But you said you were okay with abortion...

[lunakilo]

WHAT?! A magic marker that prevents pregnancy?
That's almost as good as chantilly that prevents pregnancy.
Wait, that is actually a very good idea. I could make tons of money with that.
*runs to lab*

Ehhh, the magic marker was for writing moron on his forehead not for preventing pregnancy...

Chantilly which prevents pregnancy... , I will answer that one when I find out what chantilly is, deal?

Is he a moron for trusting her?

Basically yes... but I was thinking this over when I was riding home from work and realized that my calling Harry a moron is probably a bit one sided.
Ana is a moron too

At least she is either a moron or very devious.
Since she is not lying about the deal she made with Harry before she got pregnant I am assuming that she did in fact mean it when she said she would get an abortion if she got pregnant and that she wasn't just lying to him so that he would get her pregnant and have to help her support the baby. If that was the case, then I think she would have lied about the deal she made so that there was no doubt that Harry would have to pay up.

So I am going with; Ana thought she would have no problem having an abortion if she got pregnant and so she agreed with Harry that that is what she would do in that case.
I think making a promise like that is very stupid.
Having an abortion is not usually an easy decision, and to assume before hand that she knew how she would feel about it is just plain stupid. Making Ana a moron as well.

But now she has realized that she cannot go through with an abortion and thus must break her word to Harry.

Harry is a moron for not realizing that this could happen.
Harry is a moron for not using a condom or for not double cheking that Ana remembered to take her birth control pills (or whatever method they used) to make sure he didn't get into this situation.

Should it be legally right for her to require Harry to support the child?

Yes.

It is impossible to make laws foolproof (or moronproof for that matter ), all you do if you try is make a legal system that is so complicated that no one can possibly understand it, and the laws can be misused.

Keep it simple.

I think it is better to assume that people like Harry ans Ana are reasonally sensible people who can work this out for them selves. Just because Ana can legally require Harry to support the child doesn't mean she will.
If she did after what she promised Harry, I would have no respect for her.

 

[Me Myself]

I think it is better to assume that people like Harry ans Ana are reasonally sensible people who can work this out for them selves. Just because Ana can legally require Harry to support the child doesn't mean she will.
If she did after what she promised Harry, I would have no respect for her.

The thing is that legality is not just for Ana and Harry, it is for every frigging ana and harry. There are obviously anas who will be **** . If all of us were wonderful loving human beings all the times, laws would not be needed.

 

[Willamena]

Imagine the following scenario:

'Harry is dating Ana. They thoroughly spoke about how an unplanned pregnancy would be dealt it, and it was agreed that abortion would be an acceptable method. Months later, Ana got pregnant. And she decided she wouldn't go through the abortion anymore. Ana didn't try to deceive Harry when she agreed with abortion back then; she simply had a change of mind after she got pregnant.'

Both sides ( Harry and Ana ) agree to this version of the story.

How should the judiciary system ( laws ) deal with this situation?
Should Ana be forced to undergo an abortion ( of her fetus ), even though her health is being ( more or less ) compromised by this invasive procedure ?
Should Harry be forced to financially support the newborn, even though Ana had previously agreed to abort the fetus in cases of unplanned pregnancy ?
Should Harry be able to renounce his rights to the child to avoid financially supporting it?
How should this issue be settled?

I'm no expert on contract law, but if it was a binding agreement that she broke, he could sue her.

Should Ana be forced to undergo an abortion ( of her fetus ), even though her health is being ( more or less ) compromised by this invasive procedure ?
Not a legal option in Canada. Unless some weird extenuating circumstances prevail, Ana is protected by the constitution.

Should Harry be forced to financially support the newborn, even though Ana had previously agreed to abort the fetus in cases of unplanned pregnancy ?
He is obligated to support the newborn anyway, so no need for the courts to obligate him again, but there are legal avenues open to him.

Should Harry be able to renounce his rights to the child to avoid financially supporting it?
People don't have "rights" to "own" a child in Canada.

 

[lunakilo]

Legality should be supported by morality.

If the case is as you say, legality should change regarding that issue so that he does not need to be immoraly forced to do so.

