Would you support a child support opt-out for men *if* women promised to get an abortion and changed their minds later? (compare, examples)
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.
Indeed, but where is it engraved in stone that the man must not have any say in whether or not he needs to have financial responsibility without his consent? He has no say in what happens from conception, he may even have no say at birth if the mother chooses to give it up for adoption. So why would he not be able to reject the responsibility everything society is saying is that he has no responsibility because without choice it's not responsibility it's obligation and they're entirely different things and handled entirely differently mentally.
Which completely eradicates the purpose of elective abortion if men exercise that option, the choice of hetero-sexual sex would be removed from womens hands, because the only time that people would have sex is if they wish to reproduce. So much for the sexual revolution 50 years down the pan. Sure you can have an elective abortion if you're pregnant by mistake in theory, but if all men behaved all the time like you suggest it's a completely worthless choice.
BTW, pro-life supporters make the same statement about women abstaining if they don't want to carry to term. You clearly miss the irony.
BS it isn't in the best needs of society. Men who choose not to walk away, but not provide financial support are not legally required to pay (child support only applies to absentee parents), how is that in societies best interests? How is it in societies best interests to make men feel entrapped into paying for children they neither intended nor wanted, and may not even know for years? Do you not think society is paying that cost already? How is it in the best interests of society for a 12 year old boy who suffered statutory rape to be responsible for child support (and yes it's happened)? How is it in the best interests of society for a woman who self admitted taking sperm from a condom used during solely oral sex to artificially inseminate herself and making the genetic father responsible for child support? How is it in societies best interests to prevent men from making determinations about their life, relationships and career because of one stupid act? We don't hold women to that same yardstick, so why should we hold men to it? Remember at the time the decision is made there is no child, its a zygote, blastocyst or early stage fetus.
Moreover as long as a child has one good parent, that is better for them developmentally than one good parent and one bad parent
And if they do so both genders would be abstinent of heterosexual sex except for procreation, you understand this, yes? Is that your ultimate goal, because that's the same goal as every other "reproduction is the sole purpose of sex" group.
Cases like a 12 year old boy statutory rape, fraud, and used condom pregnancies can be discussed elsewhere. I am discussing consensual sex between willing partners who know exactly what they are doing.
Like it, or not a man cannot force a woman to have an abortion, and he can be required to pay child support if proven to be the father. That's the law, and that's reality, men go into sex knowing this, it's not some great surprise. Child support laws had to be created because men were walking away from their children, and this was a negative for the child, and for society. Whether by obligation, or choice parents must support their children.
I know full well what pro lifers say to women, but abortion is legal, and women have the right to this medical procedure with limitations because after a point the child rights take over. Men do not have this choice because their body does not get pregnant. Pregnancy is not fair, one is at the mercy of their biology. Most men accept that life isn't fair, and it will suck if an accidental pregnancy happens to them, but the answer is not to give every man the right to abandon all responsibility for any children they might father.
I know plenty of women who are vehemently opposed to abortion, they would never have one. They still have sex, but are very careful about birth control. They understand that if something happened, and they got pregnant they would be having the child. Adults accept reality rather than whining about how they should have rights to abandon the children they parented.
If a man doesn't want to ever risk a pregnancy, he never needs to have sex. A responsible man who choses to have sex will practice excellent birth control, but if a mistake happened they would accept the consequences, and understand they cannot force a women to have an abortion, physically, or psychologically by threatening full, and legal abandonment.
And if they do so both genders would be abstinent of heterosexual sex except for procreation, you understand this, yes? Is that your ultimate goal, because that's the same goal as every other "reproduction is the sole purpose of sex" group.
I doubt that would happen. Most people would keep on having sex but just be conscientious about contraception.
Kind of like what usually happens now.
Believe it or not, most women aren't out there trying to trap guys with a pregnancy.
Yes, contraception fails. Rarely if used correctly. If you and your sexual partner care for each other beyond the immediate physical gratification, you work out the consequences as adults together, if contraception fails.
Cases like a 12 year old boy statutory rape, fraud, and used condom pregnancies can be discussed elsewhere. I am discussing consensual sex between willing partners who know exactly what they are doing.
Like it, or not a man cannot force a woman to have an abortion, and he can be required to pay child support if proven to be the father. That's the law, and that's reality, men go into sex knowing this, it's not some great surprise. Child support laws had to be created because men were walking away from their children, and this was a negative for the child, and for society. Whether by obligation, or choice parents must support their children.
