Should Fathers of Fetuses Know that their Girlfriends are Pregnant?

[jennygirl]

Yesterday, I was talking to one of my friends who I hadn't heard from in a few months. She called to tell me that she was happily going to be a grandmother. Her daughter was having a baby in November. We were just gabbing and I asked her was the father happy about that. My friend, whom I'll call Nicole, said that both she and the daughter decided not to list the father's name on the birth certificate. I asked her what about child support. Nicole said she didn't want the father in their lives complicating everything like her daughter's (they were married, however) to interfere with how she would raise the baby and in visitation matters.

I am a feminist in that I can understand where she is coming from. But I think the father at least need to know. What do you think?

[redqueen]

1. Please.

If the guy is involved with the woman at all, he knows.

[masuki bance]

3. If he just slept with her once, he knows? nt

[redqueen]

6. No... if he "just slept with her once," he's not involved with her.

Anyone who claims to want to be involved as a parent and blah blah blah won't just take off after a one-night encounter.

If they want to be a parent, they should maybe consider sticking around to see if there's a pregnancy after just sleeping with someone once.

[masuki bance]

9. But this same sap, could also be legally and financially responsible for at least 18 yrs, right?

One night stand or not.

[redqueen]

10. As could anyone who is sexually active and fertile, yes. (nt)

[TexasObserver]

41. All of that is immaterial. She doesn't own the child. She bears it.

The father has equal rights to the child, whether you or anyone else likes it or not.

The mother has the sole decision on carrying the child to birth. That is all.

Whether they knew each other well or barely at all, whether it was a one time fling or something more, the father should be told, and should be part of the process. Children belong to both parents, and once they are born, the father's rights exist, and cannot be abrogated without court action naming him and seeking to terminate those rights.

[Robb]

109. Indeed.

In fact, not informing the father now would rather hurt her case later, should she seek that court action.

Legally, that is. In practice, I think it's at best inconsiderate, however I can certainly imagine situations where I would act the same way. :shrug:

[alittlelark]

190. Interesting post - given the ones further downthread.

[redqueen]

284. This is about a pregnancy, not a child.

That said, depending on the state where the child is born, the laws differ as to requiring notification.

Wanna-be-dads might do themselves a favor and pay attention to the women they fuck, that would help.

[joeybee12]

287. 18 years later the kid could show up demanding money from the father...

...or even earlier the mother could demand money...legally they have that right...sucks to not know you have offspring out there...the guy should know.

[wuushew]

2. No

[rug]

4. Should the child know her father?

[me b zola]

303. In manycases, no

[readmoreoften]

5. Not if the woman doesn't want to tell him. What're you going to have the state

force her to tell him? Fine her?

Great.... :eyes:

If he wants to know its his baby, he can ask when he sees her carrying a baby around and then demand a paternity test and start paying bills.

[TexasObserver]

44. She has a duty to tell him.

[Greyhound]

53. How? n/t

[TexasObserver]

69. When the baby is born, some states mandate disclosure of the father.

If the mother ever seeks any kind of aid or support, there are additional duties to disclose the father, who will be pursued by the government for support.

And then there's the moral duty to inform the father, which exists because the mother is a human being carrying a child that has two parents.

[Milspec]

85. My highly progressive state of Oklahoma

requires this /s. I spent last evening with a friend that is currently in need of some state aid and cant get it because she wants nothing to do with the fuck-wad X boyfriend

[Greyhound]

91. Mr. Morality doesn't care about that.

Fuck-wad (how ironic) donated his sacred sperm and therefore has "rights".:eyes:

[TexasObserver]

92. Generally speaking, all states favor joint parenting.

People who think because they can't stand the other parent the child should be kept away from them are the scourge of family law in every state. And fathers who fail to do their part in providing proper parenting - both economic and emotional - are the scourge of our nation.

I'm happy to discuss the failure of many fathers to be decent fathers, but that's another topic entirely. This one is about the right of a child to know his or her father, and to have his or her father in the child's life.

[likesmountains 52]

144. I help plenty of women fill out paternity papers and birth certificates...if she says she doesn't

know who the father is, or want his name on the BC...it's filed that way. Only if she wants to collect child support does she HAVE to name the dad. At least in my state.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

156. The current system is a mess in this area

If there is ever a need for state aid, if she ever wants the child to be adopted by a future partner, if she choose to give the child up for adoption, should she die before the child becomes an adult...those are all scenarios where the legal father needs to be identified and at least not contest.

There have been some cases where the father found out later and sued the mother and sometimes the adoptive parents. IIRC the results were mixed, but the rights of the father have to be addressed. Courts have also held that the child has rights WRT to knowing the father. Like I said in the title, its a serious mess.

The practical answer is to inform the father and get him to legally relinquish all parental rights. 18+ years of ever increasing child support tends to convince men to do that.

[TexasObserver]

160. There are 50 states. Each one has different laws regarding child custody.

Sometimes the mother doesn't know who the father is. Sometimes she doesn't want to disclose.

She's often free not to disclose, but she should recognize that the father's rights continue anyway, and at any time in the child's life he can get a lawyer, sue her for custody, and will likely win some form of custody. All it takes is one person seeing the child at age three and saying "he sure looks like (insert name here)," and the cat will be out of the bag.

Bottom line is that nothing the mother and grandmother do will stop the bio father from asserting and getting custody rights once he suspects the child is his. This guy may go off, grow up, get married, have a couple of kids, and be a real decent father. And if he does, he may get primary custody of the child secreted from him, years after the birth.

[ejpoeta]

266. at least in NY, if she ever tries to get any public assistance they will make her go

after the father for support. Not sure what the laws are elsewhere on this.

[defendandprotect]

293. And do they mandate a truth serum ....or a polygraph test . . ???

Keep in mind we always know who the mother is . . .

and the rest is the woman's business.

[alittlelark]

103. WHY? Given that she does not want to, odds are he's an a**hole.

Why allow him power over her. One of his million plus sperm hit the mark...he's likely been hitting w/ others as well.

If she has a feeling that telling him is a bad idea I would trust her intuition.

[TexasObserver]

110. You're projecting, and so are several others.

You know nothing of the father in the OP. He may very well be more suited to raise the child than she is. Given the grandmother's attitude, the child should be protected from the maternal grandmother.

The father to be has rights that are triggered the instant the child is born. Failure to identify the father has consequences, and thankfully, the law is much more sane on this topic than a handful of angry internet posters.

[tigereye]

135. and you aren't projecting?

[TexasObserver]

147. No, I'm basing my posts upon actual knowledge of how the law views this topic.

I don't handle child custody cases, but every year someone I know is in the midst of a child custody fight. It's almost impossible to be an attorney and not be aware of the standards applied in family courts.

A child has two parents, and two extended families. That's grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, as well as father or mother. Courts do not approve at all of women who behave as if they have the right to decide whether the child's father's family is involved.

I am aware of cases where women behaved as some here have suggested, and some of those women lost primary custody of the child when the father went to court over it. If you want to know how the family courts view this, I suggest you go sit in one for a while and watch cases being heard. You'll find that any parent who secrets the child away from the other parent is likely to lose primary custody. And that is as it should be.

I'll give you an example. A mother has a child, and doesn't tell the father. She raises the child for four years. The child's paternal grandmother sees the mother and child at a local mall, and notices the child looks like her son. She tells the son. He gets an attorney and sues for custody and wins. That case involved scheming by the mother and her mother, just as in the OP. They lost, and at four years old, the child's primary custody was moved to the father.

[tigereye]

159. well, the OP wasn't only about the law...

People don't always act in their own best interest or that of their children, or according to the law. I've worked with enough folks with very poor judgment to know that that is the case.


The big problem is often people's lack of foresight when they have sex with folks and don't use any protection, with little consideration of the consequences to themselves and the possible child born from that "union."

[TexasObserver]

169. My concern is for the child, and that child's right to know and have 2 extended families.

Let us assume the father to be is as sorry as the woman and her mother say he is.

What about his mother, the grandmother to be on that side? What of his sisters and brothers and nephews and nieces? These are all kin of the child to be. Cutting a child off from that side of the family is a harsh act frowned upon by family courts.

The standard that both parents and both families should be involved is one that is universally accepted by fmaily courts in America. Even when the fathers are really sorry (and many of them are) our system favors keeping both families involved. If the father is sorry, then his visitation can be ordered supervised by his mother, or his grandmother, or some other responsible person.

Depriving a child of the knowledge of their father will likely end up badly, and in the interim, the child is deprived of knowing who he or she really is.

[musette_sf]

195. and your example worked out SO well

for the 4 year old child ripped from the only home it knows and dropped off with strangers.

consanguinity does not a "family" make.

sounds like the "father" and his family had $$$$$ to burn on a mean enough lawyer, and were willing to ruin lives all around, for PROPERTY RIGHTS.

[ejpoeta]

267. if the woman had just told him in the first place, then the kid would have had two parents all along

kids do have a right to parents.... and they guy has a right to at least KNOW about the kid. The only time I think there is a reason is when there is an abusive partner or someone who abuses kids. other then that, it is quite selfish to not tell the other person to give them the chance to be a parent and to let the kid have a father.

[Horse with no Name]

305. Well going by MY experiences

we informed the expectant father. He stalked my daughter. He threatened physical harm to her. We were never quite able to get together the "proof" that is needed to prosecute on either of these issues.
The extended family is allegedly "a good christian family". So, when the child was born, we notified them, gave them an opportunity to see the child. We were told that surely we weren't expecting child support, because their son had a car payment.:wow:
Anyway...fast forward 4 years later. Little dickhead wants to be part of the family. Starts dating my daughter and pretending to be a "dad". It lasted 3 months. Long enough for my granddaughter to know that she had a dad that didn't want her anymore and grandparents that could take her or leave her at the drop of a hat. Talk about being a motivator!
So now, 2-3 years later, we still have the blowback of a child that has been abandoned by her paternal sperm donor and his family.
Even though she has a stepfather that adores her...she still wonders why the other one left.
I have no sympathy for absentee parents. In most cases, the kids are better off without them.

[alittlelark]

151. I know he had sex w/ a woman outside of wedlock, therefore

He has zero say in the matter. The grandmother likely met the young man and has the same impression her daughter has (female intuition +). The Child has yet to be born - if the 'father' is really interested he will still know enough about the mother to know he is a likely daddy (court decides). The rights he has once the child is born will likely be moot due to the fact that he is doing sally, beth and tammy at the time...somewhat distracted.

The law does have much to say on this subject. He should be thankful the mother is not interested in having him in their childs' life. He would find himself w/ 1/2 a paycheck "IF" he decided to claim the child. He could also get partial custody and find himself w/ 1/2 a life.





Written w/ the experience of seeing my sisters 2 illegitimate children and their SPERM DONORS.

[TexasObserver]

155. Wedlock is immaterial to the parental rights of the father.

We all agree that the father has no legal rights until the child is born. Once the child is born, he has the same rights as the mother regarding the child. The law is for the benefit of the child.

The law completely controls this topic, contrary to your assertion. Whether he is in the child's life is his choice, not yours, not the mother's, not the maternal grandmother's. Only a court of competition jurisidiction can terminate the father's rights regarding the child.