The problem is that not all people agree on what is moraly right.
Some people would probably argue that it is not moraly right to have an abortion.

If you look at a slightly different situation where Harry and Ana disagree on what exactly was promised.
Harry remembers the promise "I [Ana] will have an abortion if I get pregnant".
Ana remembers the promise "I see nothing wrong with getting an abortion if I get pregnant".
It is a misunderstanding and now Ana decides she will not have an abortion.
Is it morally right for her to require Harry to support the child?
Is it morally right for Harry to refuse to support the child because he never agreed to have it and believes Ana promised him that she would have an abortion?

Or what if Ana lied. Ana promised Harry she would have an abortion if she got pregnant but now she claims she made no such promise.
I would say it is not morally right that Harry should have to support the child, but how can he possibly prove that she lied and thus how can the law possibly be morally right?

 

[Alex_G]

Imagine the following scenario:

'Harry is dating Ana. They thoroughly spoke about how an unplanned pregnancy would be dealt it, and it was agreed that abortion would be an acceptable method. Months later, Ana got pregnant. And she decided she wouldn't go through the abortion anymore. Ana didn't try to deceive Harry when she agreed with abortion back then; she simply had a change of mind after she got pregnant.'

Both sides ( Harry and Ana ) agree to this version of the story.

How should the judiciary system ( laws ) deal with this situation?
Should Ana be forced to undergo an abortion ( of her fetus ), even though her health is being ( more or less ) compromised by this invasive procedure ?
Should Harry be forced to financially support the newborn, even though Ana had previously agreed to abort the fetus in cases of unplanned pregnancy ?
Should Harry be able to renounce his rights to the child to avoid financially supporting it?
How should this issue be settled?

Number one remedy would be for the 2 to have an honest discussion with each other about what to do and where to go from here, now that circumstances have changed. Perhaps Harry has changed his views too, or perhaps they can come to some understanding and compromise the suits them both. Communication is king.

You cannot coerce a woman into either having an abortion or keeping a pregnancy against her will. That’s just breaching a fundamental human right, where no one has the authority to have such arbitrary control over another’s very being, except perhaps in the utmost extreme of cases. Perhaps a pregnant mother that is so phenomenally incapable of keeping it, or of psychological ill health such that she cannot make decisions, requiring doctors to act in the best interest. That then however becomes more of a capacity issue.

I don’t think Harry has an enforceable responsibility to see to substantial child care given the pre pregnancy discussion, and provided they used satisfactory contraception by today’s standards which should count towards an express desire to avoid pregnancy, and that there were no foreseeable facts that could reasonably have been known to Harry regarding the subsequent decision to keep the baby.

There is of course concern for the welfare of the child, but if the female is in a position to provide for a child herself, then much less pressure should be on Harry to be involved. If circumstances exist which suggest high risk for the child then I think the responsibility burden on Harry increases, if not just for the child of whom he is the parent, but to his girlfriend at the very least.

Arbitrary and absolute power to demand financial support from the male partner in all circumstances is coercive and unjust, a breach of his human rights, the same that are so rightly defended in the rights of a woman to choices regarding her own body. He owns himself, as the woman owns herself and her body, and part of what defines you is that which you earn . To call upon ownership of someone’s hard earned money, time or assets is to claim ownership over part of them, and thus tantamount to a form of slavery. One cannot be justified in doing that without very good reason in my opinion.

 

[Awoon]

Put em both in jail for being horny.

 

[Me Myself]

Arbitrary and absolute power to demand financial support from the male partner in all circumstances is coercive and unjust, a breach of his human rights, the same that are so rightly defended in the rights of a woman to choices regarding her own body. He owns himself, as the woman owns herself and her body, and part of what defines you is that which you earn . To call upon ownership of someone’s hard earned money, time or assets is to claim ownership over part of them, and thus tantamount to a form of slavery. One cannot be justified in doing that without very good reason in my opinion.

I could not agree more.

 

[4consideration]

This is pretty much what was agreed upon.
Except, obviously, in the case where after the woman got pregnant, both parts wanted to have the baby even as the result of an unplanned pregnancy ( which is not an uncommon ocorrence, as far as i know ). It would be rather weird to go through an abortion if both man and woman wanted the baby, right?

