[dacrunkest]

well, as for paternity test to establish fatherhood, if there is reasonable likelihood than I guess I would have to say it is okay. But I certainly wouldn't think it's okay for just anyone to claim they are the father and demand a test...there would have to a be at least a convincing argument of possibility...kinda grey and ambiguos, I know...I have not given this issue much thought.

One big benefit of giving up television was that I did not have to see any more ANS coverage. I feel bad that she died, but I don't know if I see the need for the constant coverage it was given for quite some time after her death...so you'll have to excuse my ignorance of the situation. Did they ever determine a cause of death?

[meatwad]

Paying money isn't exactly being a father. And suing doesn't necessarily even get you that.

So I'm confused. Can a man legally walk away without any obligation or not?

[Krishna]

So I'm confused. Can a man legally walk away without any obligation or not?

Legally, if paternity has been proven, I believe a man can be held financially responsible. That could be 200 a month or 1000 a month depending on his income, but if he's making more than the woman, I believe he's forced to pay child support. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, guys.

[meatwad]

Legally, if paternity has been proven, I believe a man can be held financially responsible. That could be 200 a month or 1000 a month depending on his income, but if he's making more than the woman, I believe he's forced to pay child support. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, guys.

That's what I thought. So how come there isn't some kind of legal opt out system?

[Krishna]

That's what I thought. So how come there isn't some kind of legal opt out system?

Opt out as in let the man decide whether or not he wants to support his child? Um, no. If a guy does the hokey pokey with a woman and she gets pregnant, there is absolutely no reason why a man should have the right to opt out of helping support the child. Lawsuits like that have been tried and have failed around the country. The most recent of these lawsuit attempts (that I'm aware of) was dismissed last July by a district court judge.

[WorkInProgress]

That's what I thought. So how come there isn't some kind of legal opt out system?

Flip, easy answer (that I think is likely the case anyway): to keep some scumbag, if you will, from opting out.

[redav]

That's what I thought. So how come there isn't some kind of legal opt out system?
Frankly, because many people don't want it that way. It isn't fair, nor is it intended to be.

As noted, a father has little or no legal say in whether a mother aborts/keeps her child. (I believe this is the case for most or all states.) One reason for this is that it is perceived that men have power and will force their will onto the mother if given a chance. We do see cases of that with abuse, and protections are established to help women in such situations. Regardless if most men are not like that, they still loose out because of the bad ones.

If the child is born, the father can be forced to pay support. I do believe in such cases he can demand a paternity test so that he doesn't have to pay for someone else's child, but that would depend on the state. Again, one reason is that men make more money, and their lives are not affected the same as women's when it comes to children. Support is a way of equalizing the matter. There may be some states that have a system set up for men to be granted a reprieve, but I can't think of details.

Men are perceived as being inferior parents. That view may be accurate on many levels, and is especially true of guys who do illegally 'opt out.' That is why in custody cases, women will get preferential consideration.

The fact that men illegally skip out is a shame. When the state does little to nothing to enforce the law, it effectively makes obedience to the law optional. I do not like the idea of restricted rights for men as a consequence of the state not doing their job or as a punishment for the creeps that are out there. I don't like that there guys out there that give all of us a bad name.

[ScottyTheBody]

I don't know, this is tough.

If I slept with a girl who then got pregnant in which both of us weren't prepared to raise the child, I sure wouldn't want her to get an abortion (I'd look at adoption or alternative methods). I have no say whether my "child" gets aborted or not. However, the child isn't mine until he/she comes out of the womb. I guess I just can't put myself in that situation.

Should the other parent pay paternity (or in rare cases, maternity) payments? Yeah because it is the child that suffers from not getting these payments. The thing is, the parents that refuse to pay it, aren't going to so how is it any use?

Men may be percieved as inferior parents but this is definitely not always the case.

If I was told by a mother that I could be/am the father of her child, I would definitely want a blood test to ascertain the truth. It wouldn't be about the money, but the child. If a mother says that "this guy is the father" does he have to take a blood test? What if he isn't can she just pick another guy? And another? Like I really don't see the big problem with this guy getting tested to see if he's the father, just charge an expensive fee to be paid by the person who wants the test. If the fee is expensive, you won't get a lot of false people that demand a paternity test.

