U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-23-2008, 01:56 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,944,288 times
Reputation: 3848

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2girlsand2boys View Post
Like I said, I am pro-life, so I don't agree with abortion, period. However, just because the WOMAN is the one who has to endure the burden of a pregnancy shouldn't mean that the man should have to pay. If a woman has the option to have unprotected sex, get pregnant and have an abortion or keep the baby, the man should have all of those same rights. If you are saying that since it is only the woman who can carry the child, she gets the most rights, then she should be the one completely responsible for birth control. The men in this situation have absolutely no rights, and the woman are getting to make all of teh decisions about their lives.

I think that if abortion is a legal option for woman, the man should have just as much right to turn his back on the situation.
On the issue of "men's choice", I often ask a crucial question and never, ever, ever get an answer -- nevermind a satisfactory answer; no answer at all. So let me now pose this question to you and see if you can answer it. When a woman aborts, the consequences are total and irreversible. Once the fetus is out of your body (hell, once the doctor begins), there is no going back. The whole child is gone. The grown human being that would have been is gone. The person who would have snuggled up to you as a toddler, the adolescent who would have amused you, the teenager who would have driven you nuts, the grown man or woman who would have comforted you in your old age -- is gone. If 18 years later, the woman decides she made a mistake, she can't just go to the dumpster, dig up her dead fetus and bring him back to life as a grown human being -- can she? Now, this is not the case at all with the "male choice". A man can "abort" his financial responsibilities, then change his mind; come out of the woodwork 18 years later, play daddy and say it was all mommy's fault, anyway. And it just so happens -- a pure coincidence, for sure! -- that he is no longer obligated to pay child support. So my question to you is this: How would you ensure that a man's abortion is every bit as permanent and irreversible as a REAL abortion? How would you prevent a man from coming into the child's life after the specter of child support is no longer there? How would you make sure that a "male abortion" is not just an act of opting out of the financial responsibility, but opting out of EVERYTHING, just like a REAL abortion is? And now, I'm fully prepared to listed to the sound of crickets churping.

What you are describing is not equal rights. You are not proposing that men should have to be able to abort -- since, obviously enough, that is impossible. What you are proposing is that men should escape only one consequence of begetting a child, while abortion is an entire package. A woman can't decide to abort her financial obligations any more than she can abort diaper-changing. The abortion is of the whole fetus, with all the attendant consequences. "Men's choice", as its advocates describe it, is an abortion of only one aspect of parenthood. It's not a choice to opt out of parenthood -- it's a choice to opt out of the expense. It's a recipe for men to escape child support and not pay the price for it -- namely, the permanent, hopeless and irreversible loss of a relationship with one's child. In that sense, "men's choice" does not make men equal to women -- it puts them in an advantageous position. That's why, as far as I am concerned, men should not get the right to "abort" until they have to experience pre-eclampsia, kidney failure, hormonal imbalance and the horror of child birth -- you know, all those things that make men and women "unequal".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-23-2008, 02:37 PM
 
Location: Maine
650 posts, read 1,927,779 times
Reputation: 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
On the issue of "men's choice", I often ask a crucial question and never, ever, ever get an answer -- nevermind a satisfactory answer; no answer at all. So let me now pose this question to you and see if you can answer it. When a woman aborts, the consequences are total and irreversible. Once the fetus is out of your body (hell, once the doctor begins), there is no going back. The whole child is gone. The grown human being that would have been is gone. The person who would have snuggled up to you as a toddler, the adolescent who would have amused you, the teenager who would have driven you nuts, the grown man or woman who would have comforted you in your old age -- is gone. If 18 years later, the woman decides she made a mistake, she can't just go to the dumpster, dig up her dead fetus and bring him back to life as a grown human being -- can she? Now, this is not the case at all with the "male choice". A man can "abort" his financial responsibilities, then change his mind; come out of the woodwork 18 years later, play daddy and say it was all mommy's fault, anyway. And it just so happens -- a pure coincidence, for sure! -- that he is no longer obligated to pay child support. So my question to you is this: How would you ensure that a man's abortion is every bit as permanent and irreversible as a REAL abortion? How would you prevent a man from coming into the child's life after the specter of child support is no longer there? How would you make sure that a "male abortion" is not just an act of opting out of the financial responsibility, but opting out of EVERYTHING, just like a REAL abortion is? And now, I'm fully prepared to listed to the sound of crickets churping.