[alittlelark]

163. No, it is not. The child has not yet been born.

The 'father' is so removed as to have no knowledge of and/or interest in the fetus.

Until the technology exists for him to transfer the fetus, carry it to term and deliver it (hopefully w/o the hideous complications that arise w/ the female of the species) he has no rights.


IT IS HER BODY.

end of story.

[TexasObserver]

171. "We all agree that the father has no legal rights until the child is born."

Stop pretending I suggested otherwise. That sentence was the first in my post, and clearly states that the father's rights are born with the child.

Wedlock is immaterial.

[alittlelark]

174. Uhhhh, that was in the TEXT of your message.

Your headline said that "Wedlock is immaterial to the parental rights of the father" ...........



Which is what EVERYONE will see first.


Agenda much? :crazy:

[alittlelark]

184. You don't respond once BUSTED.

Same old, same old.

[TexasObserver]

220. No, I choose not to further engage those who seem irrational.

Or those who lack basic honesty in discussing a topic.

[alittlelark]

230. Cowardly headline - back up any of it.

PS - WHY are you still here?

[Robb]

114. You're probably right

...But it must also be considered that her motives may not be entirely honorable. And I say "she" in the general sense, not knowing the person in question here specifically. I'm talking generalities here.

Put another way: what if the father-to-be is a gem, and the mother-to-be is the asshole?

Hard to nail this one down across the board, frankly.

[alittlelark]

153. The OP was intentionally vague.

Look at the post count.

[tkmorris]

203. It's too late for that call

Unless she was raped she got involved with him the moment she decided to have sex with him. That's a decision two people make, and it always carries with it the possibility that those two people are going to have a relationship of some kind at least for the next 18+ years.

Women's rights advocates often advance the argument that when a man decides to have sex with a woman he is subjecting himself to the possibility that he may find himself responsible financially and otherwise for the child that can result from that decision. They are of course 100% correct in pointing this out, but it is equally true that the woman who decides of her own free will to have sex is also subjecting herself to this possibility. They both share the responsibility for any pregnancy that results, and they share the right to be a parent to the child as well. Responsibility without rights is just slavery, and is no improvement over a world that once gave men the power to make decisions that should have been the woman's alone.

I fully understand the vitriol towards some of the men out there and it is often richly deserved. This isn't the answer however.

[alittlelark]

206. As soon as men carry the fetus for 9+ months they have a say

Until then.... STFU - in a polite way.


I've had 2 kids, I know what they do to your body (and I was lucky).

[TexasObserver]

Very well stated.

[Yupster]

242. What if she's the one who's the a...hole?

It's been known to happen.

[TommyO]

272. It's quite possible that she's the one that's an asshole

Being female does not prevent assholery.

[TommyO]

274. self delete - dupe

[masuki bance]

7. nm

[Bunny]

8. Legally required to inform him? No.

But unlesss the father is a monster, I think they are making a mistake by not informing him. It's not fair to him or the child.

[TexasObserver]

45. Depends on the State. State law controls in each state.

[Bunny]

55. I have no idea how that relates to my post.

[TexasObserver]

65. You made an assertion that is not correct.

Each state has its own law, and I'm pretty certain you don't know if there is a legal obligation in any of the 50 states to inform the father upon birth.

If you were attempting to state that in your opinion there should not be such a legal obligation, that's a different matter.

[Bunny]

68. Of course I was stating my opinion. That's what the OP asked for.

I "asserted" nothing.

[gratuitous]

11. The ethical thing to do is to notify the father

That is, if paternity can definitely be established.

And it may very well be that your friend's daughter decides that she needs some additional support (financial and otherwise) after all, and the logical place to look for that is the biological father. If she decides to avail herself of financial assistance from the government, the government is bound by its regulations to establish paternity for the little bambino and to pursue the absent parent for reimbursement, in whole or in part, of the aid extended to the woman and her child.

If the young woman in question is having difficulties with the putative father already, being pursued by the state for child support is probably not going to put him in a better temper as regards his relationship with the woman and his child. There are also matters to take into account in terms of hereditary conditions that are better to be known sooner rather than later.

This is not an easy decision and shouldn't be made hastily. There are many implications and consequences for every decision, and cutting the father out of the equation to avoid "complicating everything" now can have profound consequences not so very far down the road.

[rateyes]

12. If he finds out after the child is born, he'll have a helluva lawsuit

if he decides to sue for custody.

[Mz Pip]

13. Maybe I'm old fashioned

but I would hope that people care about each other just a little bit before they hop into bed. This bothers me because the daughter thought enough of the guy to have sex with him. If she was so bothered by his being involved in her life then why go to bed with him and have unprotected sex?

Good grief, actions have consequences and both the girl and the guy are going to have to live with the consequences of this for the rest of their lives. Unless she plans to move to another planet I don't believe she'll be able to keep this child a secret forever.

I just don't see this having a particularly good outcome.

[redqueen]

15. Not old-fashioned.

People having sex with people that they barely know is far from a new phenomenon.

[Mz Pip]

24. I know

and it doesn't always end up being a simple casual encounter. The consequences are often complicated.

[Kdillard]

35. My thoughts exactly.

[mamaleah]

102. I agree.

I suppose that makes me old fashioned too.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

14. I'm a feminist,

and that means, to me, that I want to be treated fairly. I want men to be treated the same as I want to be treated.

To reduce the male to a sperm donor is a particularly ugly way to go about having a child.

Just because the grandmother-to-be had a bad experience with her husband doesn't mean the daughter is entitled to live that same script. It sounds like someone has influenced her daughter in a negative way.

The guy has a right to know he has a child out there, I think.

Imagine if he has other children. His son, let's say, meets this girl's daughter, let's say. The daughter is also his daughter, but the kids don't know because the mother decided not to tell the man that she had a baby.

The kids get involved, get serious, get married.

Nice, huh?

This is wrong. It's selfish and counter-productive. A child at least deserves to know who her father is, and if the mother didn't know, that's one thing. But if she knows and deliberately withholds the information, that's immoral.................................

[redqueen]

18. Why invent your own backstory?

Perhaps this woman has a good reason... no sense in inventing backstories that only serve to put her in a bad light. If you were being fair about it you'd come up with a backstory that makes her decision make sense.

[TexasObserver]

50. Well said. It's not an issue among civilized people.

Everyone knows that a child needs both parents, if possible. Everyone knows a child is entitled to know who their father is, and to have a relationship with that father if the father wishes to have a relationship.

People who think they can abrogate legal rights because they feel like it often find down the road how wrong they are. In the case mentioned by the OP, the father could end up with custody of the child in a year or two, based upon the scheming orchestrated by the grandmother and mother. Without knowing anything about the father, he's likely a better person than the grandmother or the mother, neither of whom seems to understand the baby is not their property.

[tigereye]

140. unfortunately people do this all the time...

but I don't see how you can assume that the father would be a better person simply because of the mother and grandmother's actions.


:shrug:

[TexasObserver]

164. I make no assumptions regarding who is better between the parents.

He may be as sorry as she claims he is, or he may be a decent guy and the woman and her mother are terrible people. The fact that they think they own the child does not speak well of them, however.

In every case where people are fighting for custody, one or both of them lie about the other one. We cannot know if the mother in the OP will be a good mother, and we cannot know if her opinion of the father has any validity. We can know that many men make good fathers even if the mother of the child finds the father lacking.

Ultimately, this is about the child's rights, one of which is to know his or her father.

[tigereye]

280. I've never heard that spoken of as a right, that is interesting

I don't know much about the body of children's legal rights, per se. In my work, I avoid custody cases like the plague - there often seems to be so much antagonism that it is hard to know what it going on and much of it is not in the child's best interest, at least in the psychological sense.



Sorry to get on you, you sound like you are mainly speaking from legal experience. In general I agree that children need both parents. But I do think there are broader psychological, familial, and philosophical questions here, too.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

165. The court would construe their actions as evidence of lack of fitness

[kiva]

16. Absolutly.

I assume that there is no current relationship between this couple (otherwise he might notice the whole pregnancy thing) but I say yes for a few reasons:

1. I've know some guys who make poor partners but good dads, and this could be true in this case. And frankly, the notion that he might want some input on how his child is raised seems reasonable to me (it doesn't sound like your friend would agree, though, so probably not a good argument).

2. At some point the child will want to know about his/her father, and it would be a good thing if dad knew before this becomes an issue.

3. Your friend says child support isn't an issue, but in the future things could change; I'd think your friend would prefer that her grandchild have the safety net of two parents to support him/her.

4. I believe that it's frankly the right thing to do; if someone is about to become a father they have a right to know. I've known many people who say that becoming a parent changed their lives in a positive fashion and future dad should have the opportunity to make this choice.

That said, there is one situation that would change my opinion and that's if the man was abusive to your friend's daughter and she feared that he would abuse the child. This may all be academic, of course--dad may not want to have anything to do with the baby. If that's the case mom could get him to sign away his parental rights, which would be better than simply hoping he doesn't find out about the child. You might consider pointing out to your friend that it would be much worse if he found out through mutual friends, or if her daughter needed to inform him much later.

[d_r]

17. the father should have a right to know

[LiberalFighter]

19. What happens if the mother needs public assistance sometime in the future?

AFAIK mothers are required to provide the name of the father so the state can have him pay child support whenever government assistance is involved.


The only way I think mothers would be permitted to not include the name of the father on the birth certificate (when they know who it is) is if they are not permitted to bring the father back into the picture for financial reasons in the future. It is wrong for a mother to wait years later to decide to reveal to the father they have a child and then expect him to be involved mainly for financial reasons instead of the whole package.

Personally, the father should know immediately and given the option of 1) providing financial and other resources as a part of the family, 2) providing financial support if not interested in being part of the family, 3) providing financial and other resources as a single parent with custody.

[MrSlayer]

20. if she doesn't tell him she should never expect him to pay for anything.

Like if three or four or ten years from now if she's down on her luck she shouldn't try to nail the guy for back support. You want to go it alone? Go it alone.

[Fire1]

22. Ditto, that!!!! n/t

[rfranklin]

34. Yes, but she could easily get a decision in court for him to pay....

Just as cuckolded husbands are forced to pay for children that are not theirs.

[MrSlayer]

42. Yes, our "justice" system.

Woefully lacking in anything resembling justice.

[Yupster]

244. That was a very public case near us

a guy got divorced with three kids because his wife was having an affair.

She took the kids to live with her boyfriend and got child support from her ex.

Then she told her ex that the affair was going on throughout the marriage and the kids weren't his anyway. DNA tests showed two of the three kids were indeed the lovers, and one was the husband's.

The court ordered the ex to continue sending child support payments to the home of the kids real dad because he had acted as a dad. When he refused his pay was garnished.

The court ordered him also not to tell the two kids that he was not their real dad. When he did tell them, he was imprisoned.

It even got on one of those 60 minute type shows 5-10 years ago.

The theory is that the court rules on what is best for the kids, and in this case what was best for the kids was to reward the lying, cheating wife and her boyfriend, and punish the husband.

I know some states have started to address this amazingly unfair situation.

[ejpoeta]

268. that is bullshit!! i'm imagining the woman and her boyfriend having a good laugh

over the ex having to pay child support. They should address this.... it's not right!!! It just saddens me what people will do to each other. I couldn't imagine doing that to my husband.