[capella]

The fact that men illegally skip out is a shame. When the state does little to nothing to enforce the law, it effectively makes obedience to the law optional. I do not like the idea of restricted rights for men as a consequence of the state not doing their job or as a punishment for the creeps that are out there. I don't like that there guys out there that give all of us a bad name.
The sad thing is *most* states do little to enforce the law. Unless the guy has a stable, wage-garnishable job (and is preferably still in the state), the woman is going to have issues getting the money. How fair is that? I have a very strong opinion on this since I was that child who suffered from lack of support/parental involvement. It surely always seemed like "child support" was a myth and you were royally screwed if you got pregnant and the dude decided to leave since there really was nothing you could do about it.

[and1grad]

Frankly, because many people don't want it that way. It isn't fair, nor is it intended to be.

As noted, a father has little or no legal say in whether a mother aborts/keeps her child. (I believe this is the case for most or all states.) One reason for this is that it is perceived that men have power and will force their will onto the mother if given a chance. We do see cases of that with abuse, and protections are established to help women in such situations. Regardless if most men are not like that, they still loose out because of the bad ones.

If the child is born, the father can be forced to pay support. I do believe in such cases he can demand a paternity test so that he doesn't have to pay for someone else's child, but that would depend on the state. Again, one reason is that men make more money, and their lives are not affected the same as women's when it comes to children. Support is a way of equalizing the matter. There may be some states that have a system set up for men to be granted a reprieve, but I can't think of details.

Men are perceived as being inferior parents. That view may be accurate on many levels, and is especially true of guys who do illegally 'opt out.' That is why in custody cases, women will get preferential consideration.

The fact that men illegally skip out is a shame. When the state does little to nothing to enforce the law, it effectively makes obedience to the law optional. I do not like the idea of restricted rights for men as a consequence of the state not doing their job or as a punishment for the creeps that are out there. I don't like that there guys out there that give all of us a bad name.
Totally agree.

[capella]

I just remembered another thing about having to get child support enforced. My mom would sometimes come back from a court hearing or get off the phone (usually after at least an hour and several transfers to the "right" department) and she'd be fuming at how she was treated. She had a at least one judge who was clearly looking down on her for being an unwed mother and gave the impression of "you got what you deserve." I think I was about 11 or 12? I remember her crying and telling the story to my grandmother on the phone. It was scary to listen to her get riled like that because my mom is like a rock when it comes to other people trying to ruffle you. She also had conversations with people trying to schedule things or whatever who were condescending and rude. (Surprise, surprise when you're dealing with the government right?)

Anyhow, from what I witnessed I bet most single moms are just not willing to put up with the degradation and nonsense when they're not likely to see any return for their efforts.

(PS: Winter, sorry for threadjacking, but this topic is near and dear to me)

[Winter Storm]

Anyhow, from what I witnessed I bet most single moms are just not willing to put up with the degradation and nonsense when they're not likely to see any return for their efforts.

(PS: Winter, sorry for threadjacking, but this topic is near and dear to me)

It's cool.

A co-worker and good friend of mine has had a nasty battle over this with her child's father. She's had to go back and forth with the courts to ge thim to pay and even though she has been awarded the support, he still doesn't pay regularly. It's been a non-stop battle for years now.

[wordsmith]

It's cool.

A co-worker and good friend of mine has had a nasty battle over this with her child's father. She's had to go back and forth with the courts to ge thim to pay and even though she has been awarded the support, he still doesn't pay regularly. It's been a non-stop battle for years now.

Exactly the same thing with my former coworker at my last job, a woman who is still a good friend of mine. Her boys are now 15 and 18, making it an ongoing issue/battle for about a decade.

Theoretically, fathers are required to financially support their children by law. In practice, there are many reasons that doesn't happen.

[meatwad]

Wow, the level of bullshit I've managed to read on this thread is amazing. But at least I learned that I'll be the inferior parent if I ever decide to have kids. :rolleyes:

[capella]

Wow, the level of bullshit I've managed to read on this thread is amazing. But at least I learned that I'll be the inferior parent if I ever decide to have kids. :rolleyes:
BS of what kind? What we're saying or what can happen? Are you saying we're full of BS or the situation is BS?

And for the record, I don't think fathers are inferior parents. I think they're very important, which is why I would only choose to have a child with someone who would be a good father. That's imperative for me. I've had to deal with crappy parents (both of them, but definitely my dad moreso than my mom). I wouldn't subject my child to that.