Of course there would be no reason to go through an abortion if both wanted to have the baby. I agree.

When I mentioned that opinion (#3) it was with regard to what I would support as the legal position if it was a clear cut agreement that abortion was the only option for an unplanned pregnancy. If I had a vote in the matter, I would have to allow (legally) for the man to be released from his legal obligation if the woman chose to have the baby. (Personally, I would vote that she decide to keep the baby.) I don't think that the law should be applied according to my personal feelings. My feelings are that she should keep the baby, and daddy should contribute 50/50.

This would be a most difficult decision, within a gut-wrenching situation. I am a woman and would definitely empathize with the woman and the baby, first. I would not encourage someone to have an abortion. However, as it stands at this time in this country -- it is a legal procedure. If they were operating within a firm agreement about it, I do not think that on the legal aspect of the situation, I could take the position that we can completely disregard the agreement.

I think it would be a dumb agreement to make. I do not think a person could possibly know how it feels (physically, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually) to be pregnant until one experiences it.

Morally speaking, which is where I think I would personally draw my position from in this matter -- I think the man has a moral duty to provide for his child. But, that was clearly not the perspective presented for the OP. It was a question of legal duty, rather than moral duty. My position may be incorrect as to what the court would decide, but it is the legal position I think I would take. (And, as a woman it hurts to have to say this.)

 

[Alceste]

If he told you he would get a vasectomy, he is clearly at fault, in my opinion.
Although it must said this isn't as severe as the case in the OP.

Why? Because it's a man's body affected rather than a woman's?

 

[Alceste]

Number one remedy would be for the 2 to have an honest discussion with each other about what to do and where to go from here, now that circumstances have changed. Perhaps Harry has changed his views too, or perhaps they can come to some understanding and compromise the suits them both. Communication is king.

You cannot coerce a woman into either having an abortion or keeping a pregnancy against her will. That’s just breaching a fundamental human right, where no one has the authority to have such arbitrary control over another’s very being, except perhaps in the utmost extreme of cases. Perhaps a pregnant mother that is so phenomenally incapable of keeping it, or of psychological ill health such that she cannot make decisions, requiring doctors to act in the best interest. That then however becomes more of a capacity issue.

I don’t think Harry has an enforceable responsibility to see to substantial child care given the pre pregnancy discussion, and provided they used satisfactory contraception by today’s standards which should count towards an express desire to avoid pregnancy, and that there were no foreseeable facts that could reasonably have been known to Harry regarding the subsequent decision to keep the baby.

There is of course concern for the welfare of the child, but if the female is in a position to provide for a child herself, then much less pressure should be on Harry to be involved. If circumstances exist which suggest high risk for the child then I think the responsibility burden on Harry increases, if not just for the child of whom he is the parent, but to his girlfriend at the very least.

Arbitrary and absolute power to demand financial support from the male partner in all circumstances is coercive and unjust, a breach of his human rights, the same that are so rightly defended in the rights of a woman to choices regarding her own body. He owns himself, as the woman owns herself and her body, and part of what defines you is that which you earn . To call upon ownership of someone’s hard earned money, time or assets is to claim ownership over part of them, and thus tantamount to a form of slavery. One cannot be justified in doing that without very good reason in my opinion.

I agree with most of what you're saying, but at the end there where you equate child support payments with "slavery", are you arguing that BOTH the mother and the father should be able to "break their bonds of slavery"by paying nothing to raise their child, or just the father? If it's a breach of BOTH their human rights to obligate them to spend money on raising their child, what should they do with it? Leave it outside with the dogs?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I agree with most of what you're saying, but at the end there where you equate child support payments with "slavery", are you arguing that BOTH the mother and the father should be able to "break their bonds of slavery"by paying nothing to raise their child, or just the father? If it's a breach of BOTH their human rights to obligate them to spend money on raising their child, what should they do with it? Leave it outside with the dogs?

Saying that paying child support is equal to slavery is completely underestimating the actual cost in time and money to actually raise the child.

