NationStates Jolt Archive

First off, I don't plan to debate this, I just want to see what the reaction is to this concept of abortion. I'm not heartless, I'm just curious. So, here goes.

Let's start with a hypothetical situation: Billy and Sally are two young people. They have no clearly defined religious beliefs, and are attending the same college. Billy has a part time job to pay for expenses, and Sally's parents cover hers.

Billy and Sally meet at a party and really hit it off. They leave together and go to Billy's apartment. They spend a night getting to know each other in the biblical sense (while using a condom of course). They bid each other adieu the following morning both accepting it as a one night stand.

A month later, Sally is concerned because she is far over due for her period, and has been missing classes because of nausea. She goes to her doctor to discover that she is pregnant.

Calling Billy, she relays the information. He is shocked and doesn't know how to respond. He can't support a baby financially without quitting school and going to work full time, but that would ruin his hope of one day being a doctor. Turning to the only alternative he could see, he suggests an abortion. Sally is appalled, for she is morally opposed to abortion, and would never do such a thing. Because of the laws in his nation, Billy has no say in the matter.

Several months later, Sally gives birth to the baby. The baby suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome from Sally's college drinking binges, and requires significant medical attention. The baby will need extensive medical care through out its development, but is mentally fine.

Billy is forced by his state to pay child support for the following 18 years and is forced from college and into the workforce so that he can meet the high payments. He leads a life not at all comparable to the one he would have had he finished school or not been forced to pay child support.



So, the key issue is: If the man has no say on whether or not a baby is born, why is he responsible for supporting that child to age 18?

The average cost of raising a child from birth to age 18 is $250,000 working out to about $20,850 a year. That is a significant dent to almost anyone's income, but especially if you are not college educated and can not attain a high salary position. This is not even considering that a mentally or physically retarded baby would cost astronomically more.

It seems unfair to me that men are on the really short end of the stick here. They have no part in the decision making process, but have atleast half the financial responsibility.

I'm not suggesting that fathers should have the power to force mothers into getting an abortion, but instead that if the mother opts not to get an abortion, the father should be able to, through legal action, sever himself from the financial burden of the unwanted child.

It takes two parties to make a baby, but only the mother gets to decide whether or not the baby goes to term or is aborted, and by extension, the fate of the father.

Thoughts, criticisms (constructive preferably)?

Since it is an undesirable baby, I think that it ought to be sold into compassionate slavery.

Since it is an undesirable baby, I think that it ought to be sold into compassionate slavery.

Which is much, much more humane than an abortion.

Since it is an undesirable baby, I think that it ought to be sold into compassionate slavery.

You want to sell an aborted fetus into slavery?

You have no heart. :(

So, the key issue is: If the man has no say on whether or not a baby is born, why is he responsible for supporting that child to age 18?

He could have kept it in his pants.

She could have swallowed it instead.

Shoulda woulda coulda never did no gooda.

There's a child now. Billy's petty whining ceases to matter.

I believe that men should have the right to paper abortions that terminate their obligations of fatherhood.

He could have kept it in his pants.



she could have kept hers up. She has the right to abort her pregnancy and prevent legal obligations towards her unborn, why can't the father?

I believe that men should have the right to paper abortions that terminate their obligations of fatherhood.

Those would sell like hotcakes on eBay.

she could have kept hers up. She has the right to abort her pregnancy and prevent legal obligations towards her unborn, why can't the father?

*shrug* Because it's her body being destroyed by the parasite within.

*shrug* Because it's her body being destroyed by the parasite within.

Not to mention it would be taking away the woman's right to choose.

1) am I the only one upset that Bill and Sally didn’t get together?:(

2) this story is very scary and a reminder that condoms aren’t 100% good (though I feel sorry for any woman who takes the pill)

3) Sally should have the child taken away and she should be charged with harming the baby (drinking whilst pregnant will do that)

4) I think the man should be able to cut himself off so long as he doesn’t mind never seeing his child

*shrug* Because it's her body being destroyed by the parasite within.

it's more than that.

A abortion for a woman serves two purposes. One it is an expression of her right to bodily autonomy. Same rights as men have, fair and good there.

Secondly it is an act that terminates legal responsibility vis a vi the future child that she was part of conceiving.

Men, while they have the ability to exercise self autonomy, have no ability to terminate legal responsibility vis a vi the future shild that he was part of conceiving.

Equal protection and all that.

It seems unfair to me that men are on the really short end of the stick here. They have no part in the decision making process, but have atleast half the financial responsibility.

they made the choice, the decision when they had sex that night.


It takes two parties to make a baby, but only the mother gets to decide whether or not the baby goes to term or is aborted, and by extension, the fate of the father.

exactly. the father does have the choice, if he knows that he cant support a possible child then he should not have sex. if he want to have sex he needs to come to terms with the possible outcome of having sex.