See I don't care whether a man has any input on what a woman does with her body, I just care that whatever she chooses is her responsibility if the other party does not agree, if that other party agrees to accept responsibility that's perfectly fine, but it's not if they refuse.
There is one way parents can choose not to support their children, adoption. According to your logic under adoption biological parents should pay upkeep for their children, but they don't.
You see that's the issue. Pro-Lifers argue that elective abortion is wrong because people could just choose to abstain, that's the same argument you're using, and if the argument fails for women, then logically it must fail for men, or you're saying it's unequal under law? Which should violate the 14th Amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen
I know full well what pro lifers say to women, but abortion is legal, and women have the right to this medical procedure with limitations because after a point the child rights take over. Men do not have this choice because their body does not get pregnant. Pregnancy is not fair, one is at the mercy of their biology. Most men accept that life isn't fair, and it will suck if an accidental pregnancy happens to them, but the answer is not to give every man the right to abandon all responsibility for any children they might father.
I'm not talking about what the law is, I'm talking about what it should be. By your argument if you replace men with women and right to abandon all responsibility with right to have a non-medically necessary abortion, you have precisely the same argument as to why women should not legally be permitted to abort.
When you argument depends on the same tired logic of anti-abortion to support a position where the man has to be obligated, but the woman has free choice, you've probably got a logically inconsistent argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen
I know plenty of women who are vehemently opposed to abortion, they would never have one. They still have sex, but are very careful about birth control. They understand that if something happened, and they got pregnant they would be having the child. Adults accept reality rather than whining about how they should have rights to abandon the children they parented.
Oh, it's whining when men complain that they should not be burdened with the responsibility of unplanned fatherhood, but not whining when women make the same complaint about unplanned motherhood? Come on, elective abortion is not medically necessary, it's purely to enable women to have a choice whether or not they want to be a parent at that time for whatever reason, let's take off the rose tinted glasses and call a spade a spade. I'm just pointing out that men should have the same choice of not being an unplanned parent when they are unprepared for it. I'm not even arguing that men should have any say in preventing abortion, just that they have a say should the woman decide to carry to term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen
If a man doesn't want to ever risk a pregnancy, he never needs to have sex. A responsible man who choses to have sex will practice excellent birth control, but if a mistake happened they would accept the consequences, and understand they cannot force a women to have an abortion, physically, or psychologically by threatening full, and legal abandonment.
A responsible woman who chooses to have sex will practice excellent birth control, and if a mistake happened they should accept the same consequences as men do.
It's not a threat, unless it's also threat that women can, if they become accidentally pregnant, force child support payments, is that a threat? That being so, surely something should be done to remove that threat, no?
Abandonment? this isn't exactly discussing anything but casual or semi-casual relationships, things are a bit different in the whole full rig get up relationship. How can you abandon someone you've known for what under 24 hours all told?
No under a legal paternal abortion both parties would enter the situation with both eyes open, complete equal legal footing, and both prepared to bear the responsibilities as they can for any mishaps. Women don't need any more protection in this than they already have. It's only if they choose to carry to term they would need to inform the suspected father. This whole thing doesn't even remove any rights from women, it just returns the right to refusal to men.
I doubt that would happen. Most people would keep on having sex but just be conscientious about contraception.
Kind of like what usually happens now.
Yes but the argument being put forward that the post you're replying to states is that if men do not wish to accept liability for child support from the moment of ejaculation, they should not be ejaculating with a woman. I'm just pointing out that using that logic the whole sex revolution from the 60's will be rewound to pre-contraceptive days.
The sexual revolution wasn't driven by men, but by women, for roughly the first time they could partake in casual sex with multiple partners and minimal risk of pregnancy, guys always had that ability so it wasn't as much of a revolution for men as women, although many more men took advantage since there was a larger female population engaging in casual sex. Problem is that if men are not equally able to divest themselves of unwanted pregnancies as women are (and they're not), then the situation is reversed, in an accidental pregnancy the woman holds her own destiny in her hands, but the man just has to come along for the ride and is responsible for supporting any child from that decision.
If the argument is used that men should just abstain, get sterilized or use contraception, and sensible men do use contraception anyway (regardless of claims by the woman), and men acted on that argument to completely avoid unwanted pregnancy and subsequent liabilities, then the whole sexual revolution ends in a big crunch following the big bang. It's going to be the men who are the wallflowers demanding marriage and the women who are letting it all hang out.
