Why are men expected to take care of their children?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes.

Certain specific religious groups go on anti-choice crusades.

Say. Their. Names.

Yes - only certain specific religious groups (i.e. the ones that make up most of humanity's religious adherents) are anti-choice. In the same sense, only certain specific cars (i.e. the ones with internal combustion engines) are responsible for most of the transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions.

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.

It isn't me doing this. We lump "religion" together in all sorts of ways.

We give special tax breaks to groups if they qualify as "religious" that they wouldn't qualify for otherwise. We give special regard to religious matters of conscience that we deny to people with deeply-held non-religious beliefs.

Unless we want different standards of treatment for religions favoured by the government and religions out of favour (which I hope you agree would be a horrible idea), then our policies are going to treat "religion" as a broad brush.

 

[The Hammer]

intrinsically tied to religion.

Worldview. Not the same as religion.

Even if I held a picket sign that said "Thor loves babies - I'm pro-choice", doesn't make my reasoning for being there as necessarily religious.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Worldview. Not the same as religion.

Even if I held a picket sign that said "Thor loves babies - I'm pro-choice", doesn't make my reasoning for being there as necessarily religious.

Maybe my point wasn't as obvious as I thought it was.

A religion is a community. Shared activities - whether "fellowship" movie nights in the church hall or picketing a hospital - are expressions of community, and therefore also expressions of religion.

This is still true even if the group doesn't try to justify the group activity doctrinally. It's still true regardless of the reasoning behind it.

 

[PureX]

But that is forcing the father to take care of the baby where the mother has a right not to take care of the baby.

Life isn't fair. Why should the woman have to sacrifice so much of her own health to provide offspring? While the man does not? You should be thanking God that YOU don't have to carry and birth the child, or make the decision for it's future!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But that is forcing the father to take care of the baby where the mother has a right not to take care of the baby.

The pregnant person's right is to end the pregnancy. If they choose not to exercise this right, then they'll end up with all the rights of parenthood.

This has been explained to you many times in many ways, so I expect it won't get through to you this time either, but for the benefit of others reading the thread:

We don't get to violate bodily autonomy. Just as a woman wouldn't be able to enforce her desire not to have a child by forcing her partner to get a vasectomy against their will, her partner also can't enforce their desire to have a child by forcing her to become or remain pregnant against her will, either.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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.

I am not sure if we agree or not. In any situation I do not think the father should be able to tell the woman she must have the child so he can support it. It is true I am against abortion but if the father can tell the mother she has to have the baby that can lead to abuse or retaliation etc.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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?

I have said I am for both parents taking care of the child if the woman becomes pregnant. That is the moral and ethical thing to do. Abortion is neither moral or ethical.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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".

You may be right. Hope you have a great day.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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.

This is my question, women have this option men do not. Plenty of women abandon their children.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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?

Examples of what? My OP was a question. There are plenty of examples of men and women running away from their responsibilities to children they create, but that is not what the OP was about.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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.

Why does the oqman have the option to abort when you say she has a bunch of options not to get pregnant in the first place?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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.

Why does she have an extra option and the father does not after pregnancy?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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?

OK

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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.

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?

You may be right. Hope you have a great day.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The pregnant person's right is to end the pregnancy. If they choose not to exercise this right, then they'll end up with all the rights of parenthood.

This has been explained to you many times in many ways, so I expect it won't get through to you this time either, but for the benefit of others reading the thread:

We don't get to violate bodily autonomy. Just as a woman wouldn't be able to enforce her desire not to have a child by forcing her partner to get a vasectomy against their will, her partner also can't enforce their desire to have a child by forcing her to become or remain pregnant against her will, either.

My question has nothing to do with bodily autonomy. The woman can do what she wants.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Life isn't fair. Why should the woman have to sacrifice so much of her own health to provide offspring? While the man does not? You should be thanking God that YOU don't have to carry and birth the child, or make the decision for it's future!

This has nothing to do with my OP. The woman can do what she wants.

 

[F1fan]

Examples of what? My OP was a question. There are plenty of examples of men and women running away from their responsibilities to children they create, but that is not what the OP was about.

Your questions are vague and narrow. It is a trap that is open to a liberal answer that you then push back on due to details you didn't include.

This has nothing to do with my OP. The woman can do what she wants.

Not in red states in regards to her reproductive care.

So you think Roe should be the law? That abortion access should be available to all women in the USA, and the reasons are up to them, not the state?

Why does the oqman have the option to abort when you say she has a bunch of options not to get pregnant in the first place?

Because contraception does not always work, and why should a woman be forced to give birth due to a flaw in prevantative measures? The abortion pill is being used in red states and now the courts are ruling on that being available, an issue brought up due to politics, not safety.

