Renji
Well-Known Member
Ifs and buts= excuses
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
But you said you were okay with abortion...
- Thread starter Koldo
- Start date
Ifs and buts= excuses
Sure he would. He'd be killing Decency.Why? Women use abortion itself for that. At least the man wouldn't be killing anyone
Let's try this again:
1) If a sperm and egg unite and becomes a zygote, this is not considered a child, but the result of sexual fertilization. The zygote is inside the woman's body, therefore a woman makes the decision whether or not to continue with the pregnancy....not that the decision to go through with the pregnancy automatically equates her with being a mother. That comes after the baby is born.
2) If a woman decides to go through with a pregnancy, this does not "tie down" anybody, because pregnancy does not necessarily equate to parenthood.....anything can happen in a pregnancy. She can miscarry, she may deliver a stillborn, the mother can suffer health risks that results range anywhere from loss of the uterus to the body shutting down into a coma to death. Therefore, any equating of pregnancy to parenthood is wrong, since pregnancy is a MEDICAL issue, not a CUSTODIAL issue.
3) Once the baby is born, unless custody arrangements are decided ahead of time for adoption by another party or one party legally renounces his or her parental rights and obligations through the court system, the birth parents....BOTH BIRTH PARENTS....are considered the legal guardians of this brand new citizen of their community. This is not a MEDICAL issue anymore, but a CUSTODIAL issue that the parties must decide is best for the child.
.
.
.
This is why equating pregnancy which happens inside a woman's body with asset acquisition is wrong. You cannot compare what amounts to be a medical concern for the woman's health and life to custody, legal, and financial arrangements for the welfare of a dependent human being. They are not in the same boat. Never has been. Never will be.
1) If a sperm and egg unite and becomes a zygote, this is not considered a child, but the result of sexual fertilization. The zygote is inside the woman's body, therefore a woman makes the decision whether or not to continue with the pregnancy....not that the decision to go through with the pregnancy automatically equates her with being a mother. That comes after the baby is born.
2) If a woman decides to go through with a pregnancy, this does not "tie down" anybody, because pregnancy does not necessarily equate to parenthood.....anything can happen in a pregnancy. She can miscarry, she may deliver a stillborn, the mother can suffer health risks that results range anywhere from loss of the uterus to the body shutting down into a coma to death. Therefore, any equating of pregnancy to parenthood is wrong, since pregnancy is a MEDICAL issue, not a CUSTODIAL issue.
3) Once the baby is born, unless custody arrangements are decided ahead of time for adoption by another party or one party legally renounces his or her parental rights and obligations through the court system, the birth parents....BOTH BIRTH PARENTS....are considered the legal guardians of this brand new citizen of their community. This is not a MEDICAL issue anymore, but a CUSTODIAL issue that the parties must decide is best for the child.
.
.
.
This is why equating pregnancy which happens inside a woman's body with asset acquisition is wrong. You cannot compare what amounts to be a medical concern for the woman's health and life to custody, legal, and financial arrangements for the welfare of a dependent human being. They are not in the same boat. Never has been. Never will be.
Hypothetical scenario:
A man and woman have a child together. (Edit: no agreements about abortion in the event of pregnancy or anything like that - they both agree that they're responsible for supporting the child in the normal way)
Later on, the man develops a bad hip. It gets to the point that he can no longer work. His doctor suggests that he's a candidate for hip replacement surgery, though as with all surgery, there are risks.
He decides not to take the surgery - he's worried about complications, maybe... or perhaps he's just afraid of hospitals - and ends up on disability/MedicAid/whatever-the-term-is-where-you-are, getting much less income that he did at his high-paying job.
Previously, his child support payment obligation reflected the fact that both he and the child's mother were well off. Now, though, if he kept the same support payment, he wouldn't have enough money left over for food and shelter.
With this major change in income, he makes an application for his child support obligation to be decreased on the grounds of his inability to pay. What should the judge's response be?
- adjust his support payments taking into account his lower income (while still considering the welfare of the child).
- tell the man that his decision not to have surgery is entirely his responsibility, and demand that he keep paying the same amount, which he can no longer afford.
I would be interested to hear how the members of the "screw the child - the woman's on her own" crowd think this situation should be handled.
A man and woman have a child together. (Edit: no agreements about abortion in the event of pregnancy or anything like that - they both agree that they're responsible for supporting the child in the normal way)
Later on, the man develops a bad hip. It gets to the point that he can no longer work. His doctor suggests that he's a candidate for hip replacement surgery, though as with all surgery, there are risks.
He decides not to take the surgery - he's worried about complications, maybe... or perhaps he's just afraid of hospitals - and ends up on disability/MedicAid/whatever-the-term-is-where-you-are, getting much less income that he did at his high-paying job.
Previously, his child support payment obligation reflected the fact that both he and the child's mother were well off. Now, though, if he kept the same support payment, he wouldn't have enough money left over for food and shelter.
With this major change in income, he makes an application for his child support obligation to be decreased on the grounds of his inability to pay. What should the judge's response be?
- adjust his support payments taking into account his lower income (while still considering the welfare of the child).
- tell the man that his decision not to have surgery is entirely his responsibility, and demand that he keep paying the same amount, which he can no longer afford.
I would be interested to hear how the members of the "screw the child - the woman's on her own" crowd think this situation should be handled.
