What about the rights of dads-to-be?

Jewish World Review ^ | 5-4-04 | Issac J. Bailey

[SJackson]

It was right there in front of me, the grainy, dark screen, the kind only a trained technician could decipher. It held the answer to a question I had for at least four years: Would my first born be a daughter?

"Is it a boy or girl?" I asked, pointing to the ultrasound.

Silence.

"Is it a boy or girl?" I asked again.

"I can't tell you," the technician said. "You are not the patient."

My wife asked, and the technician quickly pointed to the "little boy body part" that meant I'd spend the next 18 years trying to turn that 6 pounds of flesh and blood and soul into a man.

What struck me most, though, was at that moment I wasn't considered a father or a father-to-be or anything, really.

That was my legal status, anyway. I was a poor chap meddling in the privacy of a doctor and patient.

I was married, spent a few years paying down debt, discussing child-rearing philosophies with my wife and envisioning how my kid would save the world.

In an instant, all of that was ignored, none of it mattered.

I was reminded of the story while following the pro-choice rally held in Washington.

I don't want to debate the merits of abortion - though in a world of my making they would only be performed or pursued for life-saving and few other reasons.

What I find disturbing is how men are essentially being divorced from the pre-birth process in the name of rights. But how do you do that and not adversely affect the after-birth father-child relationship?

[CSM]

Good article. I have always maintained that any government that removes the father's ability to have any input in the "choice" to murder the child or be a parent and then expects the father to be 100% responsible for funding the child's life, is an insane government!

run-on sent. rant off-

[sheik yerbouty]

Feminists and PC apparatchiks view men as "dhimmi".

[Hodar]

Interesting article; but YOU are not the one carrying the child.

Flip side arguement. You have had 'x' children. You want no more children, but your wife does. You opt for a vasectomy; using the same arguement (married, etc.) would you allow your wife the RIGHT to prevent you from getting a vasectomy, tummy tuck, face lift, liposuction, ect?

[ChevyZ28]

The same people who proclaim the man has no say in the decision to perform an abortion is the same crowd who would gripe and moan about dads who have no involvement in their children's lives. We can't have it both ways!!!

[CSM]

If the funding is demanded, the payer must also have input in the choice. Oh, yeah, I forgot, we live in a society where it's acceptable to use government guns to steal money from people without accountability to the earners.

[sandbar]

>Interesting article; but YOU are not the one carrying the >child.

Flip side- Then if the female is the ultimate decision maker because she is the one carrying the child, then SHE is the one who is ultimately responsible for getting pregnant in the first place and therefore the male should not have any obligation to support the child hereafter.

[NCjim]

There are two points here:

First, the decision of what treatment, if any, is performed is the sole decision of the patient unless the patient is incapable of making that decision and has in advance given authority to another person to decide for him or her.

Second, the decision as to what information is to be released to others, such as a spouse, is also decided beforehand. For example, my doctor had me fill out a form as to whether my medical information could be released to my wife. Had I not signed the form, she would be in the dark. I signed it because I figured she'd find out anyway... :-)

[Hodar]

I'm not arguing with you... just trying to understand your point.

Are you indicating that if YOU are paying the MD, then YOU have a right to the diagnosis on your wife; and a voice in the decision process?

What if your WIFE is the bread-winner? Then does SHE have the RIGHT to decide when/if YOU have a vasectomy?

[New Perspective]

Twisted liberal wishy washy logic.

Under their thought, the man has no rights to a baby until it is born. If the man wants an abortion and the woman wants the child, the father still has to pay child support. Men are here just for sperm donation and a monthly check.

If your divorced wife wants a baby with your frozen sperm, even before her turkey baster conception, the father still have no rights. Hell, it's his body, his sperm, how come he has no choice? Isin't this what this whole argument is about? Choice and your body?

[Ohioan from Florida]

Heck, their the same ones who don't even want the woman to have the choice to keep her own baby! They think they know better than she does!