Not to mention it would be taking away the woman's right to choose.

in what way at all?

I never said, EVER EVER EVER said the father should have any rights WHAT SO EVER to decide in ANY way whether the mother can get an abortion.

I do however believe that SHOULD the mother chose NOT to have an abortion then the father has his own right to terminate legal rights and responsibilities prior to the birth of it (or at least within a timeframe equal to the legal timeframe for an abortion).

Equal protection and all that.

Well if men hadn't shot down every attempt at an Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, you may have had a point. As it stands, though, nothing protects the man right now.

America! Love it or change it!

because when there IS a baby, it has 2 parents and both parents have rights and responsibility TO THE CHILD.

sally cant just walk away from the child any more than billy can. she will also have to pay for that child for at least 18 years.

i guess they should have been more careful when having sex. sucks to be them.

Life isn't fair. Normally the law is helpful so men don't stop a woman from keeping a baby when she does not want to. When it goes the other way around then the man is screwed. Just the way it is. He somehow gets all the blame and has to pay child support even though it takes two people to make that baby.

they made the choice, the decision when they had sex that night.

The mother can terminate the pregnancy up to 6 months after the fact.

exactly. the father does have the choice, if he knows that he cant support a possible child then he should not have sex.

Why? A woman need not carry a child to term if she does not wish to


if he want to have sex he needs to come to terms with the possible outcome of having sex.

By that logic, you do not support abortion for women? After all, if they're going to have sex she needs to come to terms with the possible outcome of having sex.

I believe that men should have the right to paper abortions that terminate their obligations of fatherhood.

I dont ... I used to but in the end abortions are about the woman having controll over her own body.

Yes it does have a side effect of financial alliviation but its existance is based on the woman being able to make medical choices for her own body.

The guy is not making any such choice in this case. It sucks life is not fair, but there is right now no real way to correct compleatly for biology

sally cant just walk away from the child any more than billy can. she will also have to pay for that child for at least 18 years.

Correct, however she can chose BEFORE the child is born. Billy can't. And why not? I would like one, perfectly logical, rational reason why men should NOT be able to terminate their legal rights to an unborn child that would NOT also preclude abortions for women.

I dont ... I used to but in the end abortions are about the woman having controll over her own body.

Yes it does have a side effect of financial alliviation but its existance is based on the woman being able to make medical choices for her own body.


What if the woman has the abortion for the direct, and sole purpose of financial/legal alliviation?

As I said, an abortion is NOT just about having control over her body, it is TWO things, control over her body, and the ability to pre-emptively terminate legal rights and responsibilities. Men have the first but not the second.

So, the key issue is: If the man has no say on whether or not a baby is born, why is he responsible for supporting that child to age 18?

The average cost of raising a child from birth to age 18 is $250,000 working out to about $20,850 a year. That is a significant dent to almost anyone's income, but especially if you are not college educated and can not attain a high salary position. This is not even considering that a mentally or physically retarded baby would cost astronomically more.

It seems unfair to me that men are on the really short end of the stick here. They have no part in the decision making process, but have atleast half the financial responsibility.

I'm not suggesting that fathers should have the power to force mothers into getting an abortion, but instead that if the mother opts not to get an abortion, the father should be able to, through legal action, sever himself from the financial burden of the unwanted child.

It takes two parties to make a baby, but only the mother gets to decide whether or not the baby goes to term or is aborted, and by extension, the fate of the father.

Thoughts, criticisms (constructive preferably)?

Interesting question. however, one small fact, It's also the female's life that has to be put on hold while she raises her child to the point where she can carry on. it's also not fair to her to raise the child alone.

also, it's the mother that has to undergo the procedure of an abortion, the father (or father-to-be) that doesn't. (think ham and egg breakfast meal. the Chicken [male] is involved, but the pig [female] is committed)

so, yes, he does have to provide child support. if he truely loves her, then he would and both of their parents would help out as much as they can (even allowing the girl to continue her education as well.)

Why? A woman need not carry a child to term if she does not wish to

Since it is all the mothers choice then even if the man disagrees it doesn't matter and he will still be financially obligated. Too bad for him.

1) am I the only one upset that Bill and Sally didn’t get together?:(
At least Sally doesn't have to constantly explain away black eyes.

2) this story is very scary and a reminder that condoms aren’t 100% good (though I feel sorry for any woman who takes the pill)
...what's wrong with the pill?

3) Sally should have the child taken away and she should be charged with harming the baby (drinking whilst pregnant will do that)
Very true.


It's weird... I was thinking about this earlier today...
Why doesn't Billy just jump town? It's what I would do...

Since it is all the mothers choice then even if the man disagrees it doesn't matter and he will still be financially obligated. Too bad for him.

then that's an inequality in the law.

