Got curious about something... (regards abortion and father`s duties)

[McBell]

Is it moraly fair that you do not become "responsible" of this? do you think it is okay that the legal position is such as you speak, that you do not have to pay the bills of her disease because she knew she could get it from you if you had sex?

Morally fair?
Base on what?
You keep using the word unfair but you have as yet to reveal your basis for comparison.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

BTW - something to remember in all this: child support isn't a matter of fulfilling an obligation to the mother; it's about fulfilling an obligation to the child. Whatever happened to cause the child to exist, it does exist and some sort of arrangement is going to be needed to pay for it.

Also, this is a zero-sum game. The cost of raising a child is fixed (pretty much), so arguing that the man isn't responsible for some portion of that cost is also an implicit argument that the woman is responsible for it.

 

[Me Myself]

Morally fair?
Base on what?
You keep using the word unfair but you have as yet to reveal your basis for comparison.

Its a question, I am asking you.

If you are not interested on debating morality and "fairness", having an argument about the proper laws of anything with you... well I dont even know why you would like to have such a conversation o.o

 

[McBell]

How much the woman pays or raise after she puts the little guy/gal for adoption?

How much does the man pay in child support after the child is adopted?

 

[Willamena]

I am not sure how the argument debiated to this, but:

The debate is about the father deciding not to be the FATHER of the baby. It is not that he can or should force the woman to abort or not. The debate is simply that he should have the choice to not be the legal father, given that he had no bearing into the choice of wheter the baby was coming to the world or not.

The choice of whether or not to legally be the parent isn't given to the mother, why should it be given to the father? In fact, both parents are legal parents when pregnancy happens.

The father having to dish out money doesn't represent him being the FATHER--he's already that. It represents him being responsible.

To shirk that responsibility is the "deadbeat dad."

Having the choice to not be the father would mean: as long as he renounces to all his rights for custody, parenthood, etc, he would not have to pay anything about the baby. After all, it was the womans choice to have the baby, and the zygote was a zygote and nothing more.

He is not more legally responsable for the zygote that he would be legaly responsable for transmiting a venereous disease after the woman knowing he was a bearer of such disease and both had consensual sex.

After all, the argument seems to be that the zygote is no different than kidney rocks.

He cannot just "renounce" a legal responsibility, any more than the mother can. If the mother abandons her baby in a dumpster behind Tim Horton's, she is legally responsible.

 

[Me Myself]

BTW - something to remember in all this: child support isn't a matter of fulfilling an obligation to the mother; it's about fulfilling an obligation to the child. Whatever happened to cause the child to exist, it does exist and some sort of arrangement is going to be needed to pay for it.

Also, this is a zero-sum game. The cost of raising a child is fixed (pretty much), so arguing that the man isn't responsible for some portion of that cost is also an implicit argument that the woman is responsible for it.

Is the woman unable to put the child on adoption?

 

[McBell]

Its a question, I am asking you.

If you are not interested on debating morality and "fairness", having an argument about the proper laws of anything with you... well I dont even know why you would like to have such a conversation o.o

As long as your fall back safety net is "It's not fair" you really need to provide your basis for comparison.

 

[Me Myself]

How much does the man pay in child support after the child is adopted?

You question is irrelevant unless you didnt understand the reason of mine.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

and you have not adequately answered this

Lets put it this way, you have a venereal disease and the woman you have sex with knows it and still had consensual sex with you using a condom so that the disease would maybe not be passed.

Still, it was.

Should you take "responsibility" of her medical bills now?

And now by all means, why is it different with pregnancy?

I don't see how your analogy is relevant.

And it's a moot point here anyhow, since her medical care would be covered by government health insurance.

How about you skip the analogies and just argue your point directly? I think they're making it more difficult to understand your argument (for me, at least).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is the woman unable to put the child on adoption?

Of course she's able. Is it *unreasonable* for her not to put it up for adoption?

Edit: the scenario we've been debating assumes that she *hasn't* done this. The question before us, effectively, is this: "a woman becomes pregnant, doesn't abort and doesn't give it up for adoption. What should happen now?"

 

[McBell]

You question is irrelevant unless you didnt understand the reason of mine.

Your question is irrelevant unless you can show that when a mother puts her baby up for adoption she does not have to pay child support but the father still does.

 

[Me Myself]

The choice of whether or not to legally be the parent isn't given to the mother, why should it be given to the father? In fact, both parents are legal parents when pregnancy happens.

Sure, when it happens both are forced to be the parents, but the mother can then put the baby for adoption. Furthermore, cant she start making the arrangments since before the birth?

The choice of whether or not to legally be the parent isn't given to the mother, why should it be given to the father? In fact, both parents are legal parents when pregnancy happens.

The father having to dish out money doesn't represent him being the FATHER--he's already that. It represents him being responsible.

To shirk that responsibility is the "deadbeat dad."


He cannot just "renounce" a legal responsibility, any more than the mother can. If the mother abandons her baby in a dumpster behind Tim Horton's, she is legally responsible.

Sure, if she abandons him in a dumpster, but she can make legal procedures to put the baby for adoption, can she not?

 

[Me Myself]

Your question is irrelevant unless you can show that when a mother puts her baby up for adoption she does not have to pay child support but the father still does.

I have no idea on what basis of anything are you arguing.

If you are not arguing from a moral standpoint or a fairness standpoint and you do not say on basis of what are you arguing, I have nothing to say to you because I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Me Myself]

I don't see how your analogy is relevant.

And it's a moot point here anyhow, since her medical care would be covered by government health insurance.

How about you skip the analogies and just argue your point directly? I think they're making it more difficult to understand your argument (for me, at least).

What is the difference between the disease and the zygote?

The woman having consensual sex with someone knowing full well it can end up in a pregnancy had the same choice that one having sex with someone with a venereal disease: both would be subject to an unwanted health condition.

So she knew it was possible she would have to choose whether or not to abort if she had a baby the same way the woman having sex with the man with a venereal disease would have know in the example what was the worst could happen.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have no idea on what basis of anything are you arguing.

If you are not arguing from a moral standpoint or a fairness standpoint and you do not say on basis of what are you arguing, I have nothing to say to you because I have no idea what you are talking about.

Personally, I'm arguing from a consistency standpoint. Why should pregnancy be the *only* situation where a person has to limit costs to the absolute conceivable minimum? All that "it's her choice" rhetoric ignores that in all sorts of other situations, people are free to make choices that do increase liability for others.

 

[McBell]

I have no idea on what basis of anything are you arguing.

Nor i you.
But I am not the one running tail tucked over it...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What is the difference between the disease and the zygote?

Not the zygote, the child. By the time the father has an obligation, it's a child.

And the difference is that a person never has an obligation to a disease.

 

[Me Myself]

Not the zygote, the child. By the time the father has an obligation, it's a child.

And the difference is that a person never has an obligation to a disease.

The woman can renounce to her obligation by adoption.

 

[Me Myself]

Personally, I'm arguing from a consistency standpoint. Why should pregnancy be the *only* situation where a person has to limit costs to the absolute conceivable minimum? All that "it's her choice" rhetoric ignores that in all sorts of other situations, people are free to make choices that do increase liability for others.

Could you give me a simple example if you think of another one?

Sorry I didnt get the last one

 

[Me Myself]

Nor i you.
But I am not the one running tail tucked over it...

I am asking you and you do not answer. I did answer your.

But in any case, think I had enough of you for this thread

Maybe I ll reply to you later if you even comment your angle, but just maybe.