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

[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.

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.



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.

Excuse me? Where did I say that a pregnancy that is not either avoided in the first place or terminated early results in the birth of a "zygote" nine months down the road? Have you never learned the different stages of fetal development?

I think you didn't understand my post. If you don't want a surprise baby, get a vasectomy. If you don't want to have any accidents, get a vasectomy. You should be wearing a condom anyway, but if you want a second line of defense, get a vasectomy.

Trying to impose your personal opinion on women because you are not man enough to take responsibility for your own birth control is cowardly. You are responsible for your personal health decisions. The personal health decisions of women are none of your business.

 

[Me Myself]

Excuse me? Where did I say that a pregnancy that is not either avoided in the first place our terminated early results in the birth of a "zygote" nine months down the road? Have you never learned the different stages of fetal development?

I have no idea what you are asking about.

I am saying that the man is responsible for the zygote. What I mean is that there is no reason he should pay the expenses of the baby that the woman would choose to have unless he had also agreed to be the father.

Trying to impose your personal opinion on women because you are not man enough to take responsibility for your own birth control is cowardly.

I have no idea where this is coming from if it does not come from a grave misconception of everything and anything I have said, so I will just ignore it

 

[Alceste]

I have no idea what you are asking about.

I am saying that the man is responsible for the zygote. What I mean is that there is no reason he should pay the expenses of the baby that the woman would choose to have unless he had also agreed to be the father.



I have no idea where this is coming from if it does not come from a grave misconception of everything and anything I have said, so I will just ignore it

The man implicitly agrees to father a child and pay for it by having sex without taking any PERSONAL precautions to avoid causing an unwanted pregnancy. Exactly as a woman does, except that she has a few extra lines of defense against unwanted pregnancy, such as abortion.

You want to be able to decide what PERSONAL choices a woman makes regarding her own reproduction. That is imposing your will on women because you are too cowardly to take responsibility for preventing pregnancy yourself.

 

[NIX]

What about cases I've heard of where a man waves all of his parental rights and rights to see the child in exchange for not having to pay any child support.

Does this kind of thing happen only when the woman is in agreement?

 

[Me Myself]

The man implicitly agrees to father a child and pay for it by having sex without taking any PERSONAL precautions to avoid causing an unwanted pregnancy.

Not at all unless he is in a country where abortion is ilegal. Even if both their precautions flunked to have the zygote, the mother is the one making the choice of wheter or not the BABY will come in a country where abortion is legal. Unless otherwisely specified.

So if it is her choice, it is her responsability.

Exactly as a woman does, except that she has a few extra lines of defense against unwanted pregnancy, such as abortion.

You are forgeting another big one:

Adoption.

She can just drop the guy on a foster home and forget about him for ever. So you are still giving the father far less rights and impossing him on how to spend HIS money on something that was NOT his choice (having the baby. His choice was to have sex and the effect was a zygote, not a baby. A baby would be the effect of the woman not aborting, which you argue has everything to do with her. Well then, the effects of her not aborting would need to have everything to do with her too)

You want to be able to decide what PERSONAL choices a woman makes regarding her own reproduction. That is imposing your will on women because you are too cowardly to take responsibility for preventing pregnancy yourself.

I can buy a gun and prevent people entering into my house and hurting my family by shooting them in the head before they can do that. Now I do want laws preventing them from making the PERSONAL decision of even freaking trying, on my house, or anybody elses.

 

[NIX]

The man implicitly agrees to father a child and pay for it by having sex without taking any PERSONAL precautions to avoid causing an unwanted pregnancy. Exactly as a woman does, except that she has a few extra lines of defense against unwanted pregnancy, such as abortion.

You want to be able to decide what PERSONAL choices a woman makes regarding her own reproduction. That is imposing your will on women because you are too cowardly to take responsibility for preventing pregnancy yourself.

If a man uses a condom and there is a pregnancy, does that mean he implicity declined to father a child and pay for it?

 

[Me Myself]

What about cases I've heard of where a man waves all of his parental rights and rights to see the child in exchange for not having to pay any child support.