Fix it.

Considering the hypothetical situation, it's a chance Billy took when he had intercourse with Sally. Even with protection there are no guarantees. Ideally, if people aren't ready to have children, they should refrain from intercourse. It doesn't happen that way, but people should be prepared for the possible consequences of their decisions.

It might seem unfair that the father has no choice in the issue of abortion, but until men can carry babies in their own body, that's probably how it will stay. The welfare of the child is considered to be more important than whether or not the Daddy wanted his sperm to be overachievers.

also, it's the mother that has to undergo the procedure of an abortion, the father (or father-to-be) that doesn't.

OK, then make it roughly the equivalent. Make it cost as much as an abortion procedure, make a requirement that the male has to undergo an invasive procedure, make him have to get a slice through his chest or a probe stuck up his ass, make it as close to the "real thing" as possible.

And when he's done, that child no more exists to the male in a legal sense then it would in a physical and legal sense once the female had a real abortion.

Considering the hypothetical situation, it's a chance Billy took when he had intercourse with Sally. Even with protection there are no guarantees. Ideally, if people aren't ready to have children, they should refrain from intercourse. It doesn't happen that way, but people should be prepared for the possible consequences of their decisions.

It might seem unfair that the father has no choice in the issue of abortion, but until men can carry babies in their own body, that's probably how it will stay. The welfare of the child is considered to be more important than whether or not the Daddy wanted his sperm to be overachievers.
To be fair, at leat both Billy and Sally talked it out and to Billy's credit, he didn't run out on her.

she could have kept hers up. She has the right to abort her pregnancy and prevent legal obligations towards her unborn, why can't the father?

If you don't want the responsibility, don't have sex, or wear a love-glove, or get a vasectomy to ABSOLUTELY MAKE SURE you never have to worry about the consequences of your actions.

Let's see: why don't we require that all men who refuse to take responsibility for their spawn have vasectomies so they need not be inconvenienced?

OK, then make it roughly the equivalent. Make it cost as much as an abortion procedure, make a requirement that the male has to undergo an invasive procedure, make him have to get a slice through his chest or a probe stuck up his ass, make it as close to the "real thing" as possible.

And when he's done, that child no more exists to the male in a legal sense then it would in a physical and legal sense once the female had a real abortion.and what would that procedure prove?

now if it was that the male would have to get permament vasectomy then he would be off the hook...

The mother can terminate the pregnancy up to 6 months after the fact.
yes that is true. but that does not chang anything



Why? A woman need not carry a child to term if she does not wish to
because as of right now men do not have that same option, because of this for the time being men need to be willing to deal with the possiblity of a child.




By that logic, you do not support abortion for women? After all, if they're going to have sex she needs to come to terms with the possible outcome of having sex.
this is a tricky spot. yes i think that women need to be resposible for any child the comes about. the ting is that woman have been haveing abortions since the dawn of time- that is not going to change. with the current state of things i think that a fine should be considdered for those who wish to have anabortion. yes the right will flip about "puting a price on a life."
having anabortion is not an easy choice for most woman it goes against every instinct and many have quite a hard time after they have gone throught with an abortion

Well if men hadn't shot down every attempt at an Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, you may have had a point. As it stands, though, nothing protects the man right now.

America! Love it or change it!

The Equal Rights Amendment was not added because it was seen as redundant. The rights enumerated int the Equal Rights Amendment were already laid out in the 14th Amendment.

Considering the hypothetical situation, it's a chance Billy took when he had intercourse with Sally. Even with protection there are no guarantees. Ideally, if people aren't ready to have children, they should refrain from intercourse. It doesn't happen that way, but people should be prepared for the possible consequences of their decisions.

Then you don't support Sally's right to have an abortion? After all, it's a risk she took when she had intercourse.

It might seem unfair that the father has no choice in the issue of abortion, but until men can carry babies in their own body, that's probably how it will stay. The welfare of the child is considered to be more important than whether or not the Daddy wanted his sperm to be overachievers.

Then you don't support Sally's right to have an abortion? Should the welfare of the child be considered more important than whether or not the Mommy wanted her uterus to be occupied for 9 months?

Correct, however she can chose BEFORE the child is born. Billy can't. And why not? I would like one, perfectly logical, rational reason why men should NOT be able to terminate their legal rights to an unborn child that would NOT also preclude abortions for women.

In the State of Texas, a man can sign away all legal rights to his children.

There's just nothing Federal.

ERA NOW!

If you don't want the responsibility, don't have sex, or wear a love-glove, or get a vasectomy to ABSOLUTELY MAKE SURE you never have to worry about the consequences of your actions.

Let's see: why don't we require that all men who refuse to take responsibility for their spawn have vasectomies so they need not be inconvenienced?
ok... now we're starting to think alike...

