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]

Well said. Seems we are on the same side of this one.

[Hodar]

I also advocate the Father's opinion being part of the decision.

This would be nice; but nearly impossible to actually do. The woman could grab any male, and have him claim to be the father. Then, working in collusion, could affect an abortion without the true father being aware.

As things stand, biologically; the male has very little input into the decision process. The woman may tell the man she's using birth control - and lie. And the man is forced into the father's role willing, or unwilling. This is not an unusual occurance.

[Cicero]

I suspect that this is not an abortion-related matter (fathers famously have no rights when it comes to aborting their children) but a tort lawyer matter.

Hospitals have had strict privacy rules forced on them, and the lawyers are ready to sue at the drop of a hat.

I had a similar thing happen when I recently took a daughter with a burst appendix to the hospital. The doctors wouldn't talk to me about it until my daughter gave them permission to do so.

In some ways, the privacy laws are probably a good thing. But everything gets distorted because of the lawsuit angle.

[Proverbs 3-5]

Sorry but I do not consider having a vasectomy (your argument/example) and having an abortion analogous. You are comparing apples to oranges.

The only comparison would be if you were to compare a woman having her tubes tied to a man getting a vasectomy.

In the case of an abortion we're talking about life created from part of the father. So regardless of who is carrying the baby, the father should have a vested interest.

I understand in today's whacky world that is not the case.

[wingnuts'nbolts]

The Feminazis have been overtly working diligently at reducing men to redundant for over 40 years and elevating homosexuality to the admired norm. Did nobody notice? The activist judiciary, Teachers Union and most quasi Christian churches right in the middle of the fray. Back in 1948 my father wouldn't join the PTA because of their ideology. Remember the PTA?

[cspackler]

Similarlly, he may elect to have a vasectomy, and the wife has no RIGHT to prevent it.

But, she does have the right to leave that provider and go find another willing one, if she so chooses...

[Hodar]

So regardless of who is carrying the baby, the father should have a vested interest.

I understand in today's whacky world that is not the case.

I agree whole-heartedly. Unfortunately, males have very few rights when it comes to reproduction. The only choice we have, is whether to participate in sexual congress. If you are married, you are legally responsible for any children your wife has; with or without, your participation.

[HIDEK6]

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.

I wish that were the case. In fact, the purpose of HIPAA is to inform the patient of all the conditions under which his medical records will be made public.

[Polybius]

I wish that were the case. In fact, the purpose of HIPAA is to inform the patient of all the conditions under which his medical records will be made public.

That might be at the Government or intitutional level. At the patient contact level, it is taken to extremes.

The next time your Mom's neighbor calls to tell you that the ambulance took your Mom to some hospital for some unknown reason, try calling the local hospitals to find out where your mother is and if she is still alive. You will be lucky if a hospital acknowledges if she is even there.

[HIDEK6]

Just read that form they try to get you to sign when you go to the doctor and you'll see what I mean.

[LadyDoc]

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

Actually, this is not about sexism or anti dad ism.

It's the new law that forbids one to tell anyone but the patient what's going on in another's health care...it's driving doctors (and families) nuts. If my patient doesn't have the proper paper with the proper name and signiture, the office refuses to send information to other doctors. So I have to type letters with this information to make sure it gets to the right place...wasting my time ...

[1forall]

As things stand, biologically; the male has very little input into the decision process. The woman may tell the man she's using birth control - and lie. And the man is forced into the father's role willing, or unwilling.

Nobody is forcing the man to have sex with said woman. My take is if he is willing to engage in intercourse with her, he should be ready to face any consequences of that decision. Whether it affects his physical health, financial health, emotional health etc. For a married couple, there are many more issues in play if she feels the need to "trick" him into fathering a child which won't be covered here. If individuals are not prepared to handle the responsibility of a child, they should not engage in sexual intercourse. The only 100% effective birth control method is abstinence, which coincidently, is the only 100% effective method in preventing the spread of STDs. Makes one wonder if the "design" was intentional.

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

Nope. As ATMs.

[Hodar]

The only 100% effective birth control method is abstinence, which coincidently, is the only 100% effective method in preventing the spread of STDs. Makes one wonder if the "design" was intentional.

Oh, boy ... Game time! How many males between 20 and 30 do you know? Ok, let's discount those that are married, now of these remaining adult males, how many are virgins? Finally, of those adult male virgins; how many are consciously determined to remain so, or are they simply waiting for a woman to say 'yes'? Do you suppose this number is less than 5%? If so, I would then submit that abstinence is not a practical reality.

[1forall]

You could increase the age span to 13 - 50+. Perhaps the 5% is correct, perhaps not. I don't know and even if a poll were conducted, would the answers be "honest"? Dunno.

Regardless, I'm not arguing whether or not abstinence is a "practical" reality (whatever that means). The fact is, it is reality - (ie no better method to prevent...) we all have a choice and we have to be comfortable with the consequences if we choose to "engage".

I'm not arguing against engaging in sex, just once I make that choice, I can't blame the outcome of my actions on someone else. Rather, I am arguing for taking responsibility for my choices and my actions.

[Plumrodimus]

I'm really amazed by this.

If the woman wants to have an abortion, the man has no input on the matter.

If the man doesn't want the baby, the woman can choose to keep it and sue him for child support...

[Chewbacca]

I am 31 and still a virgin.
Quite proud of that fact an will admit it up front to anyone who asks me.
No STDs to worry about. My personal choice.
I don't date. Waste of my time and money.
My parents keep bugging me about getting married.
I told them as long as I am living in Oklahoma I am staying single.
I have hated the place since I moved here.
I have been applying to jobs constantly for the past 4 years to transfer to a different State, but no luck yet.

[PigRigger]

"What about the rights of dads-to-be?"

Simply put, your only right (as a man) is the requirement to pay for the child's upbringing if the women should choose to give birth.

[PigRigger]

"If individuals are not prepared to handle the responsibility of a child, they should not engage in sexual intercourse...."

I have had many people tell me I am out of my mind for repeating the very same thing to them. But than again, I live in NY and Hillary & Chucky are our Senators. I am like a fish out of water.

[Qwinn]

Hodar:

I would disagree with you. There is no reason to dismiss abstinence as a practical possibility unless one feels that human beings are animals utterly dominated by their instincts. Current statistics showing that abstinence is actually gaining ground as a respected form of birth control also rebuts your perspective. The point being made is that it doesn't matter how common sex is, that does not absolve those from engaging in it from responsibility for their actions.

THAT SAID -

1forall,

I disagree with -you- in that you seem to find no fault in a woman purposefully, fraudulently telling a man that she was on birth control. I can think of no other circumstance in which fraud and deception over such an important issue are themselves shriven of moral culpability. That's just as bad as someone claiming that they couldn't -help- but have sex so they can't be held responsible. Yes - sex carries with it responsibility, but, using birth control -is- a means of addressing that responsibility (maybe not the best method, but it certainly is -a- method). If a woman really is taking birth control, and it fails, that's one thing. But if a man is -deliberately misled- into believing that birth control is being used, and then he is held fully responsible with no attendant rights in the resulting birth, he should IMO be entirely within his rights to charge the woman with fraud and have at least his legal financial obligations commuted. Otherwise, you are creating an environment that specifically encourages exactly such fraud without repercussion.

Qwinn