[meatwad]

BS of what kind? What we're saying or what can happen? Are you saying we're full of BS or the situation is BS?

And for the record, I don't think fathers are inferior parents. I think they're very important, which is why I would only choose to have a child with someone who would be a good father. That's imperative for me. I've had to deal with crappy parents (both of them, but definitely my dad moreso than my mom). I wouldn't subject my child to that.

You're not the one who said it.

The whole point of Roe v. Wade is that it infringed on a woman's right to choose. But you can't say that women can choose and men can't. It's hypocrisy.

[Krishna]

Wow, the level of bullshit I've managed to read on this thread is amazing. But at least I learned that I'll be the inferior parent if I ever decide to have kids. :rolleyes:

I don't believe that men are inferior parents. I do believe that having a child is often less of a hardship on the man, since he isnt having to take time off work (or be pregnant for 9 months).

In may be unfair that men don't get to choose but once again, you accept certain inherant risks when you have sex. There's always a chance of pregnancy (or STD) and you'd better be damn sure you're willing to live with the potential outcomes before you hop in the sack.

I'm trying to think of an adaquate analogy, and I cant. The best I can come up with is how a guy would feel if a woman gave him the choice of having a vasectomy or being the sole parent for any offspring that occured.

[wordsmith]

Who said men are inferior parents? It is, however, a fact that men get far more flexibility in terms of choice on their level of involvement, if any, in pregnancy and childrearing. Sorry if it offends you that there are deadbeat dads, or if you take that to mean that anybody's saying all men are deadbeat dads.

[redav]

I believe meatwad is referring to what I said, however misquoted (emphasis added):


Men are perceived as being inferior parents. That view may be accurate on many levels, and is especially true of guys who do illegally 'opt out.' That is why in custody cases, women will get preferential consideration.

I also said that it is unfortunate that all men get judged because of the illegal acts that some do. If the govt did their job--meaning enforcing the rules and not letting deadbeats slip through the cracks--there would be fewer problems and generally less bias towards fathers.

After thinking about it, there is another reason men get screwed: If a woman 'opts out' (through abortion, adoption, or legalized abandonment), there either is not a child to provide for, or the child is given to capable parents. However, if a father 'opts out' and the mother decides to keep it, now you have a child that potentially cannot be provided for, which is damaging and unfair to the child.

This point made me think about marriage. I recently heard someone speaking about marriage--his point was that marriage is not primarily about the betterment of the relationship between husband/wife, but rather the commitment & responsibilities to family, which include the betterment of the spousal partnership, but of no less importance are the responsibilities to any children. Following such a viewpoint does much to eliminate the problems expressed in this thread--all decisions & support are made together, regardless whose body it is, whose job it is, etc.

[meatwad]

I guess my point is that since the government officially considers an unborn fetus to not be a child, a woman can choose at that point that she doesn't want to be a mother and terminate the pregnancy. If the man chooses that he doesn't want to be a father it's pretty much tough titties. So the whole freedom of choice thing really only applies to women. At least as far as the law is concerned. Isn't there a constitutional ammendment that this conflicts with? I'm pretty sure there's another thread from a year or two back where we discussed this already.

[redav]

I guess my point is that since the government officially considers an unborn fetus to not be a child, a woman can choose at that point that she doesn't want to be a mother and terminate the pregnancy. If the man chooses that he doesn't want to be a father it's pretty much tough titties. So the whole freedom of choice thing really only applies to women. At least as far as the law is concerned. Isn't there a constitutional ammendment that this conflicts with? I'm pretty sure there's another thread from a year or two back where we discussed this already.
I don't know about a previous thread, but the fourteenth amendment ensures equal protection to all persons. However, I don't think this situation would apply. It does not say that different legal requirements can't be made according to gender (men have to register for the draft but women do not), nor does it imply that everyone must be treated the same, only that the dispensing of law must be the same to all. The basis of the laws regarding abortion are not framed around parental responsibilities; therefore, men cannot use that as an argument. Conversely, if there is a law that permits the drop-off of newborns at hospitals/police stations/etc as a means to 'opt-out' of the responsibilities of raising a child, then a single father should have the same access to the protection of that law as single mothers.

I don't know how the equal rights amendment would have affected this issue. Probably not much since it would be argued that the 'right' being protected by abortion law deals with a person's body, and nothing to do with the right to opt-out of parental responsibility. Therefore, men would have equal protection to terminate a pregnancy if it were in their own body.

