Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Ok, thanks.
-
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!
Why are men expected to take care of their children?
- Thread starter Clizby Wampuscat
- Start date
Heyo
Veteran Member
Because people are cheapskates. In an ideal world the community (state) would agree to support every child with all they need. That would not only take away the burden of the father but also at least the financial burden of the mother (and thus lead to a significant reduction of abortions). But it doesn't cost the state as much as simply forcing the men to support their children.
No, if the woman has to care for the child then the father is equally responsible
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
But that is my point. The woman gets to force a man to take care of a child. I hear all the time that white men force women to take care of babies and that is abhorrent. Women telling men to take care of a baby is ok even if the men cannot afford to take care of it.
For the record I am for both the mother and father working together to take care of the baby if the woman becomes pregnant.
Excuse me dear...
a minimum of selectiveness?
There are so many women who take the pill and would never want to become mothers.
Why don't these aforementioned men date these women instead?
Because they are too "impure"? They are not the saints, the pure virgins without makeup?
Because men want perfection?
You can't have the cake and eat it.
There are women who do anything to get pregnant and expect fathers to support the child.
And men prefer them.
Last edited:
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
It is clearly nothing like as simple as that, even in the least complex situations. Regardless, you are missing a key distinction.
There are three roles for people involved in a pregnancy, the biological father, the biological mother and the person who is pregnant. The biological mother and biological father have exactly the same sets of rights and responsibilities and a person who is pregnant has a different set of rights and responsibilities. In most cases, the biological mother and the pregnant person are the same individual, and so that individual has the combined rights and responsibilities of both roles. The biological father obviously only has the one set of rights and responsibilities.
With surrogacy though, the biological mother and the pregnant person can be two different people. In that situation, the biological mother has exactly the same rights an responsibilities as the biological father and the surrogate gets the rights and responsibilities of a pregnant person. That can include the right to abortion (in given situations depending on the relevant laws).
The distinction with the surrogacy example demonstrates why there are obvious differences between the situation of a mother and a father in a conventional pregnancy. There isn't a double standard because they're not in the same situation. They're both biological parents but only one of them is pregnant. If a man could ever get pregnant by some means in the future, he would have the relevant rights and responsibilities, including options for abortion.
That's true.
There are women who do anything to get pregnant and then they impose the child on the biological father, forcing him to support the child.
That's not what womanhood is.
That's disrespecting men and fatherhood.
A child must be wanted by both parents. You can't impose a child on a father that doesn't want him.
That's pure selfishness and meanness.
There are women who do anything to get pregnant and then they impose the child on the biological father, forcing him to support the child.
That's not what womanhood is.
That's disrespecting men and fatherhood.
A child must be wanted by both parents. You can't impose a child on a father that doesn't want him.
That's pure selfishness and meanness.
The man is half responsible for the child. If they can afford it or not that responsibility is still there.
So who's semen was it?
PureX
Veteran Member
Once the child is born, both parents are responsible for the child's care. During pregnancy, however, the mother's body is responsible for the child's care, and so that responsibility becomes her decision, because it's her body.According to the Guttmacher Institute the two top reasons for women to choose abortion are "I cannot afford a baby right now" and "having a baby would dramatically change my life". These two reasons can apply to the father as well right? So why is the father forced to take care of a child when the mother does not have to for the same reasons?
Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives
Public discussion about abortion in the United States has generally focused on policy: who should be allowed to have abortions, and under what circumstances. Receiving less attention are the women behind the statistics—the 1.3 million women who obtain abortions each year1—and their reasons for...www.guttmacher.org
PureX
Veteran Member
Both are responsible for the pregnancy, and both are responsible for the child when it's born. But only the woman is responsible for the gestation period because it happens inside her body.
Men can choose to use contraception. If he doesn't, well those are the risks. Time to have a talk and make plans. Of course, conservatives want to butt in and be a part of the relationship, even though the couple doesn't want them there.
Rest assured, if and when you get pregnant I will defend your right to make informed decisions regarding your reproductive health.
Because condoms exist as well as the ability to get snipped. So, either way men have a choice to not have kids, either a temporary fix or a permanent one. They can always abstain as well.
Excuse me, juridically it deals with a vulnus.
There is a disparity of rights.
The mother can decide either to have an abortion or to have the child.
The father cannot decide anything and the mother can impose the child on the father, by asking for the DNA test that ascertains the fatherhood.
Yes, it is a double standard as far as I can see. A woman can get an abortion, killing the kid, if she doesn't want them. Or drop them at a "safe space" location and totally abandon them. But a man can't give up his parental rights?
Personally, I think the state should punish such people for creating children they don't want in the first place. I wish straight people would understand that they're not like gay people and can't fully decouple sex from baby-making, unless they are sterilized (and even that fails at times). If a penis is going into or by a vagina, there is some possibility of pregnancy and both partners should be prepared for that, otherwise they have no business having sex. People need to take sex far more seriously than many of them do and stop treating it just as a recreational game.
Last edited:
In real life the father can and does often impose his will on the mother, often by force, threats and terror
And what is wrong with DNA test to verify who the father is?
PureX
Veteran Member
Yes, as it should be.
How is this a problem of "religion" exactly, given the extreme diversity of religions and their teachings (or lack thereof in some cases) about these matters?