What you are describing is not equal rights. You are not proposing that men should have to be able to abort -- since, obviously enough, that is impossible. What you are proposing is that men should escape only one consequence of begetting a child, while abortion is an entire package. A woman can't decide to abort her financial obligations any more than she can abort diaper-changing. The abortion is of the whole fetus, with all the attendant consequences. "Men's choice", as its advocates describe it, is an abortion of only one aspect of parenthood. It's not a choice to opt out of parenthood -- it's a choice to opt out of the expense. It's a recipe for men to escape child support and not pay the price for it -- namely, the permanent, hopeless and irreversible loss of a relationship with one's child. In that sense, "men's choice" does not make men equal to women -- it puts them in an advantageous position. That's why, as far as I am concerned, men should not get the right to "abort" until they have to experience pre-eclampsia, kidney failure, hormonal imbalance and the horror of child birth -- you know, all those things that make men and women "unequal".
Okay, obviously a man cannot ever experience pregnancy and all of the problems that can arise within a pregnancy, so you really can't use that as an example. Abortion is also out of the question for a man, seeing as though he can't actually be pregnant to begin with.

Yes, I agree with you about an abortion being a permanent situation for a woman. That also makes it a permanent situation for a man, though. If a man doesn't have a say in whether or not a woman is allowed to abort a child THAT HE WANTS, he should also be allowed to back out of a pregnancy that he doesn't want. I see your point about it being unfair for a man to be able to skip out on all the financial stuff, but it is also unfair for a woman to have the ability to make ALL the choices, even if the man disagrees.

Think about it. If a couple, or individual man or woman, decide to give a baby up for adoption, thereby eliminating all financial responsibility, they both still have the right to start coming back around when that child is an adult and the bills are all paid. They terminated their rights and someone else had to foot the bill, so your scenario about men having that as a possibility because their situation wouldn't be as permanent as an abortion really doesn't work. Should we make it so that birth parents can't find their childrenthat were put up for adoption too?

I think the problem is the fact that abortion is legal at all. If a woman didn't have the right or ability to dispose of her child, I wouldn''t feel that a man would have that right either. But since a woman CAN choose to do whatever she wants to with a child she is carrying, regardless of what the man thinks, I still think the man should have some opt out options. It IS opting out of parenthood if the father not only pays no bills, but also has no contact with a child he didn't want from the beginning. A woman has all the choice in the situation, and a man has none. If a woman gets to choose, I say the men should too!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2008, 02:43 PM
 
Location: West Texas
2,441 posts, read 5,251,840 times
Reputation: 3099
It's not about birth control.

It's about the lack of choice...

When a man and woman lay together they are both EQUALLY responsible for what happens. As has been mentioned: condoms break, pills are 99.9, etc. The point of it is that once it's done (so the point of contraceptive is already moot). The issue is what happens next.

The woman decides: "I'm going to have the baby or not." If she goes through with it, she can ruin a man's life. If she goes the other way, it could also devastate the man. The question becomes: when the child is created from BOTH the man and women, why does only one get a say? The cop-out answer is "because it's her body." But if that was the case, abortion rights wouldn't even be an issue. She would be able to abort the fetus whenever she wanted. But, we see that "it's my body" doesn't apply 100%.

If that's the case, then it should be a mutual decision to have the child or abort. But, the man has limited capability in executing the decision. He could say "abort" and the woman keeps it and goes after him (financially). At that point he should have legal recourse. If she still decides to keep the baby after the man legally signs away his responsibility (which is really what an abortion is for a woman - a release from the responsibility) then she knows what she faces ahead... alone. The exception, of course, would be the possible danger to the woman for pregnancy and child delivery.

If, however, on the other hand, she wants an abortion and the man doesn't, we fall into a stickier situation. If she doesn't want the child, she signs away all the legal responsibility from her side. The man is then responsible for all medical costs, and then child rearing. Imagine if the father could say (legally) you have to have the child and then I'm going to take your money for the next 18 years what would happen? What's the difference from what men face every day?

It's easy for women to say "If you didn't want to be forced to be a father, you should have kept it in your pants." It's just as easy to say "if you don't want to be forced to be a mother, keep your legs together." Doesn't sound so appealing from this perspective, does it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2008, 02:48 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,944,288 times
Reputation: 3848
2boysand2girls: You did not answer my question. In the name of absolute equality, how would you make sure that a man would never have any contact with the child, ever ever ever? How would you make sure that his "some options" do not put him in the better position than the woman? How would you make sure that he doesn't get only to ditch financial responsibility, but is completely deprived of any hope of contact with the child -- just like a woman who had an abortion would be?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2008, 02:57 PM
 
Location: Montrose, CA
3,031 posts, read 7,873,408 times
Reputation: 1925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathagos View Post
If, however, on the other hand, she wants an abortion and the man doesn't, we fall into a stickier situation. If she doesn't want the child, she signs away all the legal responsibility from her side. The man is then responsible for all medical costs, and then child rearing. Imagine if the father could say (legally) you have to have the child and then I'm going to take your money for the next 18 years what would happen? What's the difference from what men face every day?
Wrong. The mother could still be legally held accountable for child support, paid to the father.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2008, 02:57 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,944,288 times
Reputation: 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2girlsand2boys View Post
If a couple, or individual man or woman, decide to give a baby up for adoption, thereby eliminating all financial responsibility, they both still have the right to start coming back around when that child is an adult and the bills are all paid. They terminated their rights and someone else had to foot the bill, so your scenario about men having that as a possibility because their situation wouldn't be as permanent as an abortion really doesn't work. Should we make it so that birth parents can't find their childrenthat were put up for adoption too?
Preliminarily, in most jurisdictions, adoption records are sealed, and it is indeed illegal for biological parents to attempt to contact their child after the abortion goes through -- ever. And if it's not -- then yes, we should make it so that birth parents can't find the children they put up for adoption. It's a little too convenient to have someone else do all the hard work, then barge into a family's life and wreak psychological havoc because you now think you want to cuddle.