[Yupster]

243. The problem with that is the court says the child support

is for the benefit of the kid, not the mom.

And the same way with naming the dad.

The dad needs to know for the benefit of the kid. It shouldn't have anything to do with what the mom thinks. It's in the best interest of the kid to have his dad know he/she exists.

If there's some weird situation like the mom or dad are psychos, the court should intercede.

People will say the kid belongs to the mom because he resides inside her, but once birthed, the kid is no longer property. He/she has her own rights, and one of them is knowing who his parents are.

[musette_sf]

21. ....

:popcorn:

and sounds like a lead in for support of THIS sh!t:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6108842&mesg_id=6108842

[Tangerine LaBamba]

23. Did I miss something?

Did that whole HIV-AIDS thing go away?

So there's no need to use protection when having sex with strangers?

Cool................

[musette_sf]

27. though the OP has tenure

its publications are sparse.

and the story sounds like it's canned BS to gain validation of the MRA meme and POV, "it's NOT FAIR that men don't get to CHOOSE".

[Tangerine LaBamba]

36. I saw the number, and thought

"sockpuppet."

Subsequent responses have pretty much validated what you said and what I suspected.

Thank you.............

:toast:

[musette_sf]

78. back at ya

a very useful post, more MRAs to add to Iggy :-)

:toast:

[raccoon]

275. Right on!

I can't believe you're the first one to say :popcorn:

[LWolf]

25. I think it's the right thing to do to tell the other person involved.

I don't think it should be legislated.

[JitterbugPerfume]

26. of course the child should know it's father.

If the woman was having an abortion I would say don't involve him but unless he is a real lowlife he deserves to know.


On second thought he deserves to know period, and so does the child.

Mom and grandma are pretty self centered and selfish.

[Occam Bandage]

28. If the girlfriends ever expect the father to pay for anything, yes.

I think in order for fathers to be on the hook for child support, they must be informed of the child's existence before the point of viability, and must give a written and binding statement of intent to either provide for or not provide for the child, with the father surrendering any and all parental rights in the latter case. This would seem the only way ensure both the mother and the father are fully protected.

[lunatica]

29. There are factors to consider

To assume that anyone 'should' know or not is to try to simplify things into either/or conditions. Life has many more layers of circumstances that go beyond simplistic 'should' which is really only expressing an opinion about how others ought to be moral.

Did she claim she was on birth control but lied just to get pregnant? Then why would she want to tell the father who she probably doesn't know. Was it a one night stand with a stranger after meeting in a bar and they forgot to remember birth control and she doesn't even know his name? Then why should she tell him?

Maybe he was her boyfriend and was abusive and when she found out she was pregnant she suddenly found a way to get free from him.

Maybe the father is married and has a family already and she doesn't see any reason to ruin his family's lives because she either doesn't love him or they both went into the affair with no expectations.

Maybe he told her straight up that he never wanted children under any circumstance before she got pregnant.

The possibilities are myriad.

[jennygirl]

98. I AM NOT AN NOT A MRA I AM A FEMINIST WHO THINKS HE SHOULD KNOW

This situation is not made up to justify any men's rights advocacy. I say that the father should know because bipolar disorder runs heavily in the mother's side of the family and they are known to go in and out of mental hospitals and make flighty spur of the moment decisions which they regret later.

My friend failed to tell me if this was a long term or one night stand. Knowing the daughter as I do she is promiscuous. This is why I think the father and HIS FAMILY AT LEAST (should know and help support the child). There was no mention of an abusive relationship or other babies' mamas. She is one of those blunt people who feels her decision is right and won't listen to reason.

[lunatica]

112. Why are you yelling?

Don't you know that is considered rude?

You obviously don't know the whole story since you don't know what the circumstances are as you admitted. So why are you demanding she do what you want when you admit to being clueless? You even accuse her of being promiscuous. Does it occur to you that if she is she probably doesn't know who the father is?

[musette_sf]

131. mm-hmm

so your concern is because of "promiscuity"?

:wtf:

i think you want THIS: http://www.feministing.com/archives/016804.html

[varelse]

180. If you think he should know

then tell him. No need to involve the anonymous throngs of the internets in your decision.

[defendandprotect]

294. So you're not mandating that GENERALLY "boyfriends" should know . . .????

You're saying that you, personally, have judged this particular case and decided

what is right for the family -- for both sides of the family, in fact???

And you are not one of those "blunt people who feels her decision is right"?

bipolar disorders are more easily controlled these days -- some people have problems

with the medicines -- and you can't take them, as far as I know, if you're pregnant

or plan to be.

And how do you know that the "father and HIS FAMILY AT LEAST" would want to know?

Or to help support the child? Are you communicating with them?

You're saying you're friend or your friend's daughter -- I forget which -- is

"promiscuous" -- but you know nothing of the details of the pregnancy -- ?

You're a feminist?

Don't think so!

[Yupster]

246. Those are all complications, but

I don't see why it would be the woman who should make all those decisions and calculations.

The child has a right to know who his parents are.

If there are extenuating circumstances, a court should calculate and decide them, not the woman involved.

[TexasObserver]

253. A family court would appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the child.

This would be an attorney who would represent only the child's interest, and would almost certainly recommend that the child have both parents involved in its life, unless there was a compelling justification to terminate or abrogate the father's rights. Even then, the child will know who his or her father is, and a determination that the father is lacking does not mean the father's family would be similarly precluded from the child.

A child has two extended families by biology at birth, and it should have both families in its life, if possible.

[Taverner]

30. Why? It doesn't involve them

It's the mothers body - if she wants to let the dad know, its her decision...

[MercutioATC]

40. It involves them financially.

I think that should be considered.

[TexasObserver]

56. It does involve them if the baby is born.

It should involve them while the baby is a fetus.

The decision to have an abortion or have the child is the mother's sole decision, but the life of the child is the father's duty and right as much as the mother's.

[lumberjack_jeff]

60. Mom is not the only person with rights that matter.

Both the father and the child have rights too.

[MrsMatt]

100. But, I'd argue once she made the decision to keep it

she's morally obligated to let him know.

Prior to that, it's none of his business.

[seabeyond]

106. bullshit. lol, i totally disagree. 50% his... n/t

[Taverner]

120. Does he have to bear the child?

[seabeyond]

129. if she brings that child into the world, that does not make it more her child

it makes it equally his child.

i really cannot believe that people would suggest the only part a male has is financial and if she is not wanting the financial part of the deal, then the male has no part. some men actually see the baby as part of them, something to be responsible for.

for this woman/girl to lack the character to allow the father to be a part of the child's life already says how she lacks as a parent. it isnt about her. parent 101

[Yupster]

247. What about once the baby's born?

Then the baby has a right to know who his/her parents are doesn't he/she?

Or is the kid still the property of the mother?

[Gwendolyn]

31. If the ex is a POS, it's often best to exclude him from the process.

Plus, if he demands visitation, etc... that can hamper her freedom to move and assign a whole mess of other complications into her life. As far as the kid goes though, it might be unfair to deprive it of a parent that may be a positive influence in its life. These are personal choices that are hard to divine for others. If I were the child of such a union I'd want to know who my father was. Someone in our extended family is close to 60 and she's still searching for hers. The mother kept the information from her to her death. I feel for her.

[TexasObserver]

32. When a child is born, both parents have equal rights regarding the child.

This notion that the woman owns the child is a fairly new one, and it has no basis in law. She has a duty to both the father and the child to identify the father, if possible. The sorriness of the father is not an excuse. For all we know, he's the good one and she's the sorry one.

The child needs to know their biological father, if that is possible.

A child should have both parents in their life, unless the parent chooses to absent himself, and the mother's disdain for the father is immaterial.

One day, the father may figure out he's the father, demand DNA testing, and assert his rights. He may be awarded primary custody because of the mother's subterfuge, and the grandmother could be prohibited from keeping the child without supervision for her role in that scheme.

[musette_sf]

46. "This notion that the woman owns the child is a fairly new one"

because the notion that the MAN owns the child is SO much better.

:puke:

the laws of many nations, including our own, allowed for the MAN to own the children of the marriage up until fairly recently.

in Islamic countries, the laws of MALE ownership of the children still stand.

but thanks for letting us know where you stand.

[kiva]

54. Overreact much? Nothing the poster said

indicated that he thought that men 'owned' children, but was disagreeing with the idea that mothers should have some sort of exclusive ownership. I'm a woman and admit that I have a pro-woman bias in most areas, but not this one--if mom wanted a kid with no dad attached, she should have went to a sperm bank.

[musette_sf]

67. not "overreacting" but thankyouforyourconcern

:sarcasm:

throughout recorded history, children have been considered the property of the father. in the US it was not until the mid nineteenth century that custody began to be awarded to women.

and as i mentioned, Islamic countries still encode into law that children are the property of the father.

[kiva]

111. Wow, you mean that women and children didn't always

have the rights they do today in America...damn, color me surprised.

Read some of the posts on this thread and tell me that some people here do not indeed believe that mothers 'own' their children--apparently they have the right to decide whether or not that child will even know his/her father or whether or not the man will know that he's a father.

The poster you replied to didn't say he thought it was right that men had total control over children, only that until relatively recently that was a fact. And darned if you didn't figure that out on your own.

[musette_sf]

128. um.

more perpetration of the "but but but men have NO choice" MRA meme.

either the woman has autonomy over her body, or she doesn't.

you seem to support the latter position.

also, you attributed MY assertion that men had total control over children till relatively recently in history, to the poster i replied to. he made no such assertion.

what he said, was a series of false premises: "This notion that the woman owns the child is a fairly new one".

*whose* notion?

how is a child "owned"?

"new" notion? what was the "old" notion?

stating what the LAW was is a FACT. a series of false premises is just a provocative statement, that deserves to be addressed by FACT.

hope this helps.

it's not far from where you stand, to THIS: http://www.feministing.com/archives/016804.html

[TexasObserver]

59. Neither parent owns the child. Both parents have equal rights regarding the child.

You appear incapable of addressing this topic logically. Your leap to infer I favor the father owning the child is one that no rational person would make.

[musette_sf]

72. i did not infer that AT ALL.

you asserted "This notion that the woman owns the child is a fairly new one, and it has no basis in law."

i added information stating that throughout history, the children were the property of the man and that this WAS codified into law.

since this FACT seems to bother you to the point of ad hominem attacks on me (incapable of logic; not rational), then it looks like i struck a nerve by stating FACTS.

you want to post a provocative statement, be prepared for a provocative response. if the response hits a nerve, then please come up with something more credible than attacking my logic and rationality.

[TexasObserver]

74. Yes, that's exactly what you first inferred, then implied.

It's clear you inferred that I think the man owns the child, and when you stated such, you implied it, too.

Your conclusion was illogical, and so is your latest response.

[musette_sf]

89. FAIL

your initial post states a false premise.

"This notion that the woman owns the child is a fairly new one"

whose "notion" is that?

when reminded that codified LAW stated that children were the property of the male up until recently in this country, you didn't like that and went on attack.

[JitterbugPerfume]

79. Owns the child?

no one owns a child

[TexasObserver]

81. That's correct. No one owns the child. Both have rights equal in the child.

Both parents have rights and duties in the child that are defined by the laws of each state.

