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

[Shadow Wolf]

I'll tell you what's not fair. Stretch marks, labor, and vaginal tearing.

You forgot morning sickness, carrying around extra weight, odd cravings, increased appetite, swollen breasts, emotional turmoil, and that pregnancy takes a toll on the woman's body.

 

[waitasec]

I don`t see why not. You are saying that the men have less rights than the women to have heterosexual sex. Or that their rights are more punishable, which ends up being roughly the same.

and what of the rights of the woman? remember...it isn't "fair" that she has to carry the pregnancy to term.

I propose both of them would have responsability, you propose only the male one.

responsibility to what exactly....to stick his pecker into every willing vagina?

 

[HonestJoe]

In other words, it is not at all a law "against women" if women were not allowed to abort, is it?

It is, it just isn't only that.

Whatever the circumstances, whenever the possibility of abortion comes up, it's already going to be a difficult, complex situation which isn't going to end up with any winners. The best we're going to achieve, in specific cases and in general, is a least worst outcome.

Anyone presenting the abortion issue from a singular view point or as a simple "yes or no" question clearly doesn't have the slightest idea what they're talking about.

 

[Alex_G]

You decided to have sex, you know sex can result in pregnancy, the child is half yours.
Why is it some guys think they have the option to opt out of taking responsibility for a child they helped make, even though opting out of responsibility in any other area in life is considered a very bad thing?



You agreed when you inserted your penis into her vagina. If a baby would be such a burden on your life and is something that you just do not at all want, then don't have sex because that is how they are made. It's no different than someone who knows they become violent when they get drunk, so they refrain from drinking even though they may not want to, but it's better than another assault and battery charge.

Why should men not have to "man up" and accept responsibility of their actions? Yes the woman is the one that has to carry to term, but it takes two to make a baby. It's like a two-man demolition crew causing a botched demolition that caused damage to nearby buildings, and one of them tries to dodge the consequences because it was the other guy that pushed the button even though both of them wired the explosives.
Or if you get drunk, drive home, hit someone, and try to get out of the consequences because that person you hit shouldn't have been at that particular place and particular time.

Sex is a powerful force, almost coercive in its effects on the actions of people, men especially. There is scope to pursue sexual relations primarily and solely for the pleasure involved. I would think that such an engagement if employing reasonable measures of contraception implies a desire and agreement not to create a baby, perhaps enough so to support a participant’s defence that they never agreed upon raising and supporting a baby.
It’s one thing for the male partner to decide upon himself to support thereafter should the female decide to continue the pregnancy, but to enforce it, there is definitely some degree of coercion, even if it leads to better outcomes for children in some cost-benefit type analysis. Enforced financial support is not a completely innocent procedure imo.

When it comes to protected sex, the 'contract' between the 2 people is for the sex, not procreation. Now of course that includes the small risk of accidental pregnancy, but that would be an incidental outcome, rather than a principle one. The resultant pregnancy is by chance resulted from the action rather than the action being performed with the specific aims of pregnancy. I think that’s a real difference, and one that does seriously impact responsibility. In deciding to keep the child after clear efforts to avoid the pregnancy is to change the terms somewhat, if not radically.
Additionally, one could argue that by employing contraception, one assumes that if there was a failure or malfunction, further measures would be taken to blockade the progression, at least in a society where there’s no specific circumstances to suggest otherwise that could reasonably be anticipated by the individual.

Of course I’m only jumping in here with some arguments to bolster the other side of this thing. What i think any one person 'should' do is another question, and one that can only be meaningfully discussed on a case by case basis, as context can be of paramount importance.

 

[McBell]

and what of the rights of the woman? remember...it isn't "fair" that she has to carry the pregnancy to term.

Not to mention raising the child.
I mean come on, raising a kid is not expensive, no, not at all...:sarcastic

 

[Revoltingest]

The man agreed upon the second he stuck his penis into a vagina.

That seems similar to saying that if a women allows this, then she is agreeing to carry a fetus to term.
Both are a government imposed 'agreement'.

 

[McBell]

That seems similar to saying that if a women allows this, then she is agreeing to carry a fetus to term.
Both are a government imposed 'agreement'.

Based on what?
Seeing as it is the womans body going through all the changes, taking all the abuse of pregnancy while the man runs with his tail tucked between his legs whining about how hard it is on his life to become a father of a child he never wanted...

yeah, cry me a river....

 

[waitasec]

Not to mention raising the child.
I mean come on, raising a kid is not expensive, no, not at all...:sarcastic

i wonder if there are any stats with regards to where the father said he would raise the child if the mother couldn't.


i'm sure there have been cases, but i would venture to say it isn't the norm by any means.

michael jackson comes to mind

 

[Me Myself]

and what of the rights of the woman? remember...it isn't "fair" that she has to carry the pregnancy to term.



responsibility to what exactly....to stick his pecker into every willing vagina?

Huh?

Mens responsability is to pay for the child if there was one, womens responsability is to at least not kill him or aid to his killing.

Those are the basic responsabilities.