There is another reason why your adoption analogy fails. Adoption, by law, cannot be unilateral. Either both biological parents must sign away their rights, or the mother must submit proof that she notified the father (and he is then given a time window in which to claim the child -- and collect child support from the mother), or the mother must submit an affidavit stating that she either does not know who the father is or can't locate him. If she lies, it is grounds to vacate the adoption, give custody to the biological father and obligate the biological mother to pay child support. No, refusing to pay child support isn't an equivalent of giving a baby up for adoption. The only unilateral form of getting rid of a (potential) child is an abortion -- and so to equalize the genders, you must devise "men's choice" in such a way that it is the exact functional equivalent of a biological abortion, with absolutely no back doors. Otherwise, there is no equality.

I am concerned here that when a legal scheme results in unfairness to women, you take the position that "it's not fair, but that's life". But when biological reality results in unfairness to men, you want the law to compensate for it at the expense of both women and children. Are men the default gender? Are their interests more precious? Women have to contend with the dangers and inconveniences of pregnancy and childbirth all on their own. A pregnancy is only the woman's -- never the man's. And as such, he should have no say in it legally. Before the pregnancy and after the pregnancy, the parties' situations are identical, and they have identical responsibilities. But the pregnancy itself is entirely in the woman's body -- and it's only hers to control. Putting sperm in a woman does not give a man any ownership interest in her uterus.

Last edited by Redisca; 10-23-2008 at 03:16 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2008, 03:04 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,944,288 times
Reputation: 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathagos View Post
If, however, on the other hand, she wants an abortion and the man doesn't, we fall into a stickier situation. If she doesn't want the child, she signs away all the legal responsibility from her side. The man is then responsible for all medical costs, and then child rearing. Imagine if the father could say (legally) you have to have the child and then I'm going to take your money for the next 18 years what would happen? What's the difference from what men face every day?
First of all, the mother cannot "sign away all the legal responsibility" is she has the baby -- the previous poster has already pointed it out. Second, "the difference" is that men don't have to carry the fetus in their body. They don't have to risk their lives and massive organ failure or endure horrendous pain of child birth. In most situations, pregnancy is a legitimate reason to withhold a job from a woman or to fire her from the one she already has -- men don't have to contend with those risks. If a child needs an organ transplant, and the father is the perfect donor, that father cannot be compelled to donate a part of his body -- but you are suggesting that a woman's body is fair game to subject to someone else's judgment. What's next? Should men decide what obstetricians their sperm receptacles are allowed to see, whether they should be permitted to have pain relief, whether they should be forced to breastfeed?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2008, 03:07 PM
 
Location: West Texas
2,441 posts, read 5,251,840 times
Reputation: 3099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
First of all, the mother cannot "sign away all the legal responsibility" is she has the baby.
Duh! It's a hypothetical. The man can't sign it away either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2008, 03:12 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,091,835 times
Reputation: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2girlsand2boys View Post
Like I said, I am pro-life, so I don't agree with abortion, period. However, just because the WOMAN is the one who has to endure the burden of a pregnancy shouldn't mean that the man should have to pay. If a woman has the option to have unprotected sex, get pregnant and have an abortion or keep the baby, the man should have all of those same rights. If you are saying that since it is only the woman who can carry the child, she gets the most rights, then she should be the one completely responsible for birth control. The men in this situation have absolutely no rights, and the woman are getting to make all of teh decisions about their lives.

I think that if abortion is a legal option for woman, the man should have just as much right to turn his back on the situation.

Another poster said something about what about the rights of the child? How come the child's rights are called into question when a father wants to bail out, but not when the mother doesn't want to give him life to begin with? You can't have it both ways!
In all the states I know of a woman and a man both have the obligation to provide financial support for their biological children. Further the court has the discretion to award total custody of a child to the father, if it sees fit. The only issue is whether a father has the right to force or preclude the termination of a pregnancy and the courts have consistently said he does not. That seems to me to be an appropriate weighing of the issues -- a woman's exclusive right to control her own body seems to be the appropriate positions to take.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2008, 03:18 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,944,288 times
Reputation: 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathagos View Post
Duh! It's a hypothetical. The man can't sign it away either.
No, no, no, that was not a hypothetical. You offered it as fact that a woman can "sign away" her responsibility for a full-term baby, while a man can't. That was inaccurate. Neither can unilaterally sign away his or her responsibility once the child is born.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top