Each state sets out laws that define the rights of each parent, and there's only one way to suspend those rights and duties: by court order from a court of competent jurisdiction, and only then upon notice and hearing, such notice allowing the father to appear and be heard before any rights can be abrograted.

If the mother of a child thinks the father is sorry and wouldn't want to be a part of the child's life, she can file an action to terminate the rights of the father, but he will have to be served with that action, and have his chance to appear and plead his case. Sometimes the father wins these fights, and the mother loses.

[musette_sf]

82. precisely!

but the poster i was replying to doesn't get it.

he asserts "This notion that the woman owns the child is a fairly new one"

thereby asserting a false premise, as neither the woman or the man OWN the child under current US law. the "ownership" meme is HIS creation.

yet when reminded that codified US LAW up until recently stated that children were property owned by the father,

the poster huffily descended to accusations of my not being logical or rational.

truth hurts.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

208. Hear Hear To That!

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[Spike89]

33. Legally, no. Morally, probably most of the time

What's right and what needs to be legislated aren't the same. As evidenced in this thread, people can make up (or recount) scenarios showing why fathers should know, and just as many detailing why they shouldn't. I do think that there becomes a point probably well short of marriage (and far from a one-night stand) where a committment exists that tips the scales to giving the man some right to know. Even so, that is a moving target and not something the law can or should attempt to decide.

A man does need to be prepared to support any child of his, regardless of circumstance (well, imaginative types can probably come up with a scenario that leaves the father without obligation). Still, if you have sex, you are agreeing to the terms.

[southernyankeebelle]

37. Gosh, that is an individual choice - If the dad isn't a responsible

person than I would say no. I don't think it would be right for the child. But the mother is carrying the baby I would think its up to her.

[seabeyond]

107. if the motehr isnt responsible??? and sounding like not. if a female leaves themselves open

to pregnancy with an irresponsible mate, then how responsible is she. and even if he isnt responsible, oh well.... got preg by the dude. ought to have thought it thru

[KittyWampus]

38. Ethically, she should tell the biological father. Unless abuse is part of the equation.

[EC]

39. Not anyone's business except the pregnant

girl's business....it's her choice and her life..

[ProgressiveProfessor]

170. Once the child is born others have coequal rights in the situation

including the father and the child and in some states the grandparents.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

209. It's Every Bit The Man's Business.

Takes two to create a child. The man, though not the vessel for the child, still has every right to be aware of his fatherhood as the mother does of her motherhood. End of story.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

43. It's her business.. but she shouldn't come to him 10 years later looking for child support...

after he missed the first 10 years of their child's life.


If she wants the child support (which is her right for sure after he stuck his junk in her), take him to court now and make him pay up for the next 18 years.... if he's gonna pay, he has a right to know he has a child.

If he's an asshole and she wants nothing to do with him, then more power to her, it's her body and her child.... but leave it at that for 18 years.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. Absolutely He Should Now. Unfortunately, Men's Rights Have A Long Way To Go In This Country.

With exception to cases of rape, in should be mandated that the father of the child be duly informed.

[mmonk]

48. Hard question. I am male and think if the law would make me

legally responsible financially, I should know. However, not all people are good people and if the father is bad, it would be hard to force the mother to tell him. Like life, it's probably not a black or white issue.

[Yupster]

250. So who should decide if the guy's bad?

The mom?

That doesn't sound reasonable. Maybe she's the bad one? Maybe they're both bad?

That can't be left for the woman to decide.

I didn't tell him because he's bad. I just decided it. No, that's not a reasonable position to me. A court should decide someone's too bad to know they have kids, not a person involved in the situation.

[Greyhound]

49. It is up to her and nobody else's business.

The state has no business involving itself in this area, period. If a woman decides he should have no input and no responsibility then there is probably a good reason for it.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

51. It's their business not ours

[noamnety]

52. I trust the woman to do what's best given the circumstances

Since I don't know the circumstances I wouldn't want to dictate the "right" thing to do.

[lumberjack_jeff]

57. Of course.

a) If she's going to seek public assistance, the child is mom and dad's responsibility, not hers and mine (as a taxpayer) simply because mom would prefer it that way.
b) What's best for her or Grandma is immaterial, she doesn't have unilateral right to determine what's best for the child.
c) Her body, her choice is fine. Once the baby is born, she no longer owns it, and the child has a right to his or her parents.
d) what is the moral difference between being a deadbeat dad and a mom who hides a child from the other parent? Parents have obligations which are frequently inconvenient. Too bad. Be a parent.

[ColbertWatcher]

58. If you want to be correct, you should say "sperm donors" instead of fathers. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

63. Then she should produce the donorship agreement. n/t

[ColbertWatcher]

80. The way I look at it, a father is one of the people who provides care for a child.

When there is no child to take care of, there is no father. Also, when there is no care provided, there is no father (or mother for that matter).

[GliderGuider]

61. A woman has an absolute right to make any and all decisions regarding what goes on in her body.

If she wants to keep the information private, she has a perfect moral right to do so. Whether she decides to keep the baby, give it up for adoption or have an abortion, it's her right to make the decision without telling anyone or asking anyone. It's the privilege of being an autonomous moral agent that comes with being human.

[lumberjack_jeff]

62. The child in the crib is no longer part of her body.

It is a person who has a right to a father, and somewhere is a father who has a right to be a parent.

Knowing that once a child is born, your rights are not the only ones that matter, should be part of the calculus which goes into deciding to have a child.

[GliderGuider]

73. If the child asks, it should be told.

The child should also be told abut the mother's decision, with the clear message that if the child really wants to know, the mother's right to privacy immediately becomes secondary, and the truth will be told. Until that point, the choice is the mother's alone. IMHO.

[lumberjack_jeff]

88. The child only has rights when (s)he's old enough to ask for them?

Interesting viewpoint.

[GliderGuider]

94. The child isn't asking for their rights, they're asking for information.

The right they have is the right to ask, and the right that if they do ask, the question is treated seriously. Until they assert that right, the woman's right is paramount. After that, the child's right may assume precedence (and it may not, if there are extenuating circumstances).

There are lots of rights we grant to adults that are not granted to dependent children, especially before they can talk. I don't see anything odd about that at all.

[lumberjack_jeff]

99. A child's right to a parent should not be contingient on asking anyone.

"mother may I" is just a game.

A woman's right is not paramount. There are three individuals here, each with equal rights under the law.

[GliderGuider]

108. "Equal rights under the law"?

Does a child have the right to sign contracts, or decide for themselves not to enter school?

IMO the mother should have the absolute right to make any and all decisions regarding the pregnancy (including who to tell or not tell) until the moment of birth. The child should have the right to know who the father is if and when they ask, so long as there are no extenuating circumstances. IMO the father should have no legal rights unless he has concurrent legal responsibilities -- for example if he is legally obliged to provide support -- again unless there are extenuating circumstances. The mother gets more rights because it's her body, the child gets some rights until the age of legal maturity, when they accede to all rights granted to adults. The father's legal rights should be contingent on their legal responsibility. I might agree that a father would gain rights if he is told of the baby by the mother.

Most mothers want the father to know, they want a family to whatever extent that's possible. That general desire should not trump the right of any individual woman to go it alone if she so chooses. I'm really hard-line on this, and I don't expect most men to agree with me.

[lumberjack_jeff]

146. So fathers have no rights that mothers are bound to respect?

Where have I heard that before?

Oh, that's right, now I remember.

We DU'ers loves us some sexism. Especially the institutional kind.

[GliderGuider]

157. I'm impressed.

Because I support inalienable personal rights I'm a slaver.

You've managed to roll three logical fallacies into a single post: Ad Hominem, Red Herring and Straw Man. Doing that takes a very great deal of very dubious debating skill. If you disagree with the argument, at least have the integrity to attack the argument itself directly.

[lumberjack_jeff]

211. I did. Your premise is that fathers have rights, but only if moms agree.

Rights, subject to someone else's approval aren't really rights. Moms and children are obliged to child support, but only if mom thinks it's a good tradeoff. It reduces the concept of parenthood to a transaction. Absent the assumption that the child is the mom's property, it is an argument wholly without merit.

I didn't say you were a slaver. I said you advocate institutional sexism.

And that's not an ad hominem, nor a strawman.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

210. The Child Can't Talk At A Day Old.

And thinking a father should only be aware he's a father when the child is old enough to ask; is downright moronic.

[Gwendolyn]

I believe if she wants to give the child up for adoption...

that doesn't exempt the father's rights. He can fight successfully for his child.

[GliderGuider]

84. I'm speaking here of my ideal situation,

not about the rights a woman may or may not have right now in any particular jurisdiction. My belief in people as autonomous moral agents means I think they have the right to make a lot more unilateral decisions about their personal welfare than our oppressive legal systems currently permit. Most legal systems function solely in the interests of the prevailing power structure, with just enough sops thrown to the public to keep them believing the game is fair. Since most of the power structure consists of men, the most egregious legal abuses are perpetrated upon women. As humans we all have inalienable rights, no matter what our gender.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

173. In your scenario the child is chattel to the mother...

The problem with your view is that there are at least three people with rights once the child is born

[GliderGuider]

181. Three people with "equal" rights?

I think not. The mother gives her body and risks her health, so she gets the most rights. In our society the child is recognized as having a circumscribed set of rights until they reach the legal age of majority, when they accede to full adult rights, so the "right" to know who their father is, is open to question. The father has some minuscule rights because he contributed the seed. The reason fathers are seen as having equal rights with respect to their child is because we live in a patriarchal society, where the simple fact of masculinity is a trump card.

The father can gain rights if he is asked (or ordered) to assume parental responsibility. However, even in our society fathers are allowed to opt out of all "soft" parental responsibilities in exchange for economic support. So, if there is no request for economic support there is no legal responsibility, and therefore no legal right. Marriage, of course, confers an explicit responsibility on the father, and therefore gives him explicit rights. Outside of marriage (or its equivalent), all bets are off.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

193. Yes, three people with rights...

Once born the parents should have coequal rights, the child has different rights, but no more or less important.

If one were to accept that the mother has superior rights because of the risk of carrying the child to term would she have more rights if the delivery was a C-section vice vaginal birth (More risk)?

Its not patriarchal to recognize the benefit to a child of having both parents. Remember, its that best interest of the child thing again. The father has to be given the opportunity to be an equal participant. Its his rights and the rights of the child, not subject to being overridden by just the mother. That is what family court is for.

The child is not the property of the mother which is what you are arguing for.

[GliderGuider]

196. I gave my position on this argument below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6110227&mesg_id=6112028

[Gwendolyn]

75. I believe if she wants to give the child up for adoption...

that doesn't exempt the father's rights. He can fight successfully for his child.

[musette_sf]

77. + 1

[TexasObserver]

86. Her absolute right is only the decision to have the child.

Everything after birth is controlled by state law, and every state in the nation has laws that give the father equal or virtually equal rights to and in the child. The mother cannot give it up for adoption without the father's consent, and if she does, the father can take the child away from the adoptive parents. That has happened many times, by the way, in instances where women thought as you did, that the right was theirs alone.

Her right is to decide to have the child. She has no superior rights after the child is born.