*hides*

because as of right now men do not have that same option,

Then fix it. That's what this discussion is about.

If you don't want the responsibility, don't have sex, or wear a love-glove, or get a vasectomy to ABSOLUTELY MAKE SURE you never have to worry about the consequences of your actions.

Do you then not support the right for women to have an abortion? After all the pregnancy is a consequence of her actions

Let's see: why don't we require that all men who refuse to take responsibility for their spawn have vasectomies so they need not be inconvenienced?

Why don't we require all women who want an abortion to get sterilized first?

None of these arguments work for women, why should they work for men?

What if the woman has the abortion for the direct, and sole purpose of financial/legal alliviation?

As I said, an abortion is NOT just about having control over her body, it is TWO things, control over her body, and the ability to pre-emptively terminate legal rights and responsibilities. Men have the first but not the second.

There is always possibilty of abuse ... but in the end womans right to body outweighs the abuse potential

Not so in the case of financial support...

and what would that procedure prove?



Prove? Nothing, but it would make it equal. Women have to undergo a medical procedure to have a physical abortion, I think it fully fair for men to have to undergo the same procedure to have a paper abortion.

Bah. Paper abortions are as reasonable as physical ones. You cannot have one without the other. It is not just about control of the body, it is also about control of the life.

I love how the hypocrites say "He should have kept it in his pants" when they are mortally offended when the same thing is said of a woman.

Gotta love consistency. :rolleyes:

There is always possibilty of abuse

abuse? how is it "abuse"? Is "I don't want the financial burden of raising this child" an unreasonable reason for an abortion?

I don't consider it abuse at all, I think it's a PERFECTLY good reason to have one.

Do you then not support the right for women to have an abortion? After all the pregnancy is a consequence of her actionsit's a consequence of both their actions.

Why don't we require all women who want an abortion to get sterilized first?

sounds good to me.

Prove? Nothing, but it would make it equal. Women have to undergo a medical procedure to have a physical abortion, I think it fully fair for men to have to undergo the same procedure to have a paper abortion.

which is why I suggest that a Paper Abortion for men would be a vasectomy. ;)

it's a consequence of both their actions.



sounds good to me.

well if that's the position you want to take that's your own....I find it morally reprehensible however.

which is why I suggest that a Paper Abortion for men would be a vasectomy. ;)

Does an abortion for women render her sterile?

No?

Then stupid analogy.

Bah. Paper abortions are as reasonable as physical ones. You cannot have one without the other. It is not just about control of the body, it is also about control of the life.

I love how the hypocrites say "He should have kept it in his pants" when they are mortally offended when the same thing is said of a woman.

Gotta love consistency. :rolleyes:being that I am one who says it for both sexes...


yeah I love it.

Does an abortion for women render her sterile?

No?

Then stupid analogy.
read post #42...

being that I am one who says it for both sexes...


yeah I love it.

I don't agree with your viewpoint but I can respect its consistancy.

I love how the hypocrites say "He should have kept it in his pants" when they are mortally offended when the same thing is said of a woman.

Hey ... I'm the only one who said that, so I assume you're talking about me.

You will kindly also notice I said, in the same post, "She could have swallowed it instead".

I have the morals of a chimp in heat ... so don't go there with me. ;)

Hey ... I'm the only one who said that, so I assume you're talking about me.

You will kindly also notice I said, in the same post, "She could have swallowed it instead".

I have the morals of a chimp in heat ... so don't go there with me. ;)

as I asked, by your question, do you then not support her right to have an abortion?

Why don't we require all women who want an abortion to get sterilized first?

None of these arguments work for women, why should they work for men?

Not very PC of you. You know that women are noble in whatever decision they make. After all they are totally not to blame for whatever happens. No, blame goes on the man. Oh well, I suppose the sterlization won't happen. I kind of like the idea actually. A man and woman are irresponsible so they should both be made sterile. Keep their stupidity from being passed down to their unwanted offspring.

Do you then not support the right for women to have an abortion? After all the pregnancy is a consequence of her actions



Why don't we require all women who want an abortion to get sterilized first?

None of these arguments work for women, why should they work for men?

Because, Billy, if the man did not put his wee-wee in the ladies' pocketbook, this would never have happened!

In this situation Sally decides not to have an abortion, correct? So, the fact that a female needs to undergo an invasive procedure to abort is really irrelevant in this situation (or any for that matter). I do not think it has been stated that the man can force a woman to have an abortion. Rather, that a man ,if disagreeing with the lack of an abortion ,can rescind any financial attachments to the upbringing of the child; due to his lack in the decision on whether or not to keep it. It makes logical and legal sense to me. However since they both agreed to have sex I feel it is both their responsibilities to raise the child. Other than on a moral/religious level, I agree entirely with the OP.


