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

[Me Myself]

Because a man's responsibility to offspring and his own bodily security and autonomy has nothing to do with abortion. And yet, the OP is arguing that abortion is equated with being a deadbeat dad who bows out of his responsibility to his offspring.

It's a very clear attack on reproductive rights by equating it to morally and legally reprehensible behavior.

I am going by your assumption that a zygote is not a human being, and I am trying to go as if I believed that for the purposes of this discussion.

If this was true, then the man does not have any responsibility towards the child, because he was only responsible for the zygote. The woman could have done something about the zygote, but she didnt. She accepted the sperm of the man without any agreement that the man wanted or would want to support a baby.

I mean, the man gave her sperm so she could have the baby that while she didnt plan, she did end up choosing to have it. The way I see it, she tecnically should be grateful for the gift. If he even wants to economically pay for the child and be part of his life, then it is not a gift but shared custody, and you could say simply that both wanted the baby.

If not though, she fully decided on her own that SHE wanted to have the baby.

 

[Me Myself]

No worries, I figured it was something of the sort.

The risk is only relevant in providing a solid reason for abortion being a woman's choice. It's not relevant to the case of the deadbeat dad-to-be who wants a say in whether his GF can keep the baby.

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.

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.

 

[Alceste]

Unplanned maybe, but it is no longer unwanted since you had the option and decided not to use it.

So it may have been an unplanned pregnancy, but since the moment she decided not to abort, the woman officially accepted SHE wanted a baby.

Something the father has not done officially in any regard unless he has done it.

The same way you say that simply having sex does not mean a woman should be a mother if she happens to concieve, then the same applies for the man.

Now if the woman chooses to become a mother (in other words, she chooses not to abort) thats okay for her, but that was not the decision of the father, so he has no reason to pay for the baby unless he wants to be part of his life.

9 months of pregnancy is nothing in comparison to 18 years of expenses.

If I had to choose, trust me, Id go with 9 months of problems.

I am sure many women would choose to he 9 months if they had the option of paying what the father is FORCED to pay AGAINST HIS WILL.

Like I said, you wouldn't be the first guy to abandon his kid and its mother and deny his responsibilities, and you won't be the last. You need to justify your choices to yourself, not to me.

 

[Me Myself]

Like I said, you wouldn't be the first guy to abandon his kid and its mother and deny his responsibilities, and you won't be the last. You need to justify your choices to yourself, not to me.

You dont want to debate, by all means dont.

If you want to pretend that is what this is about then you are wilfully lying to yourself way more than I thought you would allow yourself to.

By all means try to think why first, if you cant on your own, here is what yu already know but are willfully ignoring so what you just said could pretend to make sense:

Spoiler: obvious is obvious

I am playing devils advocate.

This scenario only makes sense if I belive the zygote is not a human being and if I was pro choice.

I am pro life though, so I wouldnt want to get out of paying my dues when a woman actually recognised his part in it and respected the life in her even when it was unplanned.

If you want to turn this into mere personal comments, I may simply ignore you. I want to think you are capable of rational discussion though, but you are pushing it and I am being very pacient. If you want to keep being deluded about me, by all means you are very welcomed to ignore the thread or put me on ignore.

I know you are capable of more, but I simply wont keep indulging your childishness with serious responses as if your display diserved such

 

[Koldo]

It's also not not reduced by Door #2--neither you nor I can say that Door #2 will succeed or fail to reduce the overall risk. That doesn't matter--push it to the side--we are mitigating the risk of the known door, Door #1. What matters is that offering another option reduces the chance that the risk from the first door will fall into your lap.

Would you prefer to have a limb eaten by a shark or by a crocodile?

It doesn't. It points at the mitigation mentioned above. If you have tickets to two lotteries, you have a better chance of winning than if you have a ticket to one lottery. In this case, what you are winning is your health.

Still, you have to choose which lottery to play.
So it is redundant whether there are a thousand or just a single lottery.

That's probably because it's not an analogy, I was actually asking about broken legs and doctors. If you have a choice to go to a doctor to get your leg looked at vs just leave it to time and nature, why wouldn't you take it?

Unless, of course, you're trying to avoid a perceived analogy... In that case, carry on.

I don't see why talking about broken legs and doctors is relevant then.

 

[Koldo]

If you are fine with men never having to grow a baby in their body and deliver it, why aren't you fine with women never being forced to do the same?

I am not fine with men never having to grow a baby in their body and deliver it.

It really is so simple. Biology makes us different. It puts men and women in completely different situations. Trying to make a case that consequences should be fair/the same/equal is nonsensical as it is NEVER the consequence of sex that a man winds up pregnant. What's fair about that?

