When do/should paternal rights start?

Wyatt

After reading the Down's Syndrome thread, I got to thinking: At which point in a fetus's development do paternal rights kick in and should a father be able to legally contest what the mother chooses for the child?

Some would say not till after the birth but I'll argue that they should kick in at conception. Paternal responsibilities kick in at that point. Hopefully everything happens without a conflict but what happens when their is? Can I as the second biological parent take the woman bearing my child to court to prevent her from getting an abortion? What if she does something I feel endangers the child's well being? (Silent birth, midwifery, DYI home birth,,, I really don't like midwives. Seriously, they are not doctors.)

I feel that in cases of rape/incest that the father should not be given any say in the child's welfare. I also feel that the mother should be given the uncontested choice to choose her well being over that of the child. Overall, I'd like men to take a more active role in child birth and I'm wondering that in a contested situation. How much will my opinion matter???

Kate Monster

As the pregnancy is a medical condition for the mother. I think it is her choice entirely in how she treats her medical condition. No other person should be making a medical decision for a conscious adult regardless of circumstance.

Rym

I think it is her choice entirely in how she treats her medical condition. No other person should be making a medical decision for a conscious adult regardless of circumstance.

What if a father did not want a child, and the mother had originally agreed that they would not have a child regardless of circumstances. Now, suppose that the mother, either intentionally or by accident, became pregnant and, despite the previous verbal agreement, refused to have an abortion.

In that case, it should indeed be the mother's sole choice. However, in that case, I believe that the father should be under zero obligation to provide child support or financial assistance of any kind.

Rym

No other person should be making a medical decision for a conscious adult regardless of circumstance.

What about cases of dangerous communicable disease. New York can confine people afflicted with TB who refuse treatment, and even force said treatment upon them, for the benefit of public health. Is that all right?

Kate Monster

No other person should be making a medical decision for a conscious adult regardless of circumstance.

What about cases of dangerous communicable disease. New York can confine people afflicted with TB who refuse treatment, and even force said treatment upon them, for the benefit of public health. Is that all right?

I am sorry, I meant within the confines of the common good.
As for your previous statements, IIRC if a father legally relinquishes custody of a child he is no longer responsible for any child support.

gomidog

I'll argue that they should kick in at conception. Paternal responsibilities kick in at that point.

Not really. A man can abandon the woman the morning after, and she can still have the child. Upholding responsibilities in a relationship is good, sure, but biologically the father has no physical connection to the birth after conception.
Anything that is in my body is mine, and expressing control over something that is connected to me through my flesh is kind of like saying "now I have a right over your kidney" or something. You have no more right, in my opinion, to control the mother's body during pregnancy than you have during any other physical condition. If you can't force her to get treatment for cancer, you can't force her to bear the child in the hospital.

Once the child is an independent organism (read: not on mom's body life support) the father has equal parental rights over it, as this deals with the child's being and not the mother's. I could be argued that it's a little weird that we have rights over kids, but that's a separate discussion.

edit: You know, you can think of fetuses in the womb as dependents on life support. You (the mother) are the one that that can choose to pull the plug. No one else has that right. However, as the baby gets closer and closer to birth, it becomes less and less ethical (in my opinion) to take them off the life support system, as it would be with a person who had a high chance of waking up from a coma.

TheWhaleShark

New York can confine people afflicted with TB who refuse treatment, and even force said treatment upon them, for the benefit of public health. Is that all right?

Not only is it alright, I would go so far as to say that anyone who resists treatment in that case is guilty of criminal negligence.

Rym

Not only is it alright, I would go so far as to say that anyone who resists treatment in that case is guilty of criminal negligence.

I feel the same way about vaccine refusers.

TheWhaleShark

Not only is it alright, I would go so far as to say that anyone who resists treatment in that case is guilty of criminal negligence.

I feel the same way about vaccine refusers.

Yup. Don't get your child vaccinated? Criminally negligent and a child abuser.

I'm only slightly exaggerating. I probably wouldn't involve social services if you refused a vaccine for your child. Maybe.