Oh, and a "paper abortion" probably hurts more than an actual one, they have yet to design a painkiller for loss of finances.. well, a reliable one at least.

being that I am one who says it for both sexes...


yeah I love it.

Being consistently wrong is still better than being a hypocrite. :p

Because, Billy, if the man did not put his wee-wee in the ladies' pocketbook, this would never have happened!

Basically, Sally, if the woman had not pushed her pocketbook over the man's wee-wee this would never have happened!

I don't agree with your viewpoint but I can respect its consistancy.

I've always had the standpoint of no sex before marriage. I'm not ready to raise kids so I will make damn sure I won't be in the position of haveing to raise a family before I'm ready. but I am also aware that my viewpoints of sex is mine and I won't force it on anyone.

To be fair, at leat both Billy and Sally talked it out and to Billy's credit, he didn't run out on her.

Which is a credit to Billy, that ideal figment of our imagination. Not to say there aren't guys out there like that, but there are just as many who have to be tracked down and have their wages garnished.

In this situation Sally decides not to have an abortion, correct? So, the fact that a female needs to undergo an invasive procedure to abort is really irrelevant in this situation (or any for that matter). I do not think it has been stated that the man can force a woman to have an abortion. Rather, that a man ,if disagreeing with the lack of an abortion ,can rescind any financial attachments to the upbringing of the child; due to his lack in the decision on whether or not to keep it. It makes logical and legal sense to me. However since they both agreed to have sex I feel it is both their responsibilities to raise the child. Other than on a moral/religious level, I agree entirely with the OP.

I think, for it to be fair, a man has ONLY to the point that an abortion would be legal, to take action (provided he is aware of the pregnancy, if he is not, and is not made aware, then he has that same time period from the time he was made aware).

If he declines to take action, it's the same as if the woman declined to abort. He's now legally obligated.

Being consistently wrong is still better than being a hypocrite. :p

one cannot be wrong for holding personal values to themselves.

Granted Paper Abortion is a nice concept, but it smacks too much like a "get out of jail free" card for men.

I've always had the standpoint of no sex before marriage. I'm not ready to raise kids so I will make damn sure I won't be in the position of haveing to raise a family before I'm ready. but I am also aware that my viewpoints of sex is mine and I won't force it on anyone.

as I said, I do not agree with your stance, but as someone else said, it's better than being a hypocrite.

Because if the man did not pay society would pay for the mans mistake. This is a tremendous boon to society. It forces idiots like this guy to pay for mistakes intentional or not. Who would pay for the foetal alcohol syndrome child. The man would walk away and the state would destroy the woman and the childs life even further. The child would become even more messed up in an orphanage because the mother would not be able to support the child on her own. In the orphanage the child would become a criminal because no one would care for it properly. A huge amount of orphans are a serious problem. Ultimately, it would cost more to society if the man could walk away from his mistake.

When I say society, I mean the taxpayers and other citizens who did not have a direct say in what just happened.

one cannot be wrong for holding personal values to themselves.

Granted Paper Abortion is a nice concept, but it smacks too much like a "get out of jail free" card for men.

meh, no more so than an abortion is for women.

Not very PC of you. You know that women are noble in whatever decision they make. After all they are totally not to blame for whatever happens. No, blame goes on the man. Oh well, I suppose the sterlization won't happen. I kind of like the idea actually. A man and woman are irresponsible so they should both be made sterile. Keep their stupidity from being passed down to their unwanted offspring.

That's pretty stupid, tbh, Utracia. There are some people who are not ready to raise children. That doesn't mean that they will never be able to raise children, or that they don't ever want children, but that they are not, at the moment, able to have children.

Sex is not just about procreation, and with modern methods, it is silly to say that there is a "responsibility" inherrant in having sex.

I think, for it to be fair, a man has ONLY to the point that an abortion would be legal, to take action (provided he is aware of the pregnancy, if he is not, and is not made aware, then he has that same time period from the time he was made aware).

If he declines to take action, it's the same as if the woman declined to abort. He's now legally obligated.

I concur.

Now, we need to wait and see what objections we have overlooked.
*waits*

Because, Billy, if the man did not put his wee-wee in the ladies' pocketbook, this would never have happened!

Basically, Sally, if the woman had not pushed her pocketbook over the man's wee-wee this would never have happened!:rolleyes:
we're adults here... mostly anyway...

IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE SEX, THEY WOULDN'T BE IN THAT SITUATION!


there, now it doesn't matter who put what where or what was put over whatever... the fact is... it happened, with consent.

Because if the man did not pay society would pay for the mans mistake. This is a tremendous boon to society. It forces idiots like this guy to pay for mistakes intentional or not. Who would pay for the foetal alcohol syndrome child. The man would walk away and the state would destroy the woman and the childs life even further. The child would become even more messed up in an orphanage because the mother would not be able to support the child on her own. In the orphanage the child would become a criminal because no one would care for it properly. A huge amount of orphans are a serious problem. Ultimately, it would cost more to society if the man could walk away from his mistake.

she did not HAVE to bring this child to term, she CHOSE to.