There's your problem. The man does have a choice-- he can choose not to have sex with the woman. No sex=no chance of baby. I can't tell a man not to ever have sex, but if he does he has to live with what happens same as a woman does- any baby is equally his. And you gotta remember that even if a woman is pro choice, it doesn't mean that she wants to ever have an abortion she believes that women should have a choice in the matter. I know a lot of pro choice women who would NEVER have an abortion themselves.
And anyone who quotes me, please do not cut words out of my sentences to change the meaning of what I am saying anymore.
Men can choose to not have sex and he shouldn't count on a woman having an abortion-- those are things he should keep in mind even in the heat of the moment. I would never, ever have an abortion under normal circumstances probably under no circumstances. Of course, I wouldn't want to sleep with some man who doesn't even believe he should have to take care of his own child after it is born, either. The point for me is moot-- I am married.
Me Myself
Back to my username
That choice both man and women have, and it doesn't have anything to do with having the baby, just conceiving it, which is not at all the same in the frame of mind that is being pushed when saying just a born baby is a human being.
So no, the man is not given the choice after having had sex and conceived the baby but the woman is. So there is an injustice here.
Thats exactly what I am saying! Just as a woman can relinquish ALL responsibilities of having the baby after sex and conception, so the man should be able to .
Maybe a man doesnt ever want to have to renounce to his rights as a father but he doesnt want to economically support the child either, so he would need to make a choice, the same way a woman makes her choice between not having wanted to be mother and not wanting to ever abort.
The thing is, she has the choice and she takes it whether she liked her choices or not, she had choices even AFTER the child is conceived.
So the man should also have choice AFTER the child is conceived for any equality to take place.
Alceste
Vagabond
A man does have a choice: He can get a vasectomy, and / or wear a condom properly. Soon there will be a pill he can take. The only choice that is NOT open to him is terminating a pregnancy when all other options have failed, and that's only because it's happening in somebody else's body.
But he knows that "going in", so he ought to be extra careful not to knock anybody up unless he wants a child, or is at least willing to accept the risk and be willing to become a father.
And me do cut words out of my meaning I am saying more.
Me Myself
Back to my username
While this is not the stance I would take, I have every right to pay economical support to my kid and not look at him ever in my life if I don't want to. He cannot force me to see him under any right because he would be trespassing mine.
Also, if someone is a violent or harmful father, there is definitely a need for him to not look at the child at least til he is grown up. Thats why I said no ifs or buts is a stance you wouldn't really want to be in. The health of the child is a very good if and but.
Part of being a father means financial support as well as emotional. I mean why should the woman be the only one who is responsible for the child just because she can abort-- that is really a very bad excuse for a man not to take care of his own child. It's not and never was the woman's responsibility alone. It is darned expensive to raise a child. And no, he made the choice when he had sex and the baby was conceived. I don't care what he wants- once the baby is born, it is his responsibility to help support it.
As Alcest said, men have many, many options-- condoms, vasectomy, and other contraception. They are not 100% but they do work most of the time.
But I keep repeating myself. I have had enough of this discussion. Final word: Both mother and father of the child should be responsible for bringing up a child they helped bring into this world. Men can make all the excuses they want: 1." But the mother has a choice that I don't have, that's not fairrrrrrr" is the biggest one. Life's not always fair. Get over it.
Me Myself
Back to my username
The legal system is DECIDING and REGULATING injustice. That is something to correct, not to "get over" of.
All the choices you said of men have an analogues form for the women. The only choice that doesn't is that the woman can relinquish all duties of motherhood is she wants after the conception. So the fair thing to do legally is to give the same right to the man.
Honestly, I doubt the law will ever state that a man has a right to force a woman to have an abortion.
Me Myself
Back to my username
Neither do I nor I would ever say it should. I am saying the man should have the same right to completely forego his duties as a father than the woman has.
He should have the same opportunities for choice than the woman on regards of parental duties. This doesn't need the abortion of the baby, just the deciding it wont be his baby.
The biggest problem with that is that the baby is his. Nothing can change that. May not seem fair to some men, but such is life. As I said-- vasectomy, better contraception, abstinence would go a long way to stop the problem before it even starts in the first place.
She doesn't have any right to forego her duties in any way, shape or form. Neither should he--but you are asking that he should. He as all the same opportunities for choice in regard to parental duties. All of them. Neither of them has the right to arbitarily decide "this won't be my baby."
If either wants that, it has to be legal. It has to go through the system.
OK, I'll bite.
The man (or woman, if the man has custody) should pay according to his (or her) income, whatever that is. Everything should be taken into account, any expenses, including medical expenses. It isn't really a good thing if a man or woman has to live in a car or forgo medical treatment because of child support.
Me Myself
Back to my username
Mine, yours, etc are legally binding terms.
all the options you prefer have female counterparts.
The thing is the woman gets to choose to relinquish her rights after conception and a man doesn't. This is an inequality promoted by the legal system.
It isn't true. What makes you think it is so easy for a woman to just abandon her baby? It isn't all that simple. Most girls in the past have given up their babies up for adoption because the father of the baby didn't want the responsibility. Instead of making it easier for a man to relinquish all his rights, instead make the mother of the baby let the father have a say in adoption if he wants the child and she doesn't. That kind of thing happens, you know.
But a man can't make a child not his child. It will never work that way.