Does this kind of thing happen only when the woman is in agreement?

This would be the logical scenario that should happen wheter the woman is in agreement or not.

At least it would be consistent with the "Zygote is not a human being" mentality

 

[Alceste]

If a man uses a condom and there is a pregnancy, does that mean he implicity declined to father a child and pay for it?

It means they both implicitly declined to have a child and pay for it, but since they are having sex they accept a certain degree of possibility that pregnancy still might occur, at which point the man has exhausted all his personal options for preventing unwanted pregnancy (maybe he should have had a vasectomy!) but the woman still has one left.

 

[Me Myself]

It means they both implicitly declined to have a child and pay for it, but since they are having sex they accept a certain degree of possibility that pregnancy still might occur, at which point the man has exhausted all his personal options for preventing unwanted pregnancy (maybe he should have had a vasectomy!) but the woman still has one left.

If the woman has the choice to relinquish her responsibility, then fairness means the man most have the choice if it is posible, and it is.

The choice would simply be as he proposed: not having any parental rights, but not having to pay for the child either.

Gaining 18 years of advantage over a 9 month trial is a good deal for the woman and a lousy one for the man. The law instead of trying to equate it, is punishing the man for sex. The fact that neither had a child preventing surgery is something that weights on both shoulders, but the fact that the women did not deal with the "thing" when she could and NOTHING was stopping her, weighs only on hers.

 

[NIX]

It means they both implicitly declined to have a child and pay for it, but since they are having sex they accept a certain degree of possibility that pregnancy still might occur, at which point the man has exhausted all his personal options for preventing unwanted pregnancy (maybe he should have had a vasectomy!) but the woman still has one left.

I'm not sure how the man using a condom counts as the woman implicity declining to have a child .... any more than a woman taking the pill counts as the man implicity declining to have a child.... but I digress.

Probably, besides using every reasonable line of defense, it's best to know you and your partner are on the same page to begin with. Much less chance of horrible suprises and drama later.

 

[Me Myself]

The mans responsibility was with the conception.

Given that the formation of the human being and the conception are regarded as 2 different things, then it makes no sense he should have equal responsibility if the woman decides to make the zygote a human being.

 

[Alceste]

If the woman has the choice to relinquish her responsibility, then fairness means the man most have the choice if it is posible, and it is.

The choice would simply be as he proposed: not having any parental rights, but not having to pay for the child either.

Gaining 18 years of advantage over a 9 month trial is a good deal for the woman and a lousy one for the man. The law instead of trying to equate it, is punishing the man for sex. The fact that neither had a child preventing surgery is something that weights on both shoulders, but the fact that the women did not deal with the "thing" when she could and NOTHING was stopping her, weighs only on hers.

I keep telling you, you DO have a choice. You can get a vasectomy, and wear a condom. If you choose not to do so, there is nobody to blame for the consequences but yourself. If your birth control strategy basically amounts to finger pointing, whining about unfairness and wishful thinking, you are choosing to have accidents. The consequences if those accidents are YOUR responsibly.

 

[Alceste]

The mans responsibility was with the conception.

Given that the formation of the human being and the conception are regarded as 2 different things, then it makes no sense he should have equal responsibility if the woman decides to make the zygote a human being.

You might as well take that philosophy and run with it. You won't be the first deadbeat Dad, and you won't be the last. Hopefully any women you accidentally knock up in your life due to your selfishness and immaturity will realize you have no intention of accepting the consequences of your actions - before it's too late for them to get an abortion.

 

[Me Myself]

I keep telling you, you DO have a choice. You can get a vasectomy, and wear a condom. If you choose not to do so, there is nobody to blame for the consequences but yourself. If your birth control strategy basically amounts to finger pointing, whining about unfairness and wishful thinking, you are choosing to have accidents. The consequences if those accidents are YOUR responsibly.

Having a baby (I didnt say conceiving a zygote) is no accident if you are in a country where abortion is legal.