Now, as I admit, men should lose the ability to get that paper abortion once it is carried to term, but he should have the same ability as the woman does.

I think it's also tremendously sexist to assume that the woman would not be able to support the child on her own.

Sex is not just about procreation, and with modern methods, it is silly to say that there is a "responsibility" inherrant in having sex.

If a pregnancy occurs, even accidentally, a woman has the option to chose NOT to support it, ever, in any way.

A man can not.

Because if the man did not pay society would pay for the mans mistake. This is a tremendous boon to society. It forces idiots like this guy to pay for mistakes intentional or not. Who would pay for the foetal alcohol syndrome child. The man would walk away and the state would destroy the woman and the childs life even further. The child would become even more messed up in an orphanage because the mother would not be able to support the child on her own. In the orphanage the child would become a criminal because no one would care for it properly. A huge amount of orphans are a serious problem. Ultimately, it would cost more to society if the man could walk away from his mistake.


Tremendous leaps in logic.

You assume that the woman would not find a job on her own. You also assume that state benefits would not be provided to either. You also assume that orphanages cannot be improved to prevent this sort of thing.

All you've really done is make a case for broader medical plans and an adoption campaign.

:rolleyes:
we're adults here... mostly anyway...

IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE SEX, THEY WOULDN'T BE IN THAT SITUATION!


there, now it doesn't matter who put what where or what was put over whatever... the fact is... it happened, with consent.

yes, well but then you aren't in favor of a woman being able to abort so it seems logical you would not support a paper abortion for a male....

I do support the woman's option to abort, I also support a legal equivalence for the male.

meh, no more so than an abortion is for women.

except that an abortion can be damaging to the woman's reproductive organs.


btw, what's invovled with a Paper Abortion? it can't just be signing a paper...

Then you don't support Sally's right to have an abortion? After all, it's a risk she took when she had intercourse.

Then you don't support Sally's right to have an abortion? Should the welfare of the child be considered more important than whether or not the Mommy wanted her uterus to be occupied for 9 months?


I'm thinking there must be some confusion. I'm not sure how you drew that conclusion from my comment. I support the fact that she has a choice. Sally chose not to have an abortion. Now that means there is a child that must be cared for, and that means both parents have a responsibility to take care of that child.

As far as I'm concerned, abortion is entirely up to the woman as it is her body that has to carry the baby for 9 mos.

yes, well but then you aren't in favor of a woman being able to abort so it seems logical you would not support a paper abortion for a male....

I do support the woman's option to abort, I also support a legal equivalence for the male.where did I say that I wasn't in favor of abortion?

the question isn't about the woman's right to abort but the man's obligation to pay for child support in the event that the woman doesn't abort.

as I asked, by your question, do you then not support her right to have an abortion?

Of course! I stand firmly behind a woman's right to control of her body and no part of me believes a fetus to be a human being with rights and/or privileges.

I also agree that men *should* be allowed to sign away their rights to said child if they would have chosen to abort.

In some States, they have the right. There should be something Federal.

ERA NOW!

Sex is not just about procreation, and with modern methods, it is silly to say that there is a "responsibility" inherrant in having sex.

Yes and no harm has come of this great "modern technology/lack of responsibility" revolution.
:rolleyes:



Perhaps therein lies the problem.

Of course! I stand firmly behind a woman's right to control of her body and no part of me believes a fetus to be a human being with rights and/or privileges.

I also agree that men *should* be allowed to sign away their rights to said child if they would have chosen to abort.

In some States, they have the right. There should be something Federal.

ERA NOW!

Maybe I was quoting the wrong person....I think we're in agreement then.

IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE SEX, THEY WOULDN'T BE IN THAT SITUATION!


If Billy's and Sally's mommies and daddies didn't have sex, they wouldn't be in that situation either.

I say blame the parents!

where did I say that I wasn't in favor of abortion?

the question isn't about the woman's right to abort but the man's obligation to pay for child support in the event that the woman doesn't abort.

ehh, assumed from the conversation, if I'm wrong sorry.

I support a man's right to terminate legal rights and responsibilities within the same time period that a woman could have had an abortion.

Correct, however she can chose BEFORE the child is born. Billy can't. And why not? I would like one, perfectly logical, rational reason why men should NOT be able to terminate their legal rights to an unborn child that would NOT also preclude abortions for women.

sally ISNT terminating her legal rights, she is removing a fetus/embryo from her body. when billy can get pregnant, he can have the same option. until then, he will never have to have children by gestating them inside his own body. to my mind it evens out.

to illustrate the principle further, if sally and billy had been having invitro fertilization done, making embryos outside of sally's body to be implanted and grown by herself or a surrogate, sally has no more right to those embryos than bill does. it is a completly 50/50 right. if they split up and sally wants to get pregnant using one of those embryos, billy has a 100% right to block that if he doesnt want to have another child.