[GliderGuider]

90. As I said above, I'm speaking of the rights I think she "should" have.

I'm a strong believer in giving women the respect they are due as human beings.

[TexasObserver]

97. So, you believe mothers should be able to own their children.

Kids have a birth certificate, not a title. They are not owned. The parents have co equal rights and duties.

Giving a woman the right to decide the fate of a child after birth to the exclusion of the father is not "giving women the respect they are due as human beings." It's ignoring the biology of parenting, and it's destroying the lives of children, who need fathers.

[GliderGuider]

113. I don't require you to agree with me. This is my personal opinion.

I'm a hard-liner in favour of women's reproductive rights, and most men would probably balk at my views. I don't mind - someone has to balance out the forced-birth and forced-family fundies out there..

[stray cat]

64. No - its just a choice not a child and its the woman's choice

he should be told after the child is born but until then its a nothing - right - like a tumor? :sarcasm:

[gleaner]

66. That is a tough one..

There are arguments on both sides. I think if the child is a product of a one night stand and the mother doesn't want the man in her life she probably shouldn't tell him. She could be robbing the child of support from the father, but a lot of ex husbands don't pay child support, so that could be a toss up.

Another situation where she would be perfectly justified in not telling the father is if the relationship was abusive and she had to keep the father out of her life to protect herself or her child. Some abusive men use children as pawns to hold on to women they have been involved with and then torment them forever.

If the child is a product of a long term relationship where there had been love and respect she should consider letting the father know. They could work out a relationship for the benefit of both themselves and the baby without further involvement and perhaps everyone would benefit. Or if he wasn't interested in being a father she could pursue whatever remedies she wanted.

As a feminist I do think that the woman has the final say in how she pursues her pregnancy or if she does. Society also expects more of her in terms of parenting no matter how many fathers' rights bills are passed. Either way, the mother is the person going through the pregnancy and usually the person who has physical custody of the child. I don't think anyone has the right to force any particular action on her, but if the father suspects that she is carrying his child and wants to push it, he can get court ordered DNA tests which would take the matter right out of the woman's hands if they tied the child to him. It is a lot to think about.

[peace13]

70. No, I think all fathers should be aborted!

Just kidding. If a man spills his seed into a woman that could carry his baby without him finding out, then I don't think he deserves to know about the child unless the mother wants to tell him. People breeding without love is no different than cats or dogs doing it. I don't see notifications going out in the animal world.

[travelingtypist]

71. Need to know, should know, sure.

I think the question of requiring the pregnant woman to inform the father is thornier and I have no idea. Seems like requiring her to tell him is one step along the way of giving him a say in what she does about the pregnancy, to continue or terminate.

[SidDithers]

76. Does a fetus have a father? Or do only children have parents?..nt

Sid

[bemildred]

83. The kid has a right to know who his/her parents are.

Nobody has a right to take that away for their own convenience.

[Brooklyns_Finest]

118. +1

People here are so hung up on the womans right to choose (abortion or birth) that the "choice" argument has no bearing on the child's and fathers rights after the kid is born.

It is funny that this topic has been brought up, because my buddy is dating a girl who did just what the OP is asking us about. When she was pregnant, she told her then boyfriend that the child's father was some other guy from the neighborhood. The boyfriend ended up breaking up with her for cheating. Her reason for lying to her boyfriend was because he was "asshole who didn't work". From what my friend told me, there is no indication that her ex boyfriend was abusive. I met the girl, and she seems nice enough, she was young when she committed this act of treachery (20), but I could never date someone of such low moral character. I hope my friend doesn't get hurt by this girl.

Outside of the guy being a total psycho, I think it is a womans responsibility to inform the father that she has bared his child. We are not animal we are humans, we need to treat each other fairly. The mother would not only be hurting the father, she is also hurting her child.

[musette_sf]

133. - 1

either women are autonomous (as men have long been), or they are not.

one flaky story about one supposed person with supposed flaky activity does not make an excuse to deny autonomy to women.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

161. Under current law her abolute authority to choose ends at birth

After that both the father and the child have rights that are coequal to the mothers.

[GliderGuider]

172. Does the fact that it's "current law" make it right?

Lots of us have pushed to change current law when we feel that "the law is an ass". A another poster so kindly pointed out to me, that tradition goes all the way back to "Amazing Grace".

[ProgressiveProfessor]

177. Yes it does. The child has two parent each with equal rights and responsibilites

The child has its own rights as well. While I think the current family court system is sewage in many ways, it is the way we as a society make decisions when rights are in conflict. Your approach turns the child effectively into the property of the mothers and that is clearly not right.

[GliderGuider]

182. See my response above

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6110227&mesg_id=6111846

I disagree (strongly) that their rights should be considered equal. In the event of a parental conflict, the rights of a born child should be paramount. Before birth or in the absence of a legal conflict, the mother's rights should be paramount until the child reaches the age of legal adulthood.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

189. Its "what is in the child's best interest" is paramount

Once born the parents should have coequal rights, the child has different rights, but no more or less important than the parents. Once the child is born there is automatically legal conflict if the mother blocks out the father, conflict with the fathers rights and the child's rights.

You really are making the the child the property of the mother.

[GliderGuider]

194. If the child is going to be the primary responsibility of one partner

("property" is such an ugly, loaded word), it should be the mother -- she's the one who put her body on the line. If the father carried the child for 4 1/2 months and breast-fed it half the time, I might agree to an equal division of rights. But he didn't. Biologically speaking he gets to walk or stay as he sees fit, during both pregnancy and infancy. She has the primary responsibility, so the mother should get the primary rights.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

224. Why would you support such a blatently sexist approach?

Carrying a baby has nothing to do with fitness for parenting or being the best of the two biological parents to have physical custody. Either parent can walk away during infancy or any other time in the child's life. The mother does not automatically have primary responsibility and even if she did, it would be custody, not rights WRT to the child.

[GliderGuider]

228. Partly because women have been getting the short end of the stick for thousands of years.

You don't redress that kind of imbalance without taking a firm stand in favour of women's rights. The simple fact that a woman donates her body for 9 months and then nurses the child qualifies her for more legal consideration that a man who donates half an hour of his time and a single sperm. The fact that we've been able to beat twomen into submission since the invention of agriculture doesn't mean it should stay that way. Sorry, if that's sexism then it's the sort of sexism my mama taught me to be proud of.

[DatManFromNawlins]

231. This has nothing to do with women's rights

It has to do with the rights of the child. You don't redress imbalances by creating another, equally negative, imbalance.

[bemildred]

235. That was kind of where I was coming from.

I have no problem with a woman's absolute right to decide whether to carry the pregnancy to term or not.

However, once brought to term, the child immediately becomes a full human being, not anyone else's chattel, and it acquires the full moral, legal, and human rights that all other humans have. The mother and father, on the other hand, both then become parents, and being a parent is a great deal more about responsibilities and obligations than it is about rights.

But, in particular, any child has a presumptive right to know who it's parents are, and any woman contemplating whether to carry a pregnancy to term ought to consider the rights and interests of the prospective child in deciding what to do. Once you decide to carry it to term, it's no longer just about you.

[GliderGuider]

264. A child acquires "full moral, legal, and human rights" at birth?

The right to sign contracts? The right to decide on their own not to go to school? Your argument is even more absolutist than mine, and it's ridiculous on its face. Yes children acquire rights when they are born, but the rights of a minor are graded and circumscribed until the age of majority.

Of course a woman should consider the interests of the child in deciding what to do, but this thread has turned into a discussion of the rights of biological fathers, which I claim are non-existent unless they are married (or the equivalent) to the mother or are being asked to provide support of some kind (not necessarily financial).

[bemildred]

281. Yes, exactly.

The child owns itself, and it will in due course exercise all of the autonomy which the parents already have. The parents position is custodial, their duty is to guard and protect the child and its interests until it is able to exercise its rights independently. One does not lose a right because one is not yet able to exercise it.

I have made no assertions about the rights of biological fathers. I wanted to assert that the child has rights and that both parents must consider them, once the decision is made to bring the fetus to term. I am opposed to the idea of casting this issue as solely between the two "gamete donors", there are other parties involved, their rights must be respected too.

Women have, because of their biological role, a special right of decision, which is not available to the male, in deciding whether or not to bring a fetus to term. But that does not translate into a free pass to do whatever you like in perpetuity, and in particular it does not give you a right to treat the child as your property.

[Yupster]

254. It really is sexism Glider

It really isn't much else but blatant sexism.

[GliderGuider]

263. As I said above

If it is, then it's the kind of sexism my mama taught me to be proud of.

I will never apologize for championing women's rights, and that's exactly what I think this issue is.

[Yupster]

296. I guess that's fine

People have a right to be sexist, racist, homophobic, whatever.

It really does look distasteful though to read sexism, racism, homophobia, especially on a progressive board, but I don't think a sexist or racist or homophobe can be convinced to change his/her mind.

[Brooklyns_Finest]

199. Forget the story

My friend is dating a loser, no doubt, but that is not that point.

Women having autonomy does not relinquish their responsibility to do the right thing. If I had a one night stand with a woman and she had gotten pregnant and then decided to have the baby, then she has decided to have me in her life. The responsibility for raising the child is both mine and hers. I don't have unprotected sex with females that I don't plan on having contact further with, so the chances of this happening to me are not great. However, If I suspect a woman has given birth to my child, I would have a court ordered paternity test. At the time, we can figure out financial support and shared custody.

It might be surprise to some women, but there are men out there who want to live up to their responsibility as fathers.

[GliderGuider]

205. Would it surprise you to find out

that some women would think you are part of the problem rather than part of the solution?

Would you really have the court force a woman who wasn't interested in having you in her life to submit a paternity test and then force her to let you in? Really?

[Brooklyns_Finest]

229. Absolutely

I would fight to be a part of my child's life. What the woman wants has no bearing on this equation. Once the child is born, we are going to have to work together in raising the child. I really don't understand why this is hard to comprehend. A lot of guys look for every way to get out of their child's life, those of us who want to be part of it should be commended.

Also, this autonomy argument is a load of hogwash. Having unprotected sex has consequences. If a man doesn't want to have to pay child support then he should rap it up before he has sex. If a woman does not want a man in her child's life, she should have either gotten a sperm donor or made sure no birth happened in the first place.


Let us adjust your statement:

"Would you really have the court force a man who wasn't interested in having you in his life to submit to a paternity test and then force him to pay child support? Really?"

What is the difference?

[TorchTheWitch]

241. she already let him in

by getting pregnant by him and producing their equally mutual offspring. If she wanted to be the sole parent of a child she could have gone to a sperm bank.

Once a child is born it is in the best interest of the child to know both their parents not to mention how much more of a full life the child would have with two parents who contributed financially to the child's well-being. Yes, there are cases where one or the other parent is more of a detriment in a child's life, and in such a case it would be in the best interest of the child to be shielded from a bad parent. But barring that, a man who contributes to the existence of a child has equal right AND equal responsibility of parenthood which is in the best interest of the child.

Part of being a parent is realizing you can no longer have everything the way you alone want it and acting accordingly. For a woman to deprive her child of the love and support of its father who WANTS to provide that love and support simply because she's just not interested in having him in her life is grossly selfish and a detriment to the child.