What does fairness even have to do with any of it?

How is it the same? Are men having a growth in their abdomen gradually expand over the course of nine months, causing sickness, permanent physiological damage and an inability to work for several weeks, and then TEAR its way through their genitals, causing extreme pain and the risk of death, resulting in the annihilation of their prior hopes and ambitions for at least the next 18 years, if not forever?

No, not the same. Get over it. I'm over the fact that you can theoretically have dozens of kids over the course of your life and never even know they exist. Time for you to get over the fact that when you carelessly impregnate a woman, it's none of your business what she decides to do about it.

If a man doesn't want to make a woman get pregnant all he has to do is get a vasectomy or not have sex at all.
If a woman doesn't want to go through pregnancy all she has to do is get a tubal ligation or not have sex at all.

It works both ways.

 

[Pegg]

Let`s say for a hypothetical that I am pro choice and I leave a woman pregnant.

She decides to have the baby even though none of us wanted the baby when we had sex.

Am I legaly bound to provide to that baby even though I didn`t want to have him/her?

Yes of course you are.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

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.

Let's go with your analogy for a moment: let's say a woman contracts a venereal disease from a man, and she has two options:

- Option 1 has one set of risks but cures the disease with certainty. It costs $1000 as a one-time fee.

- Option 2 has a different set of risks. It doesn't cure the disease; it just manages it. This treatment costs $200 per month for the rest of her life.

Because of the different risks in the two options, the woman decides for Option 2. She also decides to sue the man for half of her treatment costs.

For argument's sake, let's say that a judge will find that the man and woman are jointly responsible, so the man will be responsible for half of a reasonable amount. How much should he make the man pay? A one-time amount of $500, or $100 per month forever? In this case, should it matter that she had a lower-cost option that she decided was unacceptable?

 

[Me Myself]

Let's go with your analogy for a moment: let's say a woman contracts a venereal disease from a man, and she has two options:

- Option 1 has one set of risks but cures the disease with certainty. It costs $1000 as a one-time fee.

- Option 2 has a different set of risks. It doesn't cure the disease; it just manages it. This treatment costs $200 per month for the rest of her life.

Because of the different risks in the two options, the woman decides for Option 2. She also decides to sue the man for half of her treatment costs.

For argument's sake, let's say that a judge will find that the man and woman are jointly responsible, so the man will be responsible for half of a reasonable amount. How much should he make the man pay? A one-time amount of $500, or $100 per month forever? In this case, should it matter that she had a lower-cost option that she decided was unacceptable?

Okay, first, for arguments sake I will not debate (for now) if the man and the woman are or not equally responsible for the womans illness, and we ll just assume they both are and both must pay for it equally.

But then many things cross my mind that I fill are in a void here...

I d say the man should have the ability to pick the cheapest option that STILL retains a very low risk. Now, how low is low? I dont know that much about medical procedures, but lets say for the matter of argument than it is not low enough and the man should have to pay 500 for the rest of his life in this scenario...

How does this change anything, given that the pregnancy ends at 9 months and is not prolonged for ever and that when the baby is born we are no longer treating it as an illness?

I dont know if a man would be held responsible for contaging a woman with a venereal disease if he didnt hide it from her that he had it and both still had consensual sex, but even saying he would, the disease ends at month 9 and from then on we have a baby that she decided to have and that she can put in adoption and that in the sam token he should have the full rights to renounce parenthood and as such economical support.

If I didnt get what you were saying or got lost anywhere by all means point it out to me

 

[McBell]

But the fetus is not the woman's body. Or to better put it, it is as much the woman's body as it is the man's body.
So what?

Well, as soon as a fetus can render its opinion on the matter...

Until then, since the fetus is in the woman's body, not the mans, and it is the woman's body that gets to deal with all the changes the fetus causes, not the mans, and it is the woman's body that goes through to scenario of child birth, not the mans, it is still the woman's choice, not the mans.


Again, I fail to see why it is so complicated a concept for some people.

 

[Me Myself]

Well, as soon as a fetus can render its opinion on the matter...

Until then, since the fetus is in the woman's body, not the mans, and it is the woman's body that gets to deal with all the changes the fetus causes, not the mans, and it is the woman's body that goes through to scenario of child birth, not the mans, it is still the woman's choice, not the mans.


Again, I fail to see why it is so complicated a concept for some people.

Maybe because you are way far away from the topic of the discussion

The OP already assumes the woman can choose as she pleases about the fetus.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Never mind. I think you did miss my point.