EDIT: As for paternal rights, unless there was a prior agreement, you're responsible for what you did. During the pregnancy, the decisions about the fetus should essentially be owned by the mother (since it's her parasite), but once that kid is born, rights and responsibilities must be shared equally.

gomidog

EDIT: As for paternal rights, unless there was a prior agreement, you're responsible for what you did. During the pregnancy, the decisions about the fetus should essentially be owned by the mother (since it's her parasite), but once that kid is born, rights and responsibilities must be shared equally.

I agree. That basically sums up my position on it.

Kate Monster

EDIT: As for paternal rights, unless there was a prior agreement, you're responsible for what you did. During the pregnancy, the decisions about the fetus should essentially be owned by the mother (since it's her parasite), but once that kid is born, rights and responsibilities must be shared equally.

Honestly, I think any pre-existing agreement between the parents is irrelevant if the mother changes her mind. Also, once the child is born either or both parents are fully within their rights to relinquish custody of the child. It is a terrible thing to do in most circumstances, but it is certainly their right to do so.

Rym

There is a complicating factor here. Few couples will have a written contract of their relationship, and such a thing shouldn't be expected. But, there are a small but nontrivial number of cases where a woman will purposefully become pregnant, despite agreements to the contrary (often by suspending birth control or damaging a condom) in order to force their partner into a long term relationship or force the payment of child support.

How do we handle this?

Rym

Also, once the child is born either or both parents are fully within their rights to relinquish custody of the child. It is a terrible thing to do in most circumstances, but it is certainly their right to do so.

So long as child support is not mandatory in these specific cases, then that's my answer as well.

Kate Monster

Also, once the child is born either or both parents are fully within their rights to relinquish custody of the child. It is a terrible thing to do in most circumstances, but it is certainly their right to do so.

So long as child support is not mandatory in these specific cases, then that's my answer as well.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Wyatt

...you can't force her to bear the child in the hospital...

Why not? Why does she have the right to put our child at what I would consider an unjustifiable risk? I think it's child endangerment. Thinks can go wrong even in the best settings. It doesn't make sense to take an undue risk.

Honestly, I think any pre-existing agreement between the parents is irrelevant if the mother changes her mind.

How does this differ from other legal contracts? I know it her body but it's not just her body. I donated half the genetic material for that organism, but I get no say if it lives or dies.

Does anyone know of a case of a surrogate mother trying to break the contract? She could give back the compensation she was promised, but I don't get my sperm back.

@TheWhaleShark: It maybe parasitic but that doesn't make it a parasite. Also, try getting your kid into preschool without vaccinations. You can do it but you're going to be asked a lot of questions.

TheWhaleShark

How do we handle this?

Falcon Punch!

You could also try not knocking up a crazy bitch.

loltsundere

...you can't force her to bear the child in the hospital...

Why not? Why does she have the right to put our child at what I would consider an unjustifiable risk? I think it's child endangerment. Thinks can go wrong even in the best settings. It doesn't make sense to take an undue risk.

She has that right because the child is a part of her body, and she should be ultimately responsible for the decisions made about her own body. I agree that there is just something completely offsetting about the idea of one adult controlling any part of the body of another.

Perhaps it's easier for a father to argue these points than a reluctant mother. Would you want to be forced through the pain of pregnancy and birth, entirely against your will?

Also, if a father was to be given paternal rights at conception, then his additional right to take off and abandon his partner and child immediately after conception should be completely stripped from him.

Rym

You could also try not knocking up a crazy bitch.

The nice thing about being intelligent people is that the vast majority of common relationship problems out there are effectively nonfactors for us. I can't imagine, say, being on bad terms with an ex girlfriend or having a "messy" breakup.

Rym

Wouldyouwant to be forced through the pain of pregnancy and birth, entirely against your will?

That alone is argument enough for me to say it's 100% the woman's decision.

Also, if a fatherwasto be given paternal rights at conception, then his additional right to take off and abandon his partner and child immediately after conception should be completely stripped from him.