[TexasObserver]

245. Excellent post on this topic.

"Part of being a parent is realizing you can no longer have everything the way you alone want it and acting accordingly. For a woman to deprive her child of the love and support of its father who WANTS to provide that love and support simply because she's just not interested in having him in her life is grossly selfish and a detriment to the child."
--- your post

Your comments are exactly the reason family courts favor both parents being involved in the child's life, joint custody, and rights for extended family. This is about the child's life, and the TWO families such a child is entitled to have.

There are many, many parents who can't live together and can't remain married, but can manage to put aside differences and learn to co parent in divorce. The idea that one parent should be able to exclude another parent without a court ruling is not one which has credibility in family courts.

[Yupster]

255. The woman wouldn't have to have the man in her life

She just doesn't have the right to stand between the man's relationship with his son/daughter.

She can be the biggest a...hole in the world and never look at the guy again. She can have a social worker in a foyer everytime the child goes from one parent to another. She can be a complete turd.

As long as she doesn't interfere with the man's relationship with his dauighter/son. That she has no right to do.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

213. Exactly. It's Ignorance Due To Closed Minded Bias.

In the real world, the answer would be a resounding "Of course he should know!". Here? Don't hold your breath. Kinda pathetic really.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

87. It's up to her. She's a free human being able to make her own choices.

[Greyhound]

93. If only that were so. n/t

[ejpoeta]

269. for herself, maybe, but this isn't about her. it's about her kid. and while i do not

think she should be forced legally to tell the guy.... i do think that it is in the best interest of the child for the guy to know. if he bails, then at least he did it knowing he had a kid out there.

[alittlelark]

95. As soon as med. tech. allows for implantation into a male

YES. That way he would have some real-world decision to make. He could have the fetus transferred to his '?', carry it for 9+ months and give birth to it out of his '?'.

As soon as that technology comes about the father should DEFINITELY know.

[GliderGuider]

202. I'd settle for a swap at the half-way point.

She conceives and carries the fetus for 4 1/2 months, then he gets the fetus for the next 4 1/2 months and the delivery. A lot of this bleating about rights would be stilled in an instant.

[alittlelark]

212. Sounds good to me - the last 1/2 tears your bod up.

[Pushed To The Left]

96. The thought of having a son or daughter out there somewhere that you'll never know about seems

pretty harsh to me. Another reason to be careful who you sleep with. On the other hand, those who donate to sperm banks are technically in the same boat. This is why I could never donate to a sperm bank.

[mamaleah]

101. Well, in the world of mature adults

one would think people fucking could also bother to be open and honest with each other.

But in the world many people occupy, I suppose she doesn't have to tell him. Of course, then she should not expect support from him either.

The state or county, however, will most certainly want to know so they know who to get the back support from.

In the case of adoption, the father of said child has the right to adopt as much as anyone else. He should be told as well. At a minimum, the adoption agency should know the father's name in case the child ever wishes to learn his or her medical history.

[seabeyond]

104. i am a feminist in that i think it is a responsibility to tell father. i dont think that

makes me not a feminist. but how i see, walk life, i think it is wrong to get preg and keep father in the dark. it is 50% his. mess up lives, makes it hard... all that stuff. that is why a person needs to be responsible and thinking ahead before the act.

my own moral code and how i believe

as a female i dont think i yell for equality and then lessen the equality of other gender when it suits my need

[H2O Man]

105. It depends.

[GliderGuider]

175. Damn your reasonableness!

The rest of us are off in the stratosphere having a great wild-eyed binge on Absolut, and you have to come in and spoil all our fun.

Yeah, OK, it depends. ;-)

[jennygirl]

115. I AM NOT AN MRA BUT A CONCERNED FEMINIST IN THE CHILD'S BEST INTEREST

This situation is not made up to justify any men's rights advocacy. I say that the father should know because bipolar disorder runs heavily in the mother's side of the family and they are known to go in and out of mental hospitals and make flighty spur of the moment decisions which they regret later.

My friend failed to tell me if this was a long term or one night stand. Knowing the daughter as I do she is promiscuous. This is why I think the father and HIS FAMILY AT LEAST (should know and help support the child). There was no mention of an abusive relationship or other babies' mamas. She is one of those blunt people who feels her decision is right and won't listen to reason.

[GliderGuider]

121. Self-delete -- I changed my mind. nt

[jennygirl]

137. Thanks, GliderGuider

For understanding my concern for the poor child being born in this precarious situation. As a female who is bipolar and chose to not have children because of my own strong maternal heredity, I am very much concerned for this child and will try to support them whatever they decide.

[musette_sf]

141. and your "concern" would include

slut-shaming the pregnant woman. because you're SOOO concerned.

admit it, THIS is what you are trying to defend: http://www.feministing.com/archives/016804.html

if you're a feminist, then I am Marie of Romania (with apologies to Dorothy Parker)

[GliderGuider]

143. Try to help her on "her" terms, not your own.

She may need to be helped, but nobody likes being rescued.

It's really not a bad thing if she enjoys sex, and is a little wild and headstrong. I admire that in a person.

[TexasObserver]

124. The father may very well be a better choice than the mother for primary caregiver.

In these kind of cases, fathers are getting custody more and more, as courts reject the idea that the mother is inherently better to raise the child.

One major factor in such cases is the mental health of each parent. A parent with a history of bipolar disorder could be very bad for the child.

Almost all family courts presume that having both parents in the life of the child is the desired result, and unless (1) the father agrees to have his rights terminated officially in court, or (2) the mother asks and gets the court to terminate the father's rights for cause, then the father's rights exist irrespective of his knowledge of the child's existence.

If a mother fails to tell the father of the child's existence, any time the father learns of it, he can sue for custody, and one important fact in determining the proper primary care for the child will be the mother's scheming to keep the father away from the child. Courts and child care experts uniformly find that kind of action distasteful, and an indicator that the mother may be unfit to have primary custody.

[tigereye]

154. Do you ever do anything else but repeat the same thing over and over?

Funny how this has failed to convince a number of us that your point is the correct one and it leaves little room for actual discussion.


You fail to see the complexity of the situation, which is a separate matter from the law. How things "should be" is not how they actually are.

[musette_sf]

one of those who thinks

that if he repeats the same thing over and over again, it constitutes "logic" rather than AN OPINION.

[tigereye]

279. yeah I find that exasperating - to me, that's not a discussion

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

216. You Can't Convince That Which Is Blindfully Ignorant; So I Doubt That's The Poster's Intent.

And saying the poster fails to see the complexity in the issue is quite ironic.

[alittlelark]

185. AGENDA much?

:eyes:

[TexasObserver]

238. My agenda is speaking up for the concept of joint custody and the child's rights.

It's rational, it's fair, and it's the law.

You will not find a single child care expert who will side with you on this topic.

[musette_sf]

130. sure you are

:eyes:

so now she's "promiscuous" too?

slut-shame people much?

i think you really want THIS:

http://www.feministing.com/archives/016804.html

[GliderGuider]

136. For a feminist there is an oddly patriarchal tone to your concern.

The girl is a slut. The family is crazy, "known to make flighty spur of the moment decisions". The girl is "one of those blunt people who feels her decision is right". No indication that the girl is crazy, just that she's got her own will and exercises it. Based on your judgmental tone, if I was that girl I'd be resistant to your "help" as well. Unless you have more objective evidence of unfitness than you have presented so far, stop interfering in other peoples' lives.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

188. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[musette_sf]

200. it's been lurking a long time

as have a few more on this thread. seems to have brought out the MRAs who want THIS: http://www.feministing.com/archives/016804.html

[Name removed]

204. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

222. You Happen To Have A Very Strange Perception There.

You seem to be under this delusion that the OP and others in this thread should be banned, as if you provide some valuable service to this community. In reality, you are failing to realize how amazingly better DU would be without types like you; nor how much types like you have completely ruined DU and completely undermined Skinner's vision.

So quit your preaching. You are not what makes DU great.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

215. What's Wrong With Being An MRA? Are Men's Rights Less Valid Than A Woman's?

You stand on the right ground. There is no need for you to be defensive just because we happen to have a bunch of closed minded members who let bias override their common sense. Have no doubt your ground is solid and strong. No need to back down nor explain yourself. It is they arguing from a standpoint of ignorance, not you.

[GliderGuider]

221. Yes, in a sense they are less valid.

We live in a patriarchal culture that supports men's rights much more than women's rights. So whenever we consider altering the balance or rights on an issue with gender implications, that should be taken into account.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

223. Not When Dealing With Children. The Culture Is Still Largely And Ignorantly Biased Against Men There

Hopefully that changes. Until then, there's not a damn thing wrong with EXPECTING nor DEMANDING equal rights or common sense rights same as we should for rights of women that need to be fought for. A position of "well you shouldn't have that right because we don't have this unrelated right" is childish and silly.

Yes, the father should know, period.

[katanalori]

116. Not enough info.

If the mother has knowledge that the father is abusive, or if the mother was raped - NO.
If it is just a matter of her being mad at him, then I think he should be informed - if for no other reason than he should be responsible financially.
I can think of reasons to not tell the bio dad, and I withold any opinions on her motives without more information.

[hedgehog]

117. Strictly my opinion, but unless a man is willing to enter a

permanent relationship beforehand, he has no say in the matter. I also think it should be up to the mother to decide whether he should be liable for child support. Unfair? Since the woman invests her body and health in the child, I think she should have the say. If a guy doesn't like those terms, he can either use a rubber or choose not to have sex.

[musette_sf]

126. + 1

[seabeyond]

132. the child is as much as his. if a mother doesnt like it she can use the pill, he a condom

and make a better choice on the person she screws around with.

that can go both ways....

[RB TexLa]

119. No, nothing going on in someone's body is anyone else's business.

Just like if I have a vasectomy, it's none of my wife's business.

[mamaleah]

122. "Just like if I have a vasectomy, it's none of my wife's business."

Wow.....you are either not married or you have an odd marriage.

Something that can have an impact on both parties is usually discussed. Hiding shit is for 16 year olds. Or the dishonest.

If my husband had a vasectomy without telling me, I'd be seeing him at the lawyer's to draw up the divorce papers.

Weasels who sneak around behind their mates backs are just that....weasels.

[RB TexLa]

125. Maybe you don't understand, I am a human being, not my wife's dog or property

You honestly think someone having a medical procedure is grounds for divorce? So I guess you favor spousal notification for someone to get an abortion.

[KittyWampus]

134. I'm going to guess you are not married.

[RB TexLa]

138. I am married. Neither my wife or I look at each other as property, we respect the other as a human

being with rights, two of those rights being medical privacy and the right to control and regulate our own bodies.


If you don't believe in those rights that's fine but you are going to be in a minority here.

[mamaleah]

236. It has to do with respect, not property.

If you have one iota of respect for your spouse you discuss with them things that will have an impact on them.

Being dishonest would be a good reason to divorce someone.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

217. This Isn't Constipation. It Is A Child, As Much A Part Of The Father As The Mother.

Get a grip. Your argument was beyond weak.

[RB TexLa]

225. And if someone denies this right you feel one has to know what is going on in someone else's

body what punishment do you think they deserve? Prison? How long do you think they should serve for such upiddyness?