 

[Alceste]

Having a baby (I didnt say conceiving a zygote) is no accident if you are in a country where abortion is legal.

It can still be an accident. Many women in countries where we have a choice decide not to terminate an accidental pregnancy. That's the whole point of having a choice - it's between her, her conscience and her doctor.

 

[Me Myself]

It can still be an accident. Many women in countries where we have a choice decide not to terminate an accidental pregnancy.

And exactly thats why the baby is not an accident even if the zygote was. If they decided to take care of a baby and to use the zygote that they have in their bellies to make that baby that is THEIR choice, with which the biological parent had nothing to do with.

So logically, economical support has nothing to do with it neither on their part.

THEY decided to have a baby. The parent merely decided to RISK a ZYGOTE, which is NOT a baby. Given that she was able to kill the zygote if she wanted, then it is not his responsibility if it becomes a child.

 

[NIX]

There is nothing fair and equal about child bearing. It is the woman who takes ALL of the risks. There is no such thing as equality in child bearing. That's just the way it is. You can thank god or nature for that. Whatever you please. It's best that partners be on the same page to begin with, however, pregnancy itself lies completely in the realm/domain of the woman. This statement is self explanitory. You can try to dance around it all kinds of ways, but nothing is going to change it.

 

[Me Myself]

I ll put it simply:

There is no reason for not giving the choice to the man of wanting or not to take care of the baby economically.

If the mother doesnt want the child to be hers, she can kill the zygote, if the father doesnt want the child to be his, he just needs to legaly renounce to the rights (and as such, to the expenses)

Then both of them would have had an equal oportunity to decide wheter or not they wanted to have a child in their lifes at that moment or not.

If the woman didnt feel it was okay to have the baby when she is the one having to go through childbirth, she can abort the zygote. If she is not capable of sustaining the baby economically by her own efforts but she STILL DECIDES to have a baby even though the man DIDNT WANT IT and has RENOUNCED the parenthood then there is no reason to use the zygote of that man. She can kill it and search for a man who is willing to have the baby.

So there is no reason to put the man at total dependance on the woman in the same way there would be no reason for the woman to give childbirth or share body with the not-human-yet if she doesnt want to.

 

[NIX]

I ll put it simply:

There is no reason for not giving the choice to the man of wanting or not to take care of the baby economically.

If the mother doesnt want the child to be hers, she can kill the zygote, if the father doesnt want the child to be his, he just needs to legaly renounce to the rights (and as such, to the expenses)

Then both of them would have had an equal oportunity to decide wheter or not they wanted to have a child in their lifes at that moment or not.

If the woman didnt feel it was okay to have the baby when she is the one having to go through childbirth, she can abort the zygote. If she is not capable of sustaining the baby economically by her own efforts but she STILL DECIDES to have a baby even though the man DIDNT WANT IT and has RENOUNCED the parenthood then there is no reason to use the zygote of that man. She can kill it and search for a man who is willing to have the baby.

So there is no reason to put the man at total dependance on the woman in the same way there would be no reason for the woman to give childbirth or share body with the not-human-yet if she doesnt want to.

The woman has to take all of the risks and go through invasive medical procedures. The man just has to say "I'm out"? And that masquarades as some kind of equality? laughable.

Maybe the man should have searched for a woman to begin with who was in no way willing to go through a pregnancy or raise a child. After the condom and the vascectomy and the pill all fail, call that his fourth line of defense.

 

[Me Myself]

The woman has to take all of the risks and go through invasive medical procedures. The man just has to say "I'm out"? And that masquarades as some kind of equality? laughable.

I[d say it be reasonable to make the man pay half of whatever economical cost the abortion costs.

Maybe the man should have searched for a woman to begin with who was in no way willing to go through a pregnancy or raise a child. After the condom and the vascectomy and the pill all fail, call that his fourth line of defense.

Neither man nor woman ask each other ideologies on a one night stand.

Furthermore, the woman can still put the child in a foster home if she wants after she gave him/her birth. So it still makes no sense for the man to be bound 18 years economically if he doesnt want to and is willing to give up parental rights.