Why are men expected to take care of their children?

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Do you mean because women are historically prejudiced against in Western culture, and have a natural consequence of being pregnant that men don’t have to worry about? Or something else?

No, I do not mean that. I mean women can choose not to take care of a baby they helped create, the father does not have that choice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is not an argument. It is a question. I think both parents have a responsibility to take care of the child. I just don't know why women are not labeled dead beat moms if they don't want to take care of the children?

They are. That's not what abortion is about.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I may be wrong but it sounds to me that you are wondering why if a woman gets pregnant and the man wants the child, his choice can be taken away.(the woman chooses abortion)
On the other hand if the man doesn't want the child, he can be forced to support it.(the woman chooses to have the child)

Sort of. I am asking what I asked, Why can a woman choose not to take care of a baby (abort) while the man cannot just not support it.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The same standard is applied. The mother can't choose not to support the baby either.

Yes she can through abortion is some states and countries. Like I said the #1 reason given for abortion is financial situation of the mother. Not all fathers can financially support the child either, why can't they walk away like the mother can?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Possibly, but that's a slightly different question. The fact remains that a pregnant mother isn't in the same position as the biological father so the idea that the rights and responsibilities they each have must be exactly the same is logically flawed.

Ok, then explain why.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

It is not really a "double standard".

There are different risks for both sexes. A guy could be financially on the hook for eighteen years. Something that you might want to think about before having sex with someone that you do not know all that well. A woman takes the chance of getting pregnant and all of the risks associated with that.

As I just posted. You know, that as an adult male one of the risks that you take when having sex with a woman is a financial one. There are options. You could get a vasectomy and after all of your sperm outside of the testes have died you are set. You could make sure that you wear protection religiously and make sure that you know how to use it properly. Or you could just spend the evening with Rosie Palm and her five daughters.

You can say all of this to a woman as well. The fact is the mother can choose not to take care of the baby once pregnant, the father cannot.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Why do women get to choose if they can take care of their child or not but men do not get this choice? When a woman is pregnant in a country/state that allows abortion she has the option to keep the baby to term or to abort the baby. Lets say a woman decides she cannot support her baby financially and decides to have an abortion. This is thought of by many as her decision and should be respected. If the woman decides to have the baby the father is expected to support that baby financially or he is generally considered a deadbeat if he does not. Why shouldn't the father get to choose whether he wants or can support the child? What if he cannot financially take care of the child and does not want that burden? Why the double standard?

Humanity has a very long history on this topic. One of my favourite lines from Shakespeare is from King Lear, spoken by the Duke of Gloucester in Act 1, Scene 1: "But I have, sir, a son by order of law, some year older than this, who yet is no dearer in my account. Though this knave came something saucily to the world before he was sent for, yet was his mother fair, there was goodsport at his making, and the whoreson must be acknowledged."

Look at what he says: he did nothing but have "good sport," but the girl he did it with was a "whore." How is he guiltless, and she not?

The fact of the matter is this: when conjugal relations happen (within or without marriage), the man's part is pleasurable but brief, but the consequence devolves upon the woman -- who as often as not may not even have had an orgasm, so enjoyed it less than he did. But if the act results in pregnancy, the truth is, he can run away -- he can claim poverty, all sorts of things. But the girl or woman who bore the child is left with the burden of raising it to adulthood.

Now, we have to ask the next question: if the girl/woman decides she wants to abort, the man can offer to support the child once its born. If he does, then fine, let him bring the child up as a single father. He may also say he doesn't want to support the child, and suggest the woman/girl have an abortion. If she agrees, well, the matter is settled. If she does not agree, then when the child is born the expectation is that both parents have a burden of support for it. d

Yet I think that when the woman say she will not abort -- regardless of what the father desires -- then she accepts the burden of raising it for herself. After all, she entered into the conjugal act on her own, with no duress.

 

[Orbit]

You can say all of this to a woman as well. The fact is the mother can choose not to take care of the baby once pregnant, the father cannot.

Would it be radical of me to suggest that both men and women should take care of their children, and that in practice, it's the men who abandon their children most often, not the women?

 

[The Hammer]

Do you think that "religion" only means the doctrinal beliefs of adherents?

No.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can say all of this to a woman as well. The fact is the mother can choose not to take care of the baby once pregnant, the father cannot.

Yep, she has that choice. But you should have known that before having sex. Once again, there are different risks for both sides, that is why there are different standards. That is not a "double standard".