[Bluzmann57]

123. Of course the father should know

No offense, but that's kind of a ridiculous question. The father should be involved in the child's life every step of the way unless he's a child molester or something. Besides, what's to keep Nicole's daughter from looking for child support someday? The father could get a rude surprise if Nicole's daughter turns greedy or goes broke someday.

[JVS]

127. Clarify something please

" I asked her what about child support. Nicole said she didn't want the father in their lives complicating everything like her daughter's (they were married, however) to interfere with how she would raise the baby and in visitation matters."

What does this mean? Like her daughter's what? And who was married?

[jennygirl]

142. Nicole the Mother was Married

Nicole's daughter's father was a sorry SOB who let his daughter down and made false promises that he failed to keep constantly throughout the young girl's life. As a result Nicole has taught her daughter to not trust men in general.

[GliderGuider]

149. You're not helping your case with things like this.

These are all your own personal judgments. You can hold them all you want, just recognize that they represent your view of their world, not some objective Truth. The more information you divulge, the more you sound like a busybody.

[BlueMTexpat]

277. Thanks for clarifying this ... I was a bit confused because if the daughter was married to him,

it didn't sound as if the "relationship" was a one-night stand and the decision not to tell sounded as if it was more for vindictive reasons than not.
That being said, I must say that I am with Texas Observer 100 percent. Whether they are/were married is irrelevant. State law governs whether the woman has a legal requirement to tell the father. If there is one, she had darn well better do it in order to save herself a lot of trouble later. That law is essentially for the protection of the child, once it is born. Up until birth, the woman should, IMO, have absolute right to determine whether she will carry the child to term (the overwhelming majority of us actually do choose to do that, I like to keep reminding people), but once the child is born, that child has a right to know who its father is, even if that father is no better than pond scum. Unfortunately, some are pond scum, but many more aren't. In this case, it sounds as if the mother has her own problems. Poor unfortunate baby!
Many here have mentioned the father's support obligation, which is one important legal reason to name him. Another important reason is so that the child's doctor has an idea of its father's health history, which can assist with preventive health care, or in extreme cases, in determining whether the father can be a organ/tissue donor, which could actually save the child's life. Another important legal reason is so that the child has rights of inheritance. Also, what would happen to the child if something happened to its mother/grandmother? The preferred policy is to place the child with existing family members, although that may not always be the best policy, thus the need for a guardian ad litem for the child.
It's one thing if the mother truly doesn't know who the father is, or only suspects who he might be. And yes, I join others here who wish that people would only have sex when they love and are committed to each other. But we all know that doesn't happen in the world as it unfortunately exists.
But why must the innocent fruit of a sexual encounter, once born, be the one to suffer the consequences?

[slackmaster]

145. Yes, I think a man, or sperm doner, has a right to know where his genes are getting mixed up

It's common courtesy, at least.

[Bill McBlueState]

148. Of course a man should know whether he got a woman pregnant

But if he's so entirely detached from the situation that he doesn't know, the pregnant woman has no obligation to tell him.

[ismnotwasm]

150. Up to the Mom

At the very least, I suppose it would be a courtesy, provided the father isn't a total asshole, But legally mandated? Hell no. Men need to understand that the moment their sperm leaves their body in certain circumstances a pregnancy could ensue. It doesn't matter what the particulars are. If they don't want kids, get clipped or find alternative methods of sexual gratification.

Yes, yes, I know all the horror stories men have. My husband has one or two, that being how I ended up a step-mother. That's not the point here. The point is body autonomy and human rights. Women are not brood mares nor should be legally or ethically or morally singled out because they have the capacity to become pregnant. We've had millennia of that already.

My birth kids had two fathers. Both knew. Neither gave a shit. I never pursued child support or even told them were I was because the fathers were destructive human beings I didn't want around. Currently, one is dead, the other in jail. Both went on to have other kids, kids who suffered far more being around them then my kids did not having them around. On the other hand, my children consider my husband their 'real' father, because indeed he is.

[musette_sf]

167. + 1

and thank you for showing up here :hi:

[GliderGuider]

214. +1 from me too.

"Women are not brood mares" should be the battle cry of a women's autonomy movement. Wait, maybe it already is :-)

Given how long children have been the property of their fathers, it would be perfect justice to give some significant rights back to the women who do the actual work. You will accept the child but don't want him him your life? It's your choice, it's your right.

[Arkana]

152. Well, if I was the father of some kid and the girl didn't tell me I'd be upset

[DireStrike]

158. If the man can be on the hook for child support or ANYTHING, he should be informed

And I believe he is always liable and responsible for his child... so the father should always be informed.

You cannot make it so that failure to inform the father removes his responsibility. That's insane. Maybe you can have the mother file something with the courts waiving all blah blah blah relieving the father of responsibility.

The only other answer is that every mother should have a legal duty to inform the father of his pending legally mandated responsibilities.

What happens if she decides she wants child support in 5 years?

[Yupster]

256. Correct Direstrike

If a woman changes her mind and ten years later decides she wants child support the man can't say, but she said she didn't want any.

The court will say the child support is for the kid, not the mom, and the mom had no right to waive away the kid's right to child support.

[Blasphemer]

162. It really depends on the circumstances

I once thought I was pregnant by someone who I had just found out was lying about his relationship circumstance. Not only was he married with 3 children but he was also being accused of fathering another child by another woman. I had decided that I would NOT tell him regardless of what I decided to do about the pregnancy. As it turns out, I wasn't pregnant so it was neither here nor there but I can certainly understand why a woman would make such a decision.

[petronius]

166. The father has a moral right (and should have a legal right, IMO), to know about

the child as soon as it's born. Financial considerations, the length of the relationship, or the mother's opinion of the father should not be relevant.

[GliderGuider]

168. What about extenuating circumstances?

I'm a hard-liner too (on the other side) but I recognize that there are situations in which absolute moral positions have to yield to reality. Would your advice remain the same if the father was an over-controlling, physically abusive alcoholic?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

178. Mother can go to family court for an ex partie hearing if its that bad

Their are some safeguards in the current system

[GliderGuider]

187. I agree that there are some safeguards in the current (American) legal system

However, that's not on point with the original argument, which was that father have a moral right to be informed of their children as soon as they are born.

[Yupster]

260. Of course he does

The woman has no right to stand in the way of a relationship between a father and his child.

Why would anyone even presume to have such a right?

If there's an extenuating circumstance, then a court should be brought in.

[petronius]

198. He'd still be entitled to know. If there were circumstances to preclude

visitation/involvement then a court could/should order that. I suppose there could be situations that would make even knowledge by the father undesirable, but that would still be up to a legal authority and not the mother. That said, there might be times when I would choose (or advise) to not do the right thing, but my choice of action wouldn't change what the right thing is. However, we're not giving advice to a mother in this thread, we're discussing moral positions...

All in my opinion, of couse. :)

[GliderGuider]

207. We differ on this. No problem.

However I'm not sure that the minimal situation of a one-night stand and the neglect of birth control by both parties confers any moral rights on the putative father...

[petronius]

233. Fair enough. To me, even though the one night stand seems a pretty small thing,

it comes with the potential for substantial consequences. (IOW, even though people treat it casually, it's not totally trivial). Among those consequences is the possibility of offspring, and that outcome comes with both the right and the responsibility to be a parent...

[Yupster]

259. That would be up to a court to decide

Not one of the parties involved.

All lawsuits would be easy if we let one of the parties of the case decide it. They'd always decide they were right. It would save a lot of money on court costs.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

176. Keep us informed......

....and bookmark the thread. I bet a year from now if the mother suddenly wants the child support, everyone in this thread bashing the father and essentially saying "He should take a fucking hike" will be calling for his "deadbeat ass" to be found.

[seabeyond]

186. lots are not bashing the father and think he should be informed.

i havent seen the percentages, but as many people at least believe their is an obligation and responsibility in telling the father.

a poll would be good

[GliderGuider]

191. And I'd bet that some of us think

that if the father isn't told before birth, then the mother gives up the legal right to expect support. I know that's not the way it works now, but it's the approach I'd prefer.

[seabeyond]

201. for me... there is just no question at all in the morality of informing the father, regardless

of whether i want him to be a part of the child's life or not. if i chose to have sex with him, then that is the repercussion of my choice i made. i cannot imagine thinking the father so less in this scenario. i really believe that a father is 50% there.

i have two brothers that are raising the children cause one man is a horrible/abusive mother and another mother doesnt want to be bothered.

both brothers take responsibility for the choices they made, but they also feel themselves as much a parent as any mom and far better choice than the mothers in these two situations.

really, my thoughts really have nothing to do with the financial end of the deal. and seems to be the only importance we give of the father. if i were a man, it would piss me off

[Yupster]

261. The problem with that is the mother has no right to give up support

because the support is for the kid, not the mother.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

192. I understand that......

....but SOME are calling him a sperm donor, mocking him as such for his "achievement" of making her preggers...etc. My only point is that if this young woman truly feels the father is such a bad apple he needs to be out of the child's life, I don't want to hear the 180 degree spin if she suddenly decides financial matters are more important than the emotional ones. And you KNOW the same ones mocking him now would demand his entrance to the picture if that was the case.

Mainly, I feel sorry for the kid.

[TexasObserver]

240. You are almost certainly right.

[Nikia]

179. By biology, a woman must decide if she wants to be a parent

A woman shows a willingness to be a parent when she carries her baby to term, goes to prenatal appointments, and often undergoes lifestyle adjustments out of concern her baby or because of the physical challenges of her condition. Once she gives birth (or preferably before), she must make a choice to become a parent further, whether to take the baby home or have the baby raised by someone else. If she takes the baby home and cares for it, she has truly shown her willingness to become a mother.
If a woman, for some reason, neglects to tell the probable father, he can show his willingness to become a parent by finding out if there was a child and go to court for dna testing and parental rights.

[sendero]

183. Why should they?

Nothing else about family law is fair to fathers. Why start here?

[musette_sf]

197. BS

"family law" often benefits the person who has enough money to litigate the other person into submission.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

218. +1

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[RB TexLa]

219. Nothing to do with family law no one has a right to know what is going on inside another person's

body.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

226. What about after the child is born?

There doesn't seem to be any disagreement that while she is pregnant the woman has absolute control and as such may choose not to tell the father or anyone else. The disagreement is after the child is born

[RB TexLa]

227. From the way this thread is going, I'm sure someone will say that you just

"beat her hard enough and she'll tell you who the daddy is." :puke:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

232. I've heard that DCS does that via intimidation of young mothers

and based on cases I have direct knowledge of, I believe it

[armyowalgreens]

249. After the child is born, it is no longer in the mothers body.

Then what?

[RB TexLa]

297. So if they have an abortion you are fine with the would have been father being notified

since it's no longer in her body? No difference then saying they have to tell after a birth.

[Brooklyns_Finest]

234. Great thread

My favorite post is the guy who said that he doesn't have to tell his wife if he has gotten a vasectomy. DU is a very interesting place. What world some people live in is beyond me.

What is sad is that in the real world, women are making these kind of decisions. They might think they are getting over, but the only one they are really hurting is that kid who has UNKNOWN on his/her birth certificate and SSA enumeration record. They are just breeding another generation of women who don't respect men and men who feel no responsibility to their offspring. What a lovely world that so many on DU are advocating for.

