Koldo
Outstanding Member
Oh please...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Got curious about something... (regards abortion and father`s duties)
- Thread starter Me Myself
- Start date
Oh please...
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I am glad you are having fun.
Where did you support that statement?
I am able to do it, certainly.
But you will benefit much more reading all my posts.
Take my advice and do it.
Are you?
McBell
Unbound
I understand that you think meely repeating something enough will make it true, but the truth is, in the real world, it does not work that way.
you claim to cling to truth but throw truth out the window the first time it becomes inconvenient...
if the woman gets an abortion then BOTH the man and woman are opted out of supporting the child.
If the woman decides to take the pregnancy to term, then BOTH the man and woman have the responsibility to support the child.
so, where is the double standard again?
McBell
Unbound
:biglaugh:
yes, because pregnancy is the woman being totally off the hook...
:biglaugh:
Me Myself
Back to my username
The woman is choosing for both.
The man is not choosing for both.
Proper standards would be each choose for itself. or Both must support the child.
Me Myself
Back to my username
As much as she chooses to be.
McBell
Unbound
the woman is the one who has to deal the pregnancy if chooses that route.
The woman is the one who has to deal with the abortion if she chooses that route.
What exactly is the man doing during those two periods?
Oh yeah, whining about how his paying child support is a much bigger responsibility than actually raising a child...
Alex_G
Enlightner of the Senses
My opinion regarding parental duty and financial support, namely enforceable support, is that it’s not a clear cut subject, both practically and in a moral sense.
When two people have sexual relations, there is scope for it to be for pleasure alone, with no procreative intention what so ever. This would be strongly implied by the implementation/agreement of contraception by both people. Any pregnancy that might thereafter occur would be accidental, an incidental outcome of the interaction as opposed to a principle one. I think the motive behind sex by both parties is an important factor to consider when discussing what each person actually agreed to, and therefore what can be reasonably expected of them, or enforced upon them regarding something like child support.
Of course there's a small risk, known to people, but as a rule contraception is incredibly effective, and i think its defendable for someone to engage in protected sex whilst not being prepared to agree to protracted upbringing and support of a child. Or rather that such an agreement can't be inferred from the mere participation in said protected sex. Perhaps if success rates were as low as 40%, one could expect greater responsibility in its engagement.
I think that to engage in protected sex with someone for casual/pleasure reasons, it’s not unreasonable to assume that both parties therefor imply an express opposition to getting pregnant. Should it then occur, through accident or due to malfunction, i think it’s reasonable for one person to assume the same opposition to pregnancy exists, and that it would be rectified early on, provided that there were no personal, cultural or circumstantial reasons to assume otherwise, and that these were reasonably foreseeable. For the female to decide to subsequently keep the child, that’s pretty much changing the terms, which should factor in to the rights and responsibilities of the male.
In the context of legally recognised gender equality i think it can be argued with some strength that men should have the same human right to relinquish all future parental rights and financial responsibility at an early stage, leaving the female with the same choices regarding her own future and body as she did before. I at least dont see it as an easy conclusion that the male partner should automatically be forced to support something he might never have agreed to, and to be so easily the target of loaded language and insults like 'manning up' and 'dead-beat' should such a status quo be challenged. It doesnt strike me as perfectly fair, and something worth the attention of genuine and thoughful review.
Being an issue best examined case by case, i can see plenty of situations where men who really should be there supporting try and get out of it, and shame on them, but i also see poor sods getting forced to pay 20 odd years of support (which is damn significant), for very unfair reasons. Obviously a system will have certain minor failures, which is to be expected, but a blanket rule to enforce male partners to financially support whatever seems like a pretty large sacrifice on the part of male rights.
On the flip side of things however, from the perspective of the child to-be, i can understand a strong argument that appeals to the human rights of the child to have a certain quality of life, and the common responsibility of that falling to the parents, and being enforceable to protect the child’s wellbeing.
.
When two people have sexual relations, there is scope for it to be for pleasure alone, with no procreative intention what so ever. This would be strongly implied by the implementation/agreement of contraception by both people. Any pregnancy that might thereafter occur would be accidental, an incidental outcome of the interaction as opposed to a principle one. I think the motive behind sex by both parties is an important factor to consider when discussing what each person actually agreed to, and therefore what can be reasonably expected of them, or enforced upon them regarding something like child support.