No it is not sexist at all, it is pragmatic. It forces responsibility. If every child was the responsibility of both parents financially-- childrens parents were registered, it would change a lot of things for the better, whether the person chose to raise it or not. Leaving the financial burden to one parent is more than inappropriate it is wrong. People would consider things a little more before having children. I am not paying as the taxpayer for the other half of parenting which is what happens with welfare mothers. Even if the person was capable of raising the child on their own, it would not matter to me.

So you say, a man can have as much sex as he wants without taking a risk then walking away. This is solely to the mans advantage. It takes more than one person to have sex.

I'm thinking there must be some confusion. I'm not sure how you drew that conclusion from my comment. I support the fact that she has a choice. Sally chose not to have an abortion. Now that means there is a child that must be cared for, and that means both parents have a responsibility to take care of that child.

As far as I'm concerned, abortion is entirely up to the woman as it is her body that has to carry the baby for 9 mos.

I'm saying your argument to deny a man the ability to get a paper abortion can be used with only a modification in gender to deny a woman the ability to get an abortion.

Sally has the choice to abort, or not abort, up to 6 months after conception.

From the MOMENT of concept a man has NO choice (legally, anyway) to avoid responsibilities for the child. A woman does.

I am fully in support of the right to an abortion for women. I think however men should have a rough legal equivalent.

Give me one good argument that says men shouldn't without having that argument being able to be used to deny abortion rights to women.

...what's wrong with the pill?

it has many side affects and some very serious problems can come about because of it its why the mini-pill was developed (contains only one hormone to reduce problems though less affective)

also you have to take it at a certain time everyday which is a nuisance don't you agree

Maybe I was quoting the wrong person....I think we're in agreement then.

Yeah I sometimes post drunk, too. Hehehe.

Yah, we're in agreement.

Though I do think a "paper abortion" would be severely abused by men who just don't want to pay child support. After all ... it's quick and easy and painless for the man.

Can we set it up so that men get a white hot coat hanger shoved up the pee-pee hole in order to be able to sign such a paper?

If a pregnancy occurs, even accidentally, a woman has the option to chose NOT to support it, ever, in any way.

A man can not.meaning, if the woman chooses not to support the child and the man does decide to raise it, she doesn't pay him child support. is that what your beef is?

That's pretty stupid, tbh, Utracia. There are some people who are not ready to raise children. That doesn't mean that they will never be able to raise children, or that they don't ever want children, but that they are not, at the moment, able to have children.

Sex is not just about procreation, and with modern methods, it is silly to say that there is a "responsibility" inherrant in having sex.

If one is going to make the very mature decision to have sex then they should be also prepared to deal with the consequences of their act. They are free to do as they wish but I really do not think that people should have sex if they can not take care of the child that results. After all, if the situation occurs you don't know if you will actually go through with an abortion. You may now be taking care of a child that you are now not prepared for. Therefore in this scenario Bill and Sally are being really dumb.

Never mind the fact that I find it odd that Sally had no problem having a one night stand but doesn't believe in abortions. The two views do not really go together. As the result in this scenario demonstrates.

sally ISNT terminating her legal rights, she is removing a fetus/embryo from her body.

She is doing both. Billy can not do it.

meaning, if the woman chooses not to support the child and the man does decide to raise it, she doesn't pay him child support. is that what your beef is?

no, not in the slightest. Actually a woman is held equally financially obligated to a child as the father is.

I mean she can terminate responsibilities by aborting her pregnancy.

Can we set it up so that men get a white hot coat hanger shoved up the pee-pee hole in order to be able to sign such a paper?

as I said earlier:

OK, then make it roughly the equivalent. Make it cost as much as an abortion procedure, make a requirement that the male has to undergo an invasive procedure, make him have to get a slice through his chest or a probe stuck up his ass, make it as close to the "real thing" as possible.

And when he's done, that child no more exists to the male in a legal sense then it would in a physical and legal sense once the female had a real abortion.

Can we set it up so that men get a white hot coat hanger shoved up the pee-pee hole in order to be able to sign such a paper?

No, but we can make him agree that he has absolutely no right to the child or the child's time.

sally ISNT terminating her legal rights, she is removing a fetus/embryo from her body. when billy can get pregnant, he can have the same option. until then, he will never have to have children by gestating them inside his own body. to my mind it evens out.



Terminating her legal rights to what?
Do you mean legal obligations or responsibilities?