 

[Heyo]

Sort of. I am asking what I asked, Why can a woman choose not to take care of a baby (abort) while the man cannot just not support it.

It's because (most) men want it that way.
Imagine a child would be considered the sole responsibility of the woman. (I'd support that.)
That would mean that no man had any responsibility to support his offspring - and it would mean that he had no right to his offspring. All the proud fathers would run amok if that became law. So they agree that it's OK to go after the deadbeats in order to retain their rights.

 

[F1fan]

No, I do not mean that. I mean women can choose not to take care of a baby they helped create, the father does not have that choice.

So a woman who makes $100K might chose to not feed her kid?

And a man can't move to Alaska and hide?

I can't figure out the scenario you are asserting here. Where are your examples?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No.

So then you understand how your article doesn't really speak to my point, then.

All of the anti-choice protestors who picket in front of my local hospital have signs with the logos of religious organizations on them. The number of protestors doubles or triples during Lent and then drops off again.

Even if these people wouldn't cite their scriptures when arguing for an abortion ban, what's going on is intrinsically tied to religion.

... and that's even without considering the political influence of churches.

 

[Quintessence]

Even if these people wouldn't cite their scriptures when arguing for an abortion ban, what's going on is intrinsically tied to religion.

Yes.

Certain specific religious groups go on anti-choice crusades.

Say. Their. Names.

Painting "religion" with a broad brush makes needless enemies. And we do not need to be doing that on an issue as important as fundamental human rights for women. Stop it.

 

[The Hammer]

No, I do not mean that. I mean women can choose not to take care of a baby they helped create, the father does not have that choice.

The father can take full custody of the child at birth, and the mother willingly rescind her rights.

The mother can do the same.

(I've rescinded my parental rights before).

But that still leaves the conundrum of does the fetus have a right to use the woman's body.

 

[crossfire]

If this is true then the mother cannot use financial stress as a reason to abort the baby just like the father cannot. The pregnant person cannot use that reason either because they are not the one taking care of the baby. But that is the #1 reason given for abortion.

There are several steps one can use to avoid the care for a child, ranging from not having sex, using contraception, getting sterilized, etc. All of these options are open to both men and women. The only step unavailable to a man is the option to abort, simply because he is not pregnant. If a man gets pregnant, then he will certainly have the option to abort.

 

[bobhikes]

deleted

 

[bobhikes]

Why is this standard not applied to the woman as well? If both have the same ability to not get pregnant, then why can one (the woman) choose not to support the baby but the father cannot?

It is applied to women as well they just have an extra option to opt out. If a child is born the state requires both parents to take care of it. The money is given to the parent that makes the least and has the child the most. The father can fight to keep the child and force the mother to pay. It is rare that the father has the child and is paid alimony but does occur today.

 

[HonestJoe]

Ok, then explain why.

I did explain why. Being a biological parent plus being pregnant isn't the same as just being a biological parent. Why would you expect the two to be treated exactly the same?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you not think there is a double standard on this issue? Why should the father be forced to support a baby he cannot afford if the mother has that option?

Yes, it's a double standard, but that's rational and appropriate, not arbitrary. There's an asymmetry before birth that justifies a double standard. Only she is pregnant and only a pregnant person can have an abortion. If men got pregnant, then they could enjoy the same rights as pregnant women and terminate a pregnancy for financial reasons.

This asymmetry disappears after the birth. Now, they're equals again. They're both the parents, and both have a duty to support their children.

Double standards are frequently appropriate. We have different standards for adults and children regarding driving, purchasing tobacco and alcohol, voting, owning a gun, and more, and it's all perfectly reasonable. What's unreasonable is having different standards for men and women, where women aren't permitted to drive, for example. That's arbitrary. So, double standard is not the problem. Unjustified double standard is, and I don't see this as an example of that.

If the woman's reason for an abortion is she cannot financial support the child, why does that not apply to the father as well?

Because he can't have an abortion or order her to have one, either. She has an option he doesn't have. She alone is in a position to end a pregnancy for financial reasons.

You see unfairness here, so how would you propose rectifying it? Would you want it any other way? Would you like for them to be equals during the pregnancy such that either or neither could order the abortion, or that they had to agree to have the baby or the abortion before either option could be entertained? Or maybe you'd like for the man to be able to walk away from the baby's support because he had no say in the abortion versus birth decision?