[northamericancitizen]

237. My answer is not in regard to the OP or if it is so it's an oblique way

Abortion, the father's right vs the mother's vs the child...

Tonight I needed a break from a crisis in my family.

For whatever obscure reasons I chose this topic.
____________________________________________________________________________
A big storm between my 18 years old son and myself.

That son of mine would not had seen the day of life if I hadn't been in a meaningful relationship.

The previous pregnancy was in 1986 where I decided to abort it.

I aborted for personal reasons, I did not tell the father that I was pregnant and my decision about it.

I told him thou, a week or so after the abortion. I was very much surprised at his reaction.
He told me how sad he felt. How he would had been happy to share parenthood, that he would had reorganized his life, and so on.

I knew he was kidding himself, how unrealistic his view was.

Here , I guess I should give details about the circumstances: mine and his.

It would be long and tedious. For me anyway.

I have 2 children from 2 different fathers.

Many times I was tempted to deprived them of their rights as fathers and each time I decided that it would be morally wrong.

I can assure you that the money matter never influenced me to keep the contact alive between my kids and their father.

I never relied on court of law to decide who was right or wrong.

A long time ago I had come to the conclusion that family court exist only for those who can't get pass their own limits with it comes to doing what's morally right.

(Don't get me wrong, when I write about morality , it's about mine nobody else.)

Coming back to the topic: before birth it is mainly but not solely the woman decision.
after birth : it belong to both parents unless one of them is insane.

Now, have fun describing or defining what insanity is and which mental illness will/would be a treath to the child being.

Lise

[ejpoeta]

270. the only problem with not going through family court is....

i have a friend who had an arrangement with her ex and she never went and got actual legal custody. so, when her ex took her to court for custody he got custody. i don't blame him.... she was with this guy who beat her and her ex was afraid of his son being in that environment. but i am sure that the lack of a legal agreement between them didn't help her situation, either.

as to your situation.... I am glad that you decided to involve the fathers of the kids. I am sure that that first time, when you told the guy later, that it made you think about the guy's side later. In a situation with an abortion, i don't think a woman should have to tell anyone. but if you have the baby, the guy should have the right to know, and the chance to participate. unless there is some good reason.... like he is an abuser or child abuser or something.

[ZombieHorde]

239. If the sex was consensual then the most ethical thing to do would be to tell him.

I also believe that in most situations the child has a right to know who the father is.

[armyowalgreens]

248. When the child is born, both parents have equal custody rights.

It would take court actions to change that.

On a moral level, I think the mother should notify the father. Unless of course she has a good reason to not tell him. Like if she feared for her safety or the safety of the child.

But if she simply refuses to tell the father because she "doesn't feel like going through the trouble", that is just wrong.

[caseymoz]

251. Now wait-- shouldn't the father ask?

To me, she is obligated to tell him truthfully if he asks, but if he's so uninterested that he never even knows that she's pregnant, as far as I'm concerned, she is under no legal obligation to tell him.

You have to respect the mother in this case. When he shows he's uninterested, she is the best judge as to whether telling him would be better or worse for her child.

[armyowalgreens]

258. What if she concealed the pregnancy?

[caseymoz]

288. I'd say she is ethically obligated not to conceal it from him, physically or otherwise.

He should have every reasonable chance to ask about its paternity. If not, I'd say he has a great case. If he inquires, she should tell him.

[TexasObserver]

262. The father should not have to ask, for why should he know?

Maybe the woman led him to believe she couldn't get pregnant, or that she was taking birth control. He may have no reason to suspect their sexual encounter would produce a pregnancy. She may not be aware that she is pregnant until 4-8 weeks after they had their last sexual encounter.

The responsible thing is to inform the father to be. If the mother to be wants an abortion, he should pay half the cost, and should drive her to and from the clinic, if she chooses.

If she chooses to have the child, he should be supportive, should help her go to the doctor and plan for the baby. Two people can have a child and not have a relationship other than the child. It happens all the time, and the responsible ones accept it for what it is.

[Horse with no Name]

301. Rule #1 in adult sex that does not include a relationship

ALWAYS assume they are lying about birth control and use your own if it is in your best interest not to have a child.

[Warren DeMontague]

252. Only if they can say "Five Furious Fetus Fathers Fasted, Feasted then Farted Furiously" 15X.

Fast.

[Fearless]

257. In a perfect world of course...

Then again we don't live in a perfect world.

[ejpoeta]

265. personally i think the guy has a right to know. regardless what the girl thinks

he does at least have the right to know and then he can choose to participate or not. If he doesn't, then that makes things easier for her i guess. The guy should at least have the chance to do the right thing.... even if it is harder for the woman.

[Heidi]

271. No, not for a pregnancy . However, if the pregnancy results in a birth,

then, yes, I would tend to think the biological father should be informed of the birth. Even if the law doesn't mandate it, I would consider it the right thing to do.

[Lyric]

273. To know that they're pregnant? No.

There is no male right to be informed of a partner's pregnancy. Before the baby is born, the male has no rights period, which is exactly as it should be.

After birth, then whether or not the father must be informed depends entirely upon the circumstances and the state. There are states that require paternal disclosure, but nearly all of those states have exemptions in place for abuse situations--i.e., if telling the father about the baby presents a risk of abusive harm to the mother or baby, then there is no legal requirement to disclose. This is mostly a formality in practical terms, though--the state doesn't investigate to see if it's actually true. These exemptions are available for welfare recipients as well, by the way.

All that's generally required is for the mother to sign a form stating that she believes disclosing the baby's birth will endanger her or the child, and the system accepts her at her word. Theoretically, if a woman REALLY wanted to keep a baby secret from the father, all she'd have to do would be to sign such a statement. It's pretty much impossible to prove that she's lying unless she admits it, as she isn't required to present evidence or justify her beliefs in any way--which is completely fair, because it errs on the side of safety. To do otherwise would be tantamount to risking the lives of innocent women and children who can't produce any tangible "evidence" that their psycho boyfriends threatened to kill them and/or their babies. The rights of abused women and babies to be safe from harm are a higher legal priority than the rights of children to know their fathers, or vice-versa, and rightfully so.

From a moral standpoint, assuming that there is no risk of abuse, then yes, the father should be informed. After the child is born, the child's own rights and best interests are generally regarded above the rights and best interests of the parents. The best interests of the child trump pretty much EVERYTHING else. This is why some men get stuck paying child support for children that they later find out aren't biologically theirs; because the best interests of the children in question are served by maintaining the already-existing parent-child relationship and support, "fairness" to the father is not a legal priority.

The short version: no, they have no right to know about pregnancies and fetuses. Yes, they have a right to know about born babies, assuming that they aren't abusers. However, their rights are incredibly easy to circumvent if a woman is willing to lie to do so, and we can't change or modify the situation because to do so could mean death for women and babies who really ARE at risk. Of course, most women are relatively honest people who don't choose to take advantage of the system, so this entire issue is not exactly a widespread and dire moral emergency that's facing our nation.

:hi:

[dugaresa]

276. if the relationship were abusive or if the woman feared for her or her child

I can understand. However if that is not the case and she chooses this juvenile path then she needs to make sure she walks the walk.

By choosing to keep him out at the beginning, she will also have to realize that 5 years down the road when she is financially strapped and she is a bit older that she can't just reach out and ask him to be the daddy afterall in order to secure funding.

She should also consider what happens when the child grows older and wants to know who the father is, and this always happens. What will she say? Will she be okay with the emotional trauma it may inflict?

[Ewellian]

278. If she's his "girlfriend"

he'll know.

[ensho]

282. fathers only come into the picture if a baby is born, breathes air

and lives.

the father. by law, then must help support the child until age 18 or until a child's death.

it would be better if a father wanted to help raise the child as well, but there is no law saying they have to.

the decision to continue a pregnancy is the womans

[Iggo]

283. You're crazy.

Fetuses don't have fathers.

[rd_kent]

285. No, she should hide it from him for a few years

then surprise him with a 5 year old and a court order for back payments of child support.

:sarcasm:

Why is this an issue? If a woman Chooses not to tell the man, then she should not be able to come back later for child support. Don't give me the "it's about the child and support is for the child" BS. If its really about the child then she should tell him and they should make a decision together.

[izzybeans]

286. Sounds like a horrible relationship. I feel sorry for the child.

[Xithras]

289. Women have LOST their children this way. She needs to talk to a lawyer NOW..

Her position is stupid, not "understandable". The daughter of a very old family friend did the same thing about five years ago when she got herself pregnant while attending UC San Diego. The father was a local kid, and she didn't want any "complications" since she didn't want to stay with him and intended to move back to Northern California after college.

Baby-daddy had no idea the baby was born until he started poking around on MySpace about two years later and found her profile. There was a pic on the profile of her and the baby, he did the math, and he had a court order for a paternity test less than two weeks later. That was shocking to her, but any lawyer could have told her that she'd opened herself up to the suit. By leaving the name off the certificate, she created a legal situation where ANY male could have sued her claiming paternity. If she couldn't name the father when summoned to court, and if the man can show any evidence of any sort of relationship (or is merely convincing with his argument), it's almost a given that a judge will order the test over the mothers objections.

Not only was baby-daddy granted visitation THREE WEEKENDS A MONTH, but she was ordered to transport the kid from Sonoma to San Diego completely at her own expense since it was HER that moved from the area where the previous relationship had existed. The child support order she won against him was dwarfed by the transportation costs of obeying that order. It didn't take long for her to miss a few weekend trips (pleading poverty), which landed them back in court. The judge openly chastised her for hiding the child from the father and then being uncooperative with visitation, awarded custody to the father, and now SHE gets to visit him three weekends a month...if she travels to San Diego at her own expense. The whole thing also caused an enormous amount of heartache in her family, and almost ended her recent marriage.

A lot of modern family law judges take dim views of parents who hide children from other parents. If he ever DOES find out, there's a very good chance that she could find herself cast as the evil villain in a serious court battle.

[TexasObserver]

291. Thank you for that testimonial. I tried to warn them upthread about this happening.

Some don't get how serious an infraction it is considered by judges to hide a child from their natural parent. If you want to terminate the father's rights, do it early, and do it in court. No amount of scheming by the woman and her mother in the OP will protect them.

[JVS]

298. Did he sue her for child support yet?

[seabeyond]

299. both my brothers are raising their kids. neither are getting child support.

they dont even want to mess with it.

works both ways, imo

[ecstatic]

290. No, but I think it's rather bitchy and selfish to keep such a thing secret

Unless the man is abusive or a rapist, of course.

[defendandprotect]

292. It's up to the woman/female ....maybe she has good reasons . . .??

[Juche]

295. Yeah, he should know

[Horse with no Name]

300. Nope. Any man that willingly wags his dick out of his pants

and uses it without protection should automatically assume he just fathered a child.
If he wants to follow up for confirmation, that is his business. However, the mother of the fetus is under no obligation to track down these wanton babymakers if they do not choose to.

[me b zola]

302. Not their body, not their problem

If men are so concerned, they should "collect" all of their seaman and push for it all to be fertilized & implanted. Otherwise, they need to stfu. Men's lives are not endangered by carrying a fertilized ovum. Women alone carry that medical risk.

[deaniac21]

304. Who cares? It's a frickin fetus!