I think I said it before, but my ex used to complain about paying child support. He used to say that I was an unfit mom because I stayed home with the kids to raise them while he did everything he could to not pay me a dime.

He even told me when the kids needed dental work, that none of that was his responsibility, and that since I had remarried at the time, that their stepfather was obligated to cover for their dental work.

Then he got married to another woman, and had children with her, and was actually THERE with her to take care of the babies.

Suddenly, he stopped complaining about paying child support. He now realizes just how much being there is to the cost of raising a child, much less more than one.

He pays child support every month with no complaints. It's MUCH easier.

 

[Alceste]

Imagine the following scenario:

'Harry is dating Ana. They thoroughly spoke about how an unplanned pregnancy would be dealt it, and it was agreed that abortion would be an acceptable method. Months later, Ana got pregnant. And she decided she wouldn't go through the abortion anymore. Ana didn't try to deceive Harry when she agreed with abortion back then; she simply had a change of mind after she got pregnant.'

Both sides ( Harry and Ana ) agree to this version of the story.

How should the judiciary system ( laws ) deal with this situation?
Should Ana be forced to undergo an abortion ( of her fetus ), even though her health is being ( more or less ) compromised by this invasive procedure ?
Should Harry be forced to financially support the newborn, even though Ana had previously agreed to abort the fetus in cases of unplanned pregnancy ?
Should Harry be able to renounce his rights to the child to avoid financially supporting it?
How should this issue be settled?

The laws in Canada deal with it this way: the woman has the absolute right to decide whether to have or not have an abortion. Her reasons for doing so or not doing so, any prior statements of intention, agreements, contraceptive efforts, slip-ups or misbehavior are completely inconsequential, since what she does with her own body is nobody's business but hers.

That's a good law.

With respect to child support, if "Harry" doesn't want any risk of paying it, he should be wearing a condom, properly, every time. He might even want to have some morning after pills on hand in case it breaks, since the less time Ana has to dwell on the broken condom, the less chance there is that she will change her mind and decide to turn an "accident" into an "opportunity"! If Harry decides to take no steps of his own to prevent an unplanned pregnancy, including leaving the entire issue of birth control up to Ana to figure out, he's an idiot. He can't suddenly decide he wants to control the outcome after all his opportunities to do so have passed and he failed to take advantage of them.

I do think there should be a way for him to weasel out of child support payments if he wants no contact with his child, but that would be between him and Ana. Realistically though, regardless of how Harry and Ana felt before the pregnancy, if she carries it to term Harry will 99 times out of 100 want contact with his child. If so, he's got to man up and be a father.

 

[Me Myself]

I agree with most of what you're saying, but at the end there where you equate child support payments with "slavery", are you arguing that BOTH the mother and the father should be able to "break their bonds of slavery"by paying nothing to raise their child, or just the father? If it's a breach of BOTH their human rights to obligate them to spend money on raising their child, what should they do with it? Leave it outside with the dogs?

Adoption agencies exist.

None of them should be bound to be the parents if they truly dont want to.

 

[Me Myself]

if she carries it to term Harry will 99 times out of 100 want contact with his child. If so, he's got to man up and be a father.

Dont know about the statisticall part but 100% agreement with the bold.

 

[Alceste]

Saying that paying child support is equal to slavery is completely underestimating the actual cost in time and money to actually raise the child.

I think I said it before, but my ex used to complain about paying child support. He used to say that I was an unfit mom because I stayed home with the kids to raise them while he did everything he could to not pay me a dime.

He even told me when the kids needed dental work, that none of that was his responsibility, and that since I had remarried at the time, that their stepfather was obligated to cover for their dental work.

Then he got married to another woman, and had children with her, and was actually THERE with her to take care of the babies.

Suddenly, he stopped complaining about paying child support. He now realizes just how much being there is to the cost of raising a child, much less more than one.

He pays child support every month with no complaints. It's MUCH easier.

Wouldn't it be nice to live in a cozy, safe little bubble where the absolute worst outcome you can imagine from a birth control failure or unprotected sex is having to pay a few hundred dollars a month to your ex to feed a child you don't need to care for?