Definitely.

Kate Monster

...you can't force her to bear the child in the hospital...

Why not? Why does she have the right to put our child at what I would consider an unjustifiable risk? I think it's child endangerment. Thinks can go wrong even in the best settings. It doesn't make sense to take an undue risk.

Honestly, I think any pre-existing agreement between the parents is irrelevant if the mother changes her mind.

How does this differ from other legal contracts? I know it her body but it's not just her body. I donated half the genetic material for that organism, but I get no say if it lives or dies.

Does anyone know of a case of a surrogate mother trying to break the contract? She could give back the compensation she was promised, but I don't get my sperm back.

@TheWhaleShark: It maybe parasitic but that doesn't make it a parasite. Also, try getting your kid into preschool without vaccinations. You can do it but you're going to be asked a lot of questions.

You willingly gave up the sperm. And no, you do not get to own some one's body. As the child is not only 1/2 her genetic code but also within her, she gets to trump. As for taking unjustifiable risks, she has a right to treat her medical condition as she sees fit. It could be argued that not eating a perfect diet is an unjustifiable risk. Should the father be able to force a mother not to eat a cheeseburger if she has the hankering? As for surrogacy, even if a woman agrees to carry a child that is not genetically hers, she still retains the right to terminate the pregnancy if she sees fit. If the contract had clauses that create consequences for said event, then those will be haggled out in court.

TheWhaleShark

You could also try not knocking up a crazy bitch.

The nice thing about being intelligent people is that the vast majority of common relationship problems out there are effectively nonfactors for us. I can't imagine, say, being on bad terms with an ex girlfriend or having a "messy" breakup.

Well, even smart people can surprise you. I'm sure the vast majority of women are not crazy bitches who just want to get knocked up in order to rope a man into marriage, but they're out there. Smart people can assess the crazy through various metrics and determine the relative risk of a particular bitch being crazy in that way. You still won't get it right all the time, but you'll certainly be more assured.

If you're dating a girl for a week and she starts decorating a room in your apartment as a nursery, you may wish to consider running. Granted, that's only one test, but it should give you pause at the very least. :P

TheWhaleShark

I know it her body but it's not just her body.

No, it's her body. The couple made the child. BOTH parties willing donated to that. However, the woman is the one nourishing the baby, and her body may be the one at risk. It's ultimately her decision. It would be nice to be included in that decision, but it's not required.

If an incubator is failing in the lab, we put in a service call and move the samples somewhere else. I don't care whose samples they are, they need to be moved and we need to fix the incubator. If we can't move them, we'll just throw the samples away and start again, and we can't really care who's inconvenienced. We almost always have more sample, but we rarely have extra incubator space.

That's an incredibly cold comparison, but it's 100% accurate.

gomidog

I donated half the genetic material for that organism, but I get no say if it lives or dies.

Yup, it's her body. It's not an independent organism until it can function outside its host and independently do all the things that organisms do (eat to make energy, etc.). Even if the genetic sample that formed it is from you, it is no longer a part of you.

Another interesting analogy: Would you have rights to control a human being clone of yourself just because it used your genetic material? It may come from you, but it isn't yours anymore.

Wyatt

Posted By: loltsundereShe has that right because the child is a part of her body , and she should be ultimately responsible for the decisions made about her own body. I agree that there is just something completely offsetting about the idea of one adult controlling any part of the body of another.
That fetus isn't just her body. It's inside her body but it's not solely her genetic material.

Perhaps it's easier for a father to argue these points than a reluctant mother. Would you want to be forced through the pain of pregnancy and birth, entirely against your will?

Even if getting pregnant way unintentional, both parties willingly engaged in the act intended for procreation. It's like a verbal agreement with a REALLY complicated handshake. I don't see why the follow up decision for the results of said act fall on one party.

Also, if a fatherwasto be given paternal rights at conception, then his additional right to take off and abandon his partner and child immediately after conception should be completely stripped from him.

