Why are men expected to take care of their children?

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Your posts suggest that you don't understand it.

Ok

It's equivalent. You said "the mother and father engaged in an activity willingly and they have a responsibility for those actions."

You've suggested that "responsibility" in this case means that the woman should give up bodily autonomy. As I said, this is the mentality of a rapist.

Are you calling me a rapist? or what?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The mother cannot just walk

The mother can't just walk away from her responsibility for he child. It's inside of her body. So she either must have it removed, birth it and adopt it out, or birth it and raise it. How is any of this "just walking away"?

Removing it is walking away from her responsibilities.

 

[PureX]

Removing it is walking away from her responsibilities.

It's really not. But even if it were, it's still a far more difficult thing to do than the man just literally walking away. So I still don't see how you think you are being unfairly put upon. Because it looks to me like you really don't understand why men cannot be allowed to force women to have their babies.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok

Are you calling me a rapist? or what?

I'm saying that you have similar disregard for bodily autonomy as a rapist has.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Removing it is walking away from her responsibilities.

If a child needs a kidney from their father, is it "walking away from his responsibilities" to refuse to provide it?

 

[crossfire]

This has nothing to do with my OP. If the father could just walk away from the responsibility like the mother can wouldn't this help this situation?

Let's go back over the conversation regarding why the woman should have the option of terminating the pregnancy:

I never mention anything about violence. I was thinking more of I will make you carry the baby out of spite. I also think managing a pregnancy belongs to the woman. I never said anything different.

Either way, if someone (state or partner) disagrees with the woman's wishes regarding the pregnancy, it's gonna be bad news for the woman no matter what.

Ok

I've got a study to back it up:

Science Update: Pregnancy-associated homicides on the rise in the United States, suggests NICHD-funded study

U.S. rates of pregnancy-associated homicide—deaths that occur among women who are pregnant or had been pregnant within one year—rose in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a recent NICHD-funded study.

www.nichd.nih.gov

Snippet:

​

U.S. rates of pregnancy-associated homicide—deaths that occur among women who are pregnant or had been pregnant within one year—rose in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a recent NICHD-funded study. In 2020, the risk of homicide was 35% higher for pregnant or postpartum women, compared to women of reproductive age who were not pregnant or postpartum. Homicide rates were highest among adolescents and Black women, with most incidents involving firearms. The findings suggest that violence prevention programs and policies in the United States should address these risks in pregnancy and after birth.​

​

​

Background​

Homicide is one of the leading causes of death among pregnant and postpartum individuals in the United States, and during the COVID-19 pandemic, firearm violence and homicide rates increased among the general public. Whether the pandemic also influenced rates of pregnancy-associated homicide was unknown prior to this study.​

​

The study was conducted by Maeve Wallace, Ph.D., M.P.H., at Tulane University. The work was funded in part by NIH’s Implementing a Maternal health and Pregnancy Outcomes Vision for Everyone (IMPROVE) Initiative. The initiative supports research to reduce preventable causes of maternal deaths and to improve health for women before, during, and after delivery."​

The statistics show that pregnant women experience violence and are homicide victims more often than non-pregnant women of childbearing age. Their wishes regarding whether to continue or to terminate their pregnancy needs to be respected, as this is a more dangerous time of their life, not only due to the medical dangers they face, but also due to the fact that they face higher levels of violence at this time. That's the pragmatic solution.

 

[Koldo]

I'm saying that you have similar disregard for bodily autonomy as a rapist has.

And you have a similar disregard for human life as Hitler had, since you approve of mass murder...
And since I approve abortion, but only up to a certain time period, I must therefore be equal to both a rapist and a mass murderer, right?

Come on, you can do better than that.

 

[Koldo]

I think you understand that this isn't true.



So then you don't want women to have bodily autonomy.

Pretending that you haven't taken this monstrous position doesn't make it any better. The fact that you know to deny what you're doing just highlights that you recognize that it's wrong.

Rights clash against each other all the time. Not always supporting a particular one to trump over the others doesn't entails never supporting it.

 

[Koldo]

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?

But the mother can't choose to refuse to support the child financially once they are born.
What is unique to women is that, depending on the country we are talking about, they are entirely to free to take the unilateral decision of killing the fetus.

 

[Koldo]

You're not quite understanding my argument, here. Men aren't expected to support the child anywhere near the same degree as women are. Again, at the absolute bare minimum a man is expected to financially support the child and mother. That's it. By comparison, at the absolute bare minimum, the mother is expected to carry that baby - with all accompanying health, personal and financial impacts that entails - and then continue to raise that child from birth to adulthood, supporting both personally and financially for as long as she lives.

The social expectations are nowhere near comparable. What you're complaining about here is like complaining that fathers are expected to do something that requires not even the slightest fraction of comparable effort of what the mother puts in.


Because the impact on them is greater, obviously. If they choose to carry the baby to term, they are choosing to take on a significant amount more responsibility (as well as a significant amount more stress, both financially and physically) than a father (at least, at the bare minimum) is expected to.

Think of it this way. If a woman has a child and the father chooses not to support it financially, how does society feel towards that father? Like you said, they're often ostracised and called a deadbeat dad. But, for the most part, society just looks down on them a little. What if a mother decides to completely abandon their baby and not support it in any way (say, leaving the father to raise it)? Do you think that society would be just a little more harsh on that woman than they would that man, despite the fact that they're both doing more or less the same thing?

Being a deadbeat dad is seen as being bad. Being a mother who abandons their baby is seen as being an absolute, irredeemable monster.


You keep ignoring the DEGREE of support that is expected. You can't equate these things. They're not the same expectations.