It is ridiculous to say that the woman can kill the baby if she wants but if the man doesnt want to be a father he has no say in it.

 

[Me Myself]

I'll tell you what's not fair. Stretch marks, labor, and vaginal tearing.

You say they should all be optional, but the man paying for EIGTHTEEN YEARS half of the child expenses shouldnt.

If a man agrees to paying half of everything if the baby is born, the least that the woman can do is agree to not kill him. for crying out loud.

If the woman wants to have the right to freaking kill him, then there is no logical way to say the man has the duty to support him. Saying this is saying that the woman has no real responsabilities. All what you described are not responsabilities if it is your choice to have them or not. Now when it is not your choice to pay or not for the babys life then you do have a serious responsability.

In other words, even if we were going to pretend the zygote is not a human being, then the laws would be needing to change so that having the baby was truly the WOMENS OPTION, and as such, the man would have no obligation to pay for HER choosing.

If you want to say he should have known that babies come from sex, then that argument goes equally well for women and pro-life

 

[Alceste]

You forgot morning sickness, carrying around extra weight, odd cravings, increased appetite, swollen breasts, emotional turmoil, and that pregnancy takes a toll on the woman's body.

Sing it, sister.

 

[Alceste]

i wonder if there are any stats with regards to where the father said he would raise the child if the mother couldn't.


i'm sure there have been cases, but i would venture to say it isn't the norm by any means.

michael jackson comes to mind

The day the father can also take over the physical impact of pregnancy and childbirth. (Did I mention it actually TEARS its way through your genitals?) will be the day I agree that the biological father should be able to veto an abortion if he wants to raise the child himself.

 

[MoonWater]

So what? She is choosing to. If the zygote is truly a "thing" or not human being, then she chose to carry it knowing full well the effects. the woman would be sacrificing 9 months, the man would be sacrificing as long as the child has 18.

As would the woman. So for the man it's 18 years and for the woman it's 18 years plus 9 months. She's not getting off scott-free either MM. Does it suck that men don't get a legal say in whether or not a woman has an abortion? YES. But it also sucks that women are the only one's to go through all the emotional and physical hang-ups of pregnancy and considering the fact that an abortion is a medical procedure that can only be performed on women because women are the only one's who can get pregnant then that means that legally men can't have any say in whether or not the woman gets an abortion as he is not the one under-going the procedure and never will be.(notice I emphasize "legal" I do think the parents should talk over the whole abortion thing with eachother and perhaps even a counselor before the mother decides to go through with it or not)

Saying that a man shouldn't have to pay child support because he didn't agree to have the child and has no say in abortion IS letting him and only him get off scott free without having to take any responsibility for his actions. If the woman has an abortion? then he still gets off scott free. If what you are advocating for were enacted into law than all a father would have to do is say "well I never agreed to have a child, I never wanted the child to begin with" and he would be able to wipe his hands clean, leaving the mother completely on her own and fully responsible for the child he helped to create. This sort of thing would likely lead to more abortions as women find themselves in the position of realizing daddy has bailed and without the child support he would have brought in she can't afford to care for the child or even stay afloat during her pregnancy, it's not like she'll be able to work during a good chunk of it and we have damn poor maternity leave in this country. It would also increase the number of children being put up for adoption for the same reason.

Why let the man get off scott free when the woman can't. Even in the case of abortion, miscarriage, or giving the child up for adoption she doesn't get off scott free. She never does. Why do you assume abortion means the woman isn't taking responsibility? You think it is simple or easy to get one? It isn't.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's pretty sad that people are actually debating the father should get off without having to bear the responsibilities of his actions, yet by all logic and reason he should have to, just as the mother should. And there is the fact that abortions are not recommended as a form of birth control, as they do carry the possibility of serious side-effects just like any medical procedure (with abortions scaring, infertility, and an increase of ectopic pregnancies are some of the potential side-effects).
Really, it's pathetic that someone can even come up with the idea that they should not have to deal with the consequences of their action. Sex can result in pregnancy, birth control can fail, and if you aren't ready to accept responsibility of something that can potentially happen then DON'T HAVE SEX! It goes for women just as much as it does men.

 

[Me Myself]

Saying that a man shouldn't have to pay child support because he didn't agree to have the child and has no say in abortion IS letting him and only him get off scott free without having to take any responsibility for his actions. If the woman has an abortion? then he still gets off scott free. If what you are advocating for were enacted into law than all a father would have to do is say "well I never agreed to have a child, I never wanted the child to begin with" and he would be able to wipe his hands clean, leaving the mother completely on her own and fully responsible for the child he helped to create.

oh no no no no.

He created a zygote, which you argue is NOT a child.

The WOMAN would have DECIDED to CREATE the child. 9 months of creation non less.

If the Zygote is not a child nor a human being, then the man has no bearing on the human being. If the woman is to have the CHOICE of wheter or not she wants to TRANSFORM with HER body the THING into a human being, then SHE, ALONE created the human being. That if the man decided to renounce to it at least, and gave no support for her pregnancy needs and such.

The man only created an "illness" in her body, as others have liked to put.