No, it isn't fair, and no, it isn't right (IMO). But it isn't going to change any time soon.

[meatwad]

No, it isn't fair, and no, it isn't right (IMO). But it isn't going to change any time soon.

Oh I fully understand that. I just think it's fucked up that a fetus pretty much only counts as a baby if the mom wants it too. That seems like a big gray area to me considering both parents had equal responsibility (most of the time) in conceiving it.

[meatwad]

Here's another interesting question. If a woman has an abortion and the father of the child is against her having it and even offers to take full responsibility for the child after it's born and the woman has the abortion anyway, even though it's her right to do so, can he sue her for emotional distress and harm?

[Winter Storm]

Here's another interesting question. If a woman has an abortion and the father of the child is against her having it and even offers to take full responsibility for the child after it's born and the woman has the abortion anyway, even though it's her right to do so, can he sue her for emotional distress and harm?

I think in this country, you can sue for anything. I don't think he'll win, however.

[meatwad]

I think in this country, you can sue for anything. I don't think he'll win, however.

Well, the good news is I'm back to being happy that I'm single again. :p

[and1grad]

Here's another interesting question. If a woman has an abortion and the father of the child is against her having it and even offers to take full responsibility for the child after it's born and the woman has the abortion anyway, even though it's her right to do so, can he sue her for emotional distress and harm?
Thats actually a good question. I think if the couple were married, he might have a case b/c I think if the roles were reversed, a woman could sue a man who got a vasectomy w/o her knowledge if she could prove that they had agreed to start a family. Could probably make it something like a breach of contract suit. Burden of proof would be hard tho. That would definitely be an interesting case.

[redav]

Here's another interesting question. If a woman has an abortion and the father of the child is against her having it and even offers to take full responsibility for the child after it's born and the woman has the abortion anyway, even though it's her right to do so, can he sue her for emotional distress and harm?
There are standards by which they test the situation to see if 'damage' has been done. One of these is loss of companionship--if a drunk driver hits your car and your wife is in a coma, you can include your emotional distress in the lawsuit. I don't know of anything that would permit suit in this case--it would be considered like if she were to sell her car which you were fond of. I don't think the law would consider the loss of a fetus any weightier than the loss of a car.

[meatwad]

There are standards by which they test the situation to see if 'damage' has been done. One of these is loss of companionship--if a drunk driver hits your car and your wife is in a coma, you can include your emotional distress in the lawsuit. I don't know of anything that would permit suit in this case--it would be considered like if she were to sell her car which you were fond of. I don't think the law would consider the loss of a fetus any weightier than the loss of a car.

And that might be one of the saddest and most fucked up things I've read on this board in a long time.

[and1grad]

And that might be one of the saddest and most fucked up things I've read on this board in a long time.
Hopefully the fact that its remarkably untrue softens the blow a little.

[meatwad]

Hopefully the fact that its remarkably untrue softens the blow a little.

You've got blow? Let's party!

[redav]

After looking a few things up:

Whether a man can sue the mother of his potential child for having an abortion is closely tied to notification laws, which were found to be unconstitutional, even in the cases where they are married, since that placed 'undue burden' on the mother. If she is not even required to tell him, then he has no veto power. If he could sue her after the fact, that would violate the 'undue burden' criterion since he could use threat of lawsuit as a means to coerce her to not have an abortion. This would indicate that a father cannot seek recompense for any damages caused by having an abortion.

However, there may be an alternative: there does appear to be a theory where if the state has the authority to ban an abortion when undue burden no longer holds (such as late-term when the fetus is viable), then the state can give the father veto power to stop the abortion, given certain conditions such as he is the father, has the means to support the child, and has not abandoned his wife, etc. In such a case, and if the state had given him authority to block the abortion and care for the child, then he potentially could sue after the fact. However, it seems this is only theory and has never been demonstrated.

Some interesting items I came across:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187227,00.html?sPage=fnc.specialsections/lawcenter

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28570.html

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2005/09/i_have_recently.html

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/03/26/a_mans_right_to_choose/

[meatwad]

Are there any states where it's legal to abort your wife?

[capella]

Are there any states where it's legal to abort your wife?
Seriously? Is that really necessary. WE GET IT! Enough already.

[meatwad]

Seriously? Is that really necessary. WE GET IT! Enough already.

:p :D