I'll try it more directly by echoing a point I made before: there are many situations where one person's actions can affect the obligations of another. The other's obligations aren't limited to only the cheapest option; they only have to be constrained to what is reasonable.

That's the key here, I think: the "reasonable person" test. Is it reasonable for a woman to bring an unplanned pregnancy to term and raise the child herself? Yes, therefore her decision to do that shouldn't affect the man's responsibility for costs. The fact that another option, abortion, could have been reasonably chosen is irrelevant. Having the baby is still a reasonable response to the situation.

If you're going to argue that the man's liability should be limited to half the cost of an abortion, then you're implicitly arguing that in this situation, it's *unreasonable* for the woman to have the baby. This is a position that needs to be supported directly, IMO.

 

[McBell]

Maybe because you are way far away from the topic of the discussion

The OP already assumes the woman can choose as she pleases about the fetus.

Perhaps you should pay better attention to the tangent...

 

[Me Myself]

Perhaps you should pay better attention to the tangent...

Perphaps you should just stick to the thread topic or make your own

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Me Myself, here's an analogy:

Say you're at fault (or partly at fault) in a traffic collision. The other driver's car is damaged so badly that it needs to be towed.

The first tow truck on the scene is a tilt-bed. The truck driver explains that his rate is twice as much as a regular tow truck, and he can call for a regular tow truck, but it will take 2 hours to get there. The car can be towed with a regular tow truck; it doesn't need a tilt-bed, though it will do the job. The driver decides to use the tilt-bed instead of wait.

In that situation, you would still be liable for your share of the cost of the tilt-bed, not just your share of the cost of a regular tow truck, because in that situation, the drive was acting reasonably when he decided that he didn't want to wait two hours with a tow truck right there.

Does this help, or did it just muddy things more?

Edit: my point is that the general principle is that a person's duty is only to act reasonably, not to act in a way that absolutely minimizes costs for the other responsible party.

 

[Koldo]

Well, as soon as a fetus can render its opinion on the matter...

Until then, since the fetus is in the woman's body, not the mans, and it is the woman's body that gets to deal with all the changes the fetus causes, not the mans, and it is the woman's body that goes through to scenario of child birth, not the mans, it is still the woman's choice, not the mans.


Again, I fail to see why it is so complicated a concept for some people.

I disagree with your reasoning. I also fail to see what is so complicated about it.

It is not a decision exclusively about the woman's body. It also relates to a different individual human being.

 

[Me Myself]

Never mind. I think you did miss my point.

Sorry for that, I tried

That's the key here, I think: the "reasonable person" test. Is it reasonable for a woman to bring an unplanned pregnancy to term and raise the child herself? Yes, therefore her decision to do that shouldn't affect the man's responsibility for costs. The fact that another option, abortion, could have been reasonably chosen is irrelevant. Having the baby is still a reasonable response to the situation.

If you're going to argue that the man's liability should be limited to half the cost of an abortion, then you're implicitly arguing that in this situation, it's *unreasonable* for the woman to have the baby. This is a position that needs to be supported directly, IMO.

I am not arguing that it is unreasonable, I am arguing that it is HER choice.

I am even conceding as if the man should pay every expense until the child is born even though that may not be the case of how it would be handled it this child was a disease, the way pro-choice advertise unplanned pregnancies.

The thing is that the baby has nothing to do with the man if he doesnt wish him to have to do with him.

Nothing.

If you lend me your car and I crash it while saving a bus of adorable children and elderly people I might have done not only the reasonable choice but the Heroic one. It was still MY choice to jeopardize your car and you car is still MY responsibility for which I have to pay if you ask me to.

Not because I did something wrong, but simply because we did not agree on me crashing your car. You have no reason to pay for MY decision, whether or not it was made with your car.

So my argument simply is that there is no reason for the man to pay 18 years of the life of the baby if he didnt wanted a baby in the first place, the woman had the option to kill it when it was merely a disease and even when she already had it she still can put it into adoption.

Its not about being the "wrong" choice, it is about being COMPLETELY HER choice, hence, HER responsibility.

So as demonstrated, I do not need to argue it is unreasonable to have the baby, I simply need to argue it has nothing to do with what the man did to her to maintain the baby or 18 years.

 

[McBell]

I disagree with your reasoning. I also fail to see what is so complicated about it.

It is not a decision exclusively about the woman's body. It also relates to a different individual human being.

So what?

The fact of the matter is that it is the womans body the fetus is exploiting.

 

[McBell]

Perphaps you should just stick to the thread topic or make your own

Cry me a river.

 

[Koldo]

So what?

The fact of the matter is that it is the womans body the fetus is exploiting.

So what?

The fact of the matter is that the fetus is not the woman's body.