 

[wellwisher]

Do you understand the difference between supporting someone financially and supporting someone by allowing them the use of your body over nine months, including multiple medical procedures and processes that - in many cases - lead to significant and permanent changes to your life and body and - in most cases - the expectation of continuing to support that individual throughout the entire rest of your life, both financially and personally, with a significant cost to you in monetary, physical, social and personal terms?

If a male wanted his gal to have an abortion, to spare his gal from that terrible blight you speak of, he still has no say. Why the dual standard?

If we reverse this and the woman wanted the child, but the male did not, why is there a slavery loophole that can be imposed on men; indentured servitude. Child support can also become a slush fund for the mother. Maybe in such cases, the mother can provide maid indentured servitude, for the father's home to balance the servitude.

One may argue that birth and abortion is a women's right. Ok, can you name me a man's right that allows for dual standards in the favor of the male, codified into law? Maybe the men can pick one or two if we cannot think of one.

I never liked too much nagging, since it can become psychology torture. It not easy way to defend yourself, since physicality is off the table and resistance makes it worse. How about nagging free zones, with hostile nagging treated as assault. You can be fired for doing that at work. Guys then get to nag to make the dual standard complete. This does not seem fair, right?

Affirmative action and now DEI use the same principles of codifying dual standards. Either we all get them or nobody gets them. Equal rights means the same set of rules for all, with individual talents and hard work determining your own outcome. Dual standards are not about equal rights but the entitlements of dual standards.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is my question, women have this option men do not. Plenty of women abandon their children.

That may change in the future. It used to be when a child was abandoned that it would be very hard to determine the mother. Unless the child was a few years old. Of course right now by "abandoning" that would mean giving up for adoption. And there is a ready market for that so the child is probably better off as is the mother. And a couple has a baby that they wanted. Wins all around. But I could see a new possibility looming. The father may have some rights. Previously it could be almost impossible to know who the father was. The mother would only need to claim that it was a one night stand. But now a man may be able to say "I want to take care of the baby that I fathered". If a court could determine that his demands were genuine and he had the ability to do so he could be awarded custody. He might then even be able to hit up the mother for child support. Here is one interesting possibility. As you know the DNA data base exists already so that almost anyone can be found by their DNA even if no sample exists. Soon it might get to the point where one cannot hide from it. If you have a child, even without knowing it, you could be alerted some time in the future and be given the option of raising it yourself as a father before an adoption is completed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If a male wanted his gal to have an abortion, to spare his gal from that terrible blight you speak of, he still has no say. Why the dual standard?

Different circumstances, different standards. Can you get pregnant? Do you run all of the risks associated with it? No? Why the dual standard. There have to be different standards for different situations.

If we reverse this and the woman wanted the child, but the male did not, why is there a slavery loophole that can be imposed on men; indentured servitude. Child support can also become a slush fund for the mother. Maybe in such cases, the mother can provide maid indentured servitude, for the father's home to balance the servitude.

Because the man knew the risk before he had sex. That is a risk that we men take when we have sex with any woman. Well, you might have an out if you have sex with a married woman. Then her husband may be on the hook financially.

One may argue that birth and abortion is a women's right. Ok, can you name me a man's right that allows for dual standards in the favor of the male, codified into law? Maybe the men can pick one or two if we cannot think of one.

Biological males cannot get pregnant. That is not "codified into law". That is just a fact of life. That gives them al sorts of financial advantages in life.

I never liked too much nagging, since it can become psychology torture. It not easy way to defend yourself, since physicality is off the table and resistance makes it worse. How about nagging free zones, with hostile nagging treated as assault. You can be fired for doing that at work. Guys then get to nag to make the dual standard complete. This does not seem fair, right?

WTF???

Affirmative action and now DEI use the same principles of codifying dual standards. Either we all get them or nobody gets them. Equal rights means the same set of rules for all, with individual talents and hard work determining your own outcome. Dual standards are not about equal rights but the entitlements of dual standards.

They are not really "dual standards". They are different standards for different situations. Here is the deal if you are a man, your advantages, you cannot get pregnant. That means that you will not lose quite a bit of time from work. You won't have serious body issues that will be with you for the rest of your life. And you do not take the risk of dying in child birth. Unfortunately if you do have sex with someone you are agreeing (even if you do not know it) to help to raise any children that arise from that union. And you have no choice in that matter one you have sex. You already tacitly agreed to that.

Perhaps that should be emphasized in sex ed classes a lot more. Men take a risk of child support when they have sex.

For women they take the risk of getting pregnant. That has all sorts of downsides. Men are not being told they they have to pay for that if it happens since the woman can end it. But if the pregnancy goes full term there is a young child as a result. It has the father's DNA and the father is on the hook financially for that.

By the way, if you are a male there are ways to avoid this risk. As the anti abortion people so often say, you do not have to have sex in the first place. You could get a vasectomy. There are ways to "have sex" but make the risks very low. Use other ports of entry. Go to a "massage parlor" that only does happy endings. Learn how to use a condom effectively and use them religiously (this may be a way to bring young atheistic men to God).