Irrelevant. The mother makes the decision because the majority of the burden is on them, regardless of the father's role in bringing up the child.

So, if a choice entails placing a burden upon your shoulders, as long as I am placing a bigger burden upon mine, I get to make this choice unilaterally? Why?

Do you truly think like that? Imagine, for example, a world where the law mandates the father taking full responsibility over raising children and imposes absolutely no responsibility on mothers. Would on this world, as per your perspecetive, the father have the right to make the unilateral decision to abort the fetus?

 

[bobhikes]

Why do you think that they both have a responsibility before having sex but then the mother does not have a responsibility if those action lead to a pregnancy?

She has an extra choice made hopefully responsibly but one that ultimately hers alone.

 

[libre]

Libertarian philosophers have previously come up with the concept of a proposed 'economic abortion' that would allow the male partner to veto his economic responsibility whilst abortion was still on the table for the woman.

It's wildly unpopular among the conservative right because it's seen that the man trying to back out might pressure the woman to abort the fetus.
It's wildly unpopular among social progressives because it would lead to children who did not have an economic provider, and would worsen the children's quality of life.

All around, this 'double-standard' that we have is a good thing for the children who get born, and protects a woman from getting an abortion when she does not want one. It's a good thing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Rights clash against each other all the time. Not always supporting a particular one to trump over the others doesn't entails never supporting it.

Sure... and that's telling in and of itself. Of @Clizby Wampuscat supports bodily autonomy in situations that he - or men generally - might find himself in, but not in a situation that cis men would find themselves in, then this suggests a few possibilities.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So, if a choice entails placing a burden upon your shoulders, as long as I am placing a bigger burden upon mine, I get to make this choice unilaterally? Why?

Do you truly think like that? Imagine, for example, a world where the law mandates the father taking full responsibility over raising children and imposes absolutely no responsibility on mothers. Would on this world, as per your perspecetive, the father have the right to make the unilateral decision to abort the fetus?

If the fetus was in his own body, sure. But it's not. It's in someone else's body. That someone else has to bear the burden of the pregnancy and the toll it takes on her body and mind.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Rights clash against each other all the time. Not always supporting a particular one to trump over the others doesn't entails never supporting it.

But bodily security does trump all other rights, and even people like @Clizby Wampuscat acknowledge this in every other context.

For instance, we don't force people to donate organs no matter how many lives this would save.

If the only thing that would save a child's life is a kidney or even a pint of blood from his father, the father still has every right to refuse, no matter what his reasons.

... and this is for a child that's unquestionably alive, sentient, sapient, intelligent, and able to express a desire to live. The father is just as responsible for the child's existence now as he was when the child was a fetus.

This is still the case after death: if the father dies with an expressed wish not to donate his kidney, the child doesn't get the life-saving kidney. The bodily security of a corpse trumps the right to life of another person.

The main difference between bodily security in pregnancy and all other cases of bodily security: misogyny. A cis man's rights will never be compromised by limiting the bodily security of pregnant people.

 

[Koldo]

If the fetus was in his own body, sure. But it's not. It's in someone else's body. That someone else has to bear the burden of the pregnancy and the toll it takes on her body and mind.

Which is, generally speaking, significantly smaller than taking full responsibility over a child once they are born.

 

[Koldo]

But bodily security does trump all other rights, and even people like @Clizby Wampuscat acknowledge this in every other context.

For instance, we don't force people to donate organs no matter how many lives this would save.

If the only thing that would save a child's life is a kidney or even a pint of blood from his father, the father still has every right to refuse, no matter what his reasons.

... and this is for a child that's unquestionably alive, sentient, sapient, intelligent, and able to express a desire to live. The father is just as responsible for the child's existence now as he was when the child was a fetus.

This is still the case after death: if the father dies with an expressed wish not to donate his kidney, the child doesn't get the life-saving kidney. The bodily security of a corpse trumps the right to life of another person.

The main difference between bodily security in pregnancy and all other cases of bodily security: misogyny. A cis man's rights will never be compromised by limiting the bodily security of pregnant people.

Infant (male) circumcision, infant (female) ear piercing, infant vaccination, adult mandatory vaccination, mandatory mask use, legal drinking age, drug prohibition, prescription drugs...

Those are examples of cases where bodily autonomy is relativized. It is definitely not exclusive to abortion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Infant (male) circumcision, infant (female) ear piercing, infant vaccination, adult mandatory vaccination, mandatory mask use, legal drinking age, drug prohibition, prescription drugs...

Those are examples of cases where bodily autonomy is relativized. It is definitely not exclusive to abortion.

A lot of those don't have anything to do with bodily autonomy.

Parents are stewards of their children and exercise the child's rights on the child's behalf until old enough to do so.

 

[Koldo]

A lot of those don't have anything to do with bodily autonomy.

Specify which ones.

Parents are stewards of their children and exercise the child's rights on the child's behalf until old enough to do so.

It is, however, self-contradictory to exercise someone else's right to bodily autonomy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Specify which ones.

These ones:

- adult mandatory vaccination (presuming that you mean vaccination as a condition of employment or to do some voluntary thing)
- mandatory mask use
- legal drinking age
- drug prohibition
- prescription drugs (FYI: I'm not even sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that the fact we need prescriptions for some drugs is an infringement of our bodily autonomy?)

It is, however, self-contradictory to exercise someone else's right to bodily autonomy.

No; like I said, the parent is the steward of the child's rights. The child has the right to bodily autonomy - a doctor can't unilaterally give a child a vaccine - but the right is exercised by the parent until the child is old enough to exercise the right themselves.