[Proverbs 3-5]

"Interesting article; but YOU are not the one carrying the child. "

Yeah, but it was the fathers sperm that was a key ingredient in creating that baby. Therefore the "YOU are not the one carrying the child" is pretty weak.

[Ohioan from Florida]

their *they're

[Hodar]

Then if the female is the ultimate decision maker because she is the one carrying the child, then SHE is the one who is ultimately responsible for getting pregnant in the first place and therefore the male should not have any obligation to support the child hereafter.

In my perfect world, yes you are correct. The male has the choice of having sex; his decision making process ends at the point of orgasm.

1.) The female decides whether she wants to carry the fetus to term (Male opinion has no weight).
2.) Female decides whether to inform the male if he is the father, or keep it secret (Male has no legal recourse)
3.) Female may give child up for adoption, or raise child herself (if male is informed of fatherhood, he may have a legal voice; there is no legal requirement for his acquiecence in the adoption process).
4.) Mother may decide to move away and raise child on her own, without male input.
5.) Female may decide to demand child support from father, and deny visititation rights. She is free to move about the country with the child, at will. The father has no legal recourse.
6.) Female may chose to demand back-child support from the father for up to 18 years after the birth of the child (without regard to father's input into his child).
7.) If FRAUD has been committed (male paying child support is not the biological father), the male may not sue the woman for FRAUD.

This is a very unfair system we currently have. The woman gets to make 100% of the decisions, yet assume no more than a portion of the responsibility for those decisions.

[Polybius]

"I can't tell you," the technician said. "You are not the patient."

With HIPAA laws and lawyers being what they are nowadays, patient privacy is now being guarded more closely than our nuclear secrets at Los Alamos.

If that tech had said anything, that mother could have her at the other end of a lawsuit claiming damages for invasion of privacy and emotional distress for spoiling the surprise she always dreamed of having at the end of childbirth and the husband would also be suing the tech for loss of companionship with his wife.

[Proverbs 3-5]

I left a key ingredient out myself, the word "argument"

you said "Interesting article; but YOU are not the one carrying the child. "

Yeah, but it was the fathers sperm that was a key ingredient in creating that baby. Therefore the "YOU are not the one carrying the child" argument is pretty weak.

[Hodar]

but it was the fathers sperm that was a key ingredient in creating that baby

That is a very big ASSUMPTION, on your part. According to the Dept. of Human Services in Oregon; in cases where DNA testing was requested on parentage, 1 in 7 cases proved that the man who was told he was the father, wasn't.

[Proverbs 3-5]

you said "That is a very big ASSUMPTION, on your part...where DNA testing was requested...1 in 7 cases proved that the man who was told he was the father, wasn't"

No, it is not a big assumption on my part. Your example is very poor one. In your example obviously there were reasons why the DNA tests are being requested. Your implication was it was 1 in 7 of the general population was hatching bastards when it is really 1 out of 7 who suspected there was a reason to check...

[CSM]

No. I am not making any statement regarding funding the MD or health care.

I am saying that the consent of the Father is not necessary if a Mother decides to murder the child. However, if the Mother decides to give birth to the child, the Father is held accountable for the costs.

I advocate all parents taking responsibility for their actions, including the Father being involved monetarily and actively. I also advocate the Father's opinion being part of the decision. The life being murdered is half of his DNA.

[Hodar]

I guess what I would suggest, is that mandatory DNA testing be done at the time of birth. If a man wants to raise a child; he should KNOW if he is the father so he can make an informed decison. I know men who are raising children they did not father, because of infidelity. In their case, this was an informed decision; and my respect for the man knows no bounds. His (now) ex-wife is not held in the same regard.

But, the basic thrust of the arguement has no bearing on who donated the sperm. This is the woman's body, and the doctor is working on her. Unless she informs the MD that private information is to be shared with her husband; the MD has no choice but to assume that the husband is a total stranger.

Legally, the woman may opt for an abortion; and the husband can not do anything to stop her. Sure, he may divorce her; but he has NO legal means to prevent the abortion. Similarlly, he may elect to have a vasectomy, and the wife has no RIGHT to prevent it.