It may be reasonable to say the man has to pay half the cost of any procedure for abortion if she wants to have one, but the child, you are saying was created AFTER the conception, so by that definition, she is the only one with the responsibility of taking care of him.

I mean you are saying she has the choice of killing the zygote or not, then she is the one resopnsable if the zygote becomes a human being not the father who DOESNT get ANY say in it.

 

[Me Myself]

It's pretty sad that people are actually debating the father should get off without having to bear the responsibilities of his actions, yet by all logic and reason he should have to, just as the mother should. And there is the fact that abortions are not recommended as a form of birth control, as they do carry the possibility of serious side-effects just like any medical procedure (with abortions scaring, infertility, and an increase of ectopic pregnancies are some of the potential side-effects).
Really, it's pathetic that someone can even come up with the idea that they should not have to deal with the consequences of their action. Sex can result in pregnancy, birth control can fail, and if you aren't ready to accept responsibility of something that can potentially happen then DON'T HAVE SEX! It goes for women just as much as it does men.

To that I would agree. I find it sad that women who did decided to have sex knowing they were capable of creating a human being by it would pretend it is not their responsability to take care of that human once it is concieved.

The way I see it, woman should pay 9 months of child care by their choice ( I am not nature, I simply know they did knew the risks and at least so far in science we cannot change the fact that the woman is the one who must bare the baby) and both of them should economically pay for the childs upbringing until s/he is 18 or they put it for adoption.

 

[Alceste]

It's pretty sad that people are actually debating the father should get off without having to bear the responsibilities of his actions, yet by all logic and reason he should have to, just as the mother should. And there is the fact that abortions are not recommended as a form of birth control, as they do carry the possibility of serious side-effects just like any medical procedure (with abortions scaring, infertility, and an increase of ectopic pregnancies are some of the potential side-effects).
Really, it's pathetic that someone can even come up with the idea that they should not have to deal with the consequences of their action. Sex can result in pregnancy, birth control can fail, and if you aren't ready to accept responsibility of something that can potentially happen then DON'T HAVE SEX! It goes for women just as much as it does men.

Or, if you are a man and don't want to pay child support or face the difficult question of abortion, get a vasectomy. That's your business. Pregnancy and how to deal with it is the business of the person who is pregnant.

 

[Me Myself]

Or, if you are a man and don't want to pay child support or face the difficult question of abortion, get a vasectomy. That's your business. Pregnancy and how to deal with it is the business of the person who is pregnant.

Thats like me saying "if you are a woman and you dont want to deal with the dificultness of having a child unprepared, get a corrective surgery for it" (I think they make a noodle with their inner tentacle thingies or something? )

None of them wanted a baby, yet they got one. Either both have the choice of taking the responsability for that unexpected fact or both of them are forced too.

 

[Alceste]

Thats like me saying "if you are a woman and you dont want to deal with the dificultness of having a child unprepared, get a corrective surgery for it" (I think they make a noodle with their inner tentacle thingies or something? )

None of them wanted a baby, yet they got one. Either both have the choice of taking the responsability for that unexpected fact or both of them are forced too.

Ah, but the woman has lots of options. The pill, an IUD, condoms, a shot, a patch, etc. all of which are less risky, expensive and invasive than a tubal ligation, and all more easily reversed. Then, should those options fail, there is the morning after pill, the chemical abortion (a shot in the bum that prevents cellular development from continuing, causing a miscarriage), then surgical abortion. It is entirely up to her which of those options she feels most comfortable with. If she declines all of them, a baby may result. That's her choice and her responsibility.

You are a man. You have two options. Condoms or a vasectomy. If you decline both those options, a baby may result. That is your choice and your responsibility.

 

[Me Myself]

Ah, but the woman has lots of options. The pill, an IUD, condoms, a shot, a patch, etc. all of which are less risky, expensive and invasive than a tubal ligation, and all more easily reversed. Then, should those options fail, there is the morning after pill, the chemical abortion (a shot in the bum that prevents cellular development from continuing, causing a miscarriage), then surgical abortion. It is entirely up to her which of those options she feels most comfortable with. If she declines all of them, a baby may result. That's her choice and her responsibility.

Then it should be her responsibility to pay for such baby.

The man was only responsible for the zygote, which was not a human being. It may make sense to charge him half the abortion if anything, but that[s about it unless he says he is indeed interested in being the father.

When she decided not to get the abortion, she decided to put a human being into the world.

The man never made such decision.

Given that it was her decision 100%, it is 100% her economic responsibility.

You are a man. You have two options. Condoms or a vasectomy. If you decline both those options, a baby may result. That is your choice and your responsibility.

Nope. according to you, a ZYGOTE may result. If it becomes a baby, it is the responsibility of the woman who CHOSE to let it become so. If I said I wanted to be the baby[s father it would be reasonable that I would have to pay half all since the womans pregnancy until the baby gets 18, but if I dont, I only have to pay my part which would be... half the abortion if she wants to have it.

The man didnt risk a baby, but a zygote, according to you.

So the baby was the womans choice, not the mans.