Imagine being OUTRAGED over such a thing.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Wouldn't it be nice to live in a cozy, safe little bubble where the absolute worst outcome you can imagine from a birth control failure or unprotected sex is having to pay a few hundred dollars a month to your ex to feed a child you don't need to care for?

Imagine being OUTRAGED over such a thing.

I know, right?

So, I got to the dance studio tonight, taught a few classes with some students, relaxed a bit and got some perspective and then decided to revisit these recent debates on abortion and parental rights. I'm going to offer the possibility that those who believe that fathers are strapped and made into slaves when paying child support haven't actually been fathers as of yet, and perhaps haven't had the life experience of facing a pregnancy whether intended or not.

There's a part of me that can't really fault them for that, and that life experience really offers a unique education.

I think these talks have lately reminded me of trying to get through the heads of my teenage boys who really and truly think they know about life better than me and their dad. My own father stopped by yesterday and asked how the kids were, and I told them of the latest brush off, and he chuckled and said that it was about damn time his grandkids were going to go through adolescence.

The best analogy I've heard about trying to talk to adolescent boys is that it's like trying to nail jello to a tree. It's SO true.

 

[Alceste]

I know, right?

So, I got to the dance studio tonight, taught a few classes with some students, relaxed a bit and got some perspective and then decided to revisit these recent debates on abortion and parental rights. I'm going to offer the possibility that those who believe that fathers are strapped and made into slaves when paying child support haven't actually been fathers as of yet, and perhaps haven't had the life experience of facing a pregnancy whether intended or not.

There's a part of me that can't really fault them for that, and that life experience really offers a unique education.

I think these talks have lately reminded me of trying to get through the heads of my teenage boys who really and truly think they know about life better than me and their dad. My own father stopped by yesterday and asked how the kids were, and I told them of the latest brush off, and he chuckled and said that it was about damn time his grandkids were going to go through adolescence.

The best analogy I've heard about trying to talk to adolescent boys is that it's like trying to nail jello to a tree. It's SO true.

I hope you're right, but I've seen a lot of grown men with children kvetching and moaning about having to still pay child support after they've left the mother and kids to fend for themselves. My aunt's ex-husband gave her three boys, stuck around until they were a few years old, then ran off with his secretary. He liked to live in a big house and drive flashy cars, and every month was a massive battle to try to get child support out of him. He didn't want to give her one thin dime to raise his kids, but every Christmas he'd buy them the most expensive, flashy presents. Kind of a bribe, I guess, but they just saw it as "HEY! LOOK HOW MUCH MONEY ME AND MY NEW FAMILY HAVE! WE CAN AFFORD TO THROW IT AWAY! HOPE THIS PLAYSTATION TAKES YOUR MIND OFF BEING POOR FOR A WHILE!"

Two of those kids are drug addicts now and the youngest just got his g/f pregnant. The oldest is not a drug addict - he's a married father of two. He had a lifetime of practice "being the dad", starting when he was about 8, so he's really good at it.

 

[NIX]

That's too extreme though.
The man may want to have a child later on.

Then obviously he will have to have a child later on with a DIFFERENT woman.

jeez.

 

[Koldo]

The facts are that we thought a vasectomy was the best option. He agreed to it. Then he changed his mind. Those are the facts.

Attributing blame is not stating any fact, but a distinction.

And in this case, pointing the finger at him for changing his mind about what he is going to do with his body is immature and childish.

I'll say this at least about your argument about attributing blame and finger pointing when people make promises with their bodies and then change their minds....at least you're consistent.

I don't see it as as a matter of attributing blame.
I am just part of the group that takes promises seriously and does everything within their powers to keep them. Regardless of whether they are verbal or written, or whether it is about my body, my money or my time.

 

[Koldo]

Ehhh, the magic marker was for writing moron on his forehead not for preventing pregnancy...

Chantilly which prevents pregnancy... , I will answer that one when I find out what chantilly is, deal?

Oh. It is another name for whipped cream.

Harry is a moron for not using a condom or for not double cheking that Ana remembered to take her birth control pills (or whatever method they used) to make sure he didn't get into this situation.

The most common methods of birth control always have a small chance of not working properly though.