Of course there's a small risk, known to people, but as a rule contraception is incredibly effective, and i think its defendable for someone to engage in protected sex whilst not being prepared to agree to protracted upbringing and support of a child. Or rather that such an agreement can't be inferred from the mere participation in said protected sex. Perhaps if success rates were as low as 40%, one could expect greater responsibility in its engagement.
I think that to engage in protected sex with someone for casual/pleasure reasons, it’s not unreasonable to assume that both parties therefor imply an express opposition to getting pregnant. Should it then occur, through accident or due to malfunction, i think it’s reasonable for one person to assume the same opposition to pregnancy exists, and that it would be rectified early on, provided that there were no personal, cultural or circumstantial reasons to assume otherwise, and that these were reasonably foreseeable. For the female to decide to subsequently keep the child, that’s pretty much changing the terms, which should factor in to the rights and responsibilities of the male.
In the context of legally recognised gender equality i think it can be argued with some strength that men should have the same human right to relinquish all future parental rights and financial responsibility at an early stage, leaving the female with the same choices regarding her own future and body as she did before. I at least dont see it as an easy conclusion that the male partner should automatically be forced to support something he might never have agreed to, and to be so easily the target of loaded language and insults like 'manning up' and 'dead-beat' should such a status quo be challenged. It doesnt strike me as perfectly fair, and something worth the attention of genuine and thoughful review.
Being an issue best examined case by case, i can see plenty of situations where men who really should be there supporting try and get out of it, and shame on them, but i also see poor sods getting forced to pay 20 odd years of support (which is damn significant), for very unfair reasons. Obviously a system will have certain minor failures, which is to be expected, but a blanket rule to enforce male partners to financially support whatever seems like a pretty large sacrifice on the part of male rights.
On the flip side of things however, from the perspective of the child to-be, i can understand a strong argument that appeals to the human rights of the child to have a certain quality of life, and the common responsibility of that falling to the parents, and being enforceable to protect the child’s wellbeing.
.
Me Myself
Back to my username
McBell
Unbound
He chose that possibility when he engaged in sex.
so still no double standard.
Alceste
Vagabond
No. Nothing to do with "agreeing" to anything. I listed his options for birth control and pointed out that if he chooses not to avail himself of these options, pregnancy is a possible outcome, and a consequence of his decisions. This is the rationale society uses to deem it fitting that IF a child is born, he take his fair share of the burden of raising it.
And I pointed out that the woman is in exactly the same situation, with the only difference being that she still has a few birth control options remaining to her after having sex. That's just a statement of fact. Like the man, if she chooses not to make use of these options, she is held responsible for raising the child.
Me Myself
Back to my username
Fair points all around.
I gave emphasis to what we have witnessed in this very thread, being also very well reflected in reality outside the forum.
Alceste
Vagabond
You may realize by this point that neither of those other people you quoted are me. Nice try, though!
Me Myself
Back to my username
No, not in that part.
The double standard is in the part I quoted. The sex part both had a choice, I am not talking about rape here.
Alceste
Vagabond
Please what? Do you think it's unreasonable for me to suggest that if you are uncomfortable with ALL the consequences of impregnating a woman by accident, you should do everything in your power to avoid it?
Me Myself
Back to my username
Alceste
Vagabond
The man can just as easily "choose for both" by wearing a damn condom. What's wrong with you guys? Jeez. It's not rocket science.
And I have stated repeatedly that a man can go through legal proceedings to relinquish his obligations to a child he has fathered.
But I also think he has an obligation to at the very least help find other sources of support for the child if the mother decides to give birth. To simply walk away after the child is born isn't the best option.
Go through the process of extraditing yourself, name off the certificate, no parental rights to see the child, no support payments, and no right to decide what is best for the child. The best and most ideal obligation, however, is to help the mother find an alternative source of support if she is unable to independently provide the necessary resources.
Me Myself
Back to my username
and the woman by wearing her femidom.
The thing is that conception already having had happened suddenly the woman has more legal rights than the man over whether or not BOTH will be parents.
This makes no sense.
Me Myself
Back to my username
Really? o.o I must have missed that post.
So you say the first answer to the OP was incorrect and the father can indeed let go of his parental rights and does not have any economical responsibility towards the child?