Reversal of traditional roles isn't a sign of success, but a sign of failure. Traditional roles should be entirely replaced by more suitable roles chosen by those who find them most beneficial for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HuskyMama
Believe it or not, most women aren't out there trying to trap guys with a pregnancy.
Yes, contraception fails. Rarely if used correctly. If you and your sexual partner care for each other beyond the immediate physical gratification, you work out the consequences as adults together, if contraception fails.
I don't believe that they do, but there is unequal legal footing, the consequences can be worked out to a point, but the problem is that all real decision making is entirely the womans, and the man is obligated by law to support that decision regardless of their personal feelings.
My argument is simple, if women want to give birth, but the person who was the sperm donor (since that's pretty much all they are providing) does not, then the woman should take full responsibility for that decision, and the man who provided the sperm should be able to legally cede all liabilities, rights, and responsibilities for that child within a period of learning they were a prospective father.
Sure we'd have men abusing the system, like we have women abusing the system, and they'd still both be abusing the system since they're not entirely synchronized, but at least it would be a two way street.
IMHO women have the absolute right to determine what happens in their bodies. However Child support laws do not take into any account mens wishes from the outcome of sex.
If women can determine whether or not the carry a pregnancy to term (without any legal regard for the other parties wishes), then men should be able to determine whether or not the are prepared to financially support that decision.
So in my opinion, there needs to be a legal means provided that enables men to cede all rights and responsibilities to that pregnancy (if it is determined that the pregnancy is carried to term) clearly there is some limitation on this, for instance filing should be required prior to the threshold for elective abortion.
This maintains balance between men and women, women can choose to carry to term or not independently of the mans decision, and men can choose to support or cede all rights and responsibilities independently of the womans choice.
That balance currently does not exist, men are entirely dependent on the womans decision.
I think that would be a good idea in theory as long as a contract was signed prior to any pregnancy. But, in reality how many people would actually do this prior to sex. Another issue, how to enforce no contact between sperm donor and child.
And just a thought, do you think the move to criminalize and restrict abortion rights would die out if this were an option for men?
But we're not discussing whether or not men should be financially liable for child support of fertilized ova, whether that ova goes on to a full term birth, or not is both at the whims of nature and the decision of solely the mother.
just wondering if you have ever been pregnant and faced with the decision to either abort or use adoption? It is not always an easy decision as you seem to imply.
I'm not talking about what the law is, I'm talking about what it should be.
What you propose is not, and never will be true equality because biology forces women to be the ones carrying the child, and everything that entails. There are reasons that the laws are what they currently are. You aren’t the first, or last who would love to change this, and give men license to walk away absolutely consequence free, (something a woman can never do), but it will NEVER happen.
Laws must balance individual freedoms, and rights with the needs of others, and society. Thinking people are not going to support a law where the consequence of this supposed “equality" is to create a tool to coerce any woman who can't afford a child alone into having an abortion, or if they refuse, will force society to pay for the child that results from your mistake. The results of any such a law would untenable to society, and will be flatly rejected by most.
Life is not fair, pregnancy is not fair, it's not even close to fair for women either, and that's the only reason they have a choice. There will never be a way to make biology fair. Society will always demand men pay for the children they father. Newsflash, life isn't fair. Adults deal with the cards they are dealt. Men and women know going into sex what their choices, and responsibilities are. Anyone who can't handle their particular set of consequences can abstain from sex.
I heard your arguments, there is no need to respond with another wall of the same arguments repeated. When the consequences of an idea are utterly destructive, the idea must be rejected.
I think that would be a good idea in theory as long as a contract was signed prior to any pregnancy. But, in reality how many people would actually do this prior to sex. Another issue, how to enforce no contact between sperm donor and child.
And just a thought, do you think the move to criminalize and restrict abortion rights would die out if this were an option for men?
The bolded could never be truly enforced. Walking away while someone else supports your child in no way compares to terminating a pregnancy. The idea that it creates an equality is absurd!
There is a simple way to prevent this.... Keep it in your pants if you don't want to be a father.
This logic is valid to justify outlawing abortion. Women should also protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy instead of asking for abortion. This is exactly what is yelled about near abortion clinics, so if you see this worn-out logic good enough, ban abortion and deem women who want it accountable to this argument.
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.
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.