I don't think he has the right to leave. I'd argue that leaving your baby momma should be considered Child Abandonment and result in jail time for 9 months.

And heck no I don't want anyone telling me what I can and can't do with my body. The child is half of my genetics and I did my part in it's conception. I see it as being half of my body.

Cremlian

Wyatt, did you knock up some chick by accident? ^_^

Wyatt

Another interesting analogy: Would you have rights to control a human being clone of yourself just because it used your genetic material? It may come from you, but it isn't yours anymore.

I would have the same right/control over my clone as any parents does over their offspring. Well till their 18.

@Cremlian: Not to my knowledge but I haven't heard from your mother in a while...

TheWhaleShark

I can see Wyatt's point if we're talking about a non-critical abortion. If the mother's health is jeopardized, she is the only say that matters at all. If there's concern over, say, financial ability to care for a child, or available time, or other relationship factors that lead a woman to consider abortion, then she should discuss it with her partner. You may be able to reach some sort of agreement that doesn't involve abortion. Pregnancy hormones can make even the most rational of women think irrational things, and an outside opinion may help provide focus.

So, if it's a non-critical situation, you should consult the father and have a discussion. That's the right thing to do. Ultimately, however, in both critical and non-critical cases, the final decision must reside with the mother alone. I would say that a well-reasoned woman, in a non-critical situation, would be open to discussing alternatives to abortion. It's not like getting an abortion is a trivial decision, so no reasonable person would do it without considering other, more viable options.

This all goes back to crazy bitches and not knocking them up.

Wyatt

@WhaleShark: Yup. Except that whole "hormoes make even the most rational women think irrational things" and it must be the mother part.

When the hell did people start feeling the NEED to modify the font so much? You can make a point with out it.

gomidog

That fetus isn't just her body. It's inside her body but it's not solely her genetic material.

What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter who's genetic material it is. Just because it has 50 percent your DNA in it, that does not matter. I would argue that you do not own your DNA once it is outside your being and in someone else's.

If you threw flower seeds that you bought onto someone else's lawn, do you own the flowers that grew from them? Legally, I don't think you do. Plants on their lawn are part of their property. Same deal.

edit:

@WhaleShark: Yup. Except that whole "hormoes make even the most rational women think irrational things" and itmustbe the mother part.

If we are going to exert control over people due to hormonally induced behaviors and irrationalities, we have to regulate male testosterone influenced behavior as well. What do we do, give everyone a blood test and then go "Whoop! You're way over your estrogen level! The father gets control now!" like some sort of DWI offence? Give me a break.

TheWhaleShark

You can make a point with out it.

I felt it was important enough to emphasize through bold type.

Except that whole "hormoes make even the most rational women think irrational things" and itmustbe the mother part.

Do you mean the combination of those two factors? Sorry, but tough luck, that's reality. You can talk to her, and someone who is rational will be able to recognize when they're having an irrational response and be able to discuss it rationally. That doesn't change the fact that, yes, it is a parasite, and yes, it's in her body, and yes, it's her final decision to keep it or abort it.

EDIT: Aye, what Emily said. Hormones regulate behavior. Estrogen is famous for making women crazy bitches, and testosterone is famous for turning men into grunting Neanderthals. Ultimately, a portion of your behavior is a direct result of hormones, but you can recognize hormonal responses and figure out what they're influencing. They can be managed.

Kate Monster

She has that right because the child is a part ofher body, and she should be ultimately responsible for the decisions made about her own body. I agree that there is just something completely offsetting about the idea of one adult controlling any part of the body of another.

That fetus isn't just her body. It's inside her body but it's not solely her genetic material.

By that logic, if someone donates a kidney to someone the donor should be able to say what is processed through that kidney. If someone's tissue is willingly donated and it is within another person's body, then that tissue is forfeit by the donor. Period.
Regardless of circumstance or reason, any adult woman should be able to obtain any medical procedure without the need of anyone else's consent. Saying that a woman "should" include the father in decision making is a nice sentiment, but ultimately the father has no right to decide what medical treatment the mother seeks.