Well, she is terminating her legal obligations to the prospective child, being as an aborted fetus is not hard to take care of or nurture. The man would do essentially the same thing. The fact that men cannot bear children is almost irrelevant here, unless the woman is severely crippled and/or incapacatated due to the pregnancy before the abortion, the man should not have to pay or anything..

Could you further explain how the fact that men do not actually carry the fetus around is important? Not to be rude, but I don't understand really.

she did not HAVE to bring this child to term, she CHOSE to.

He did not HAVE to have sex with her; he CHOSE to.

no, not in the slightest. Actually a woman is held equally financially obligated to a child as the father is.

I mean she can terminate responsibilities by aborting her pregnancy.

however, I believe his responsibility ends should she get married to another person... but that's not the point. :)

then make it this then.

well, if we could change the laws anyway... :D

The father can sign a paper abortion, however, while that does terminate the father's say as to how the child is raised, the father still needs to pay a limited time's worth of child support (to at least help the mother through the infant stages... say what... 3 yrs? 2 yrs? that can be debateable) therefore, it's not as simple as signing a paper and paying a fee, but it's not as long lasting as paying until the child is no longer her responsibility.

Terminating her legal rights to what?
Do you mean legal obligations or responsibilities?

Rights and responsibilities yes.


Could you further explain how the fact that men do not actually carry the fetus around is important? Not to be rude, but I don't understand really.

Because what needs to be understood is that women do not have a right to AN ABORTION. Their right is not one to have an abortion. Their right is to have bodily autonomy.

An abortion is an exercise of their bodily autonomy. It also preemptively terminates future legal responsibilities.

Now men have the same right to exercise their bodily autonomy. They have no ability to preemptively terminate future legal responsibilities.

meaning, if the woman chooses not to support the child and the man does decide to raise it, she doesn't pay him child support. is that what your beef is?

Actually, this is incorrect. Whomever has custody of the child is entitled to child support from the non-custodial parent.

No, but we can make him agree that he has absolutely no right to the child or the child's time.

knowing some men... that would be a bonus, not a penalty...

Actually, this is incorrect. Whomever has custody of the child is entitled to child support from the non-custodial parent.
so I learned... and it was clarifed. :p

however, I believe his responsibility ends should she get married to another person... but that's not the point. :)

then make it this then.

well, if we could change the laws anyway... :D

The father can sign a paper abortion, however, while that does terminate the father's say as to how the child is raised, the father still needs to pay a limited time's worth of child support (to at least help the mother through the infant stages... say what... 3 yrs? 2 yrs? that can be debateable) therefore, it's not as simple as signing a paper and paying a fee, but it's not as long lasting as paying until the child is no longer her responsibility.

well, that still defeats the idea on principle, but might be a reasonable compromise.

He did not HAVE to have sex with her; he CHOSE to.

Then you do not support a woman's right to an abortion? She did not HAVE to have sex with him; she CHOSE to.

If one is going to make the very mature decision to have sex then they should be also prepared to deal with the consequences of their act. They are free to do as they wish but I really do not think that people should have sex if they can not take care of the child that results. After all, if the situation occurs you don't know if you will actually go through with an abortion. You may now be taking care of a child that you are now not prepared for. Therefore in this scenario Bill and Sally are being really dumb.

Never mind the fact that I find it odd that Sally had no problem having a one night stand but doesn't believe in abortions. The two views do not really go together. As the result in this scenario demonstrates.

Billy isnt dumb he was just misled and naive. As you say, women who have one night stands generally believe in abortion. Billy was prepared to deal with the consequences of the act, but Sally was not. They used contraception, so cannot be blamed for creating a baby, but she can be blamed for not having an abortion and the system can be blamed for not letting billy terminate his rights.

If people only had sex if they could take care of the resulting child, then life would not be worth contemplating. I hope to God that if I ever get someone pregnant she gets an abortion, preferably without telling me about the pregnancy at all. However I would support her is she chose to tell me, but would certainly want to terminate my link to the baby if she would not have an abortion.

Bah. Paper abortions are as reasonable as physical ones. You cannot have one without the other. It is not just about control of the body, it is also about control of the life.

I love how the hypocrites say "He should have kept it in his pants" when they are mortally offended when the same thing is said of a woman.

Gotta love consistency. :rolleyes:

fine, i'll say it

if she didnt want to risk getting pregnant, she shouldnt have had sex.

now she has to deal with having an abortion or bearing a child.



the part you have missed is that what people object to when someone says that about the woman is that the objector is usually stating that she is somehow cheating by getting an abortion. they are slamming her for dealing with the pregnancy as she sees fit.

Then you do not support a woman's right to an abortion? She did not HAVE to have sex with him; she CHOSE to.

Do you intend to keep ascribing to me something which clearly I have never said nor supported?

He already has bodily autonomy, yes? She can't force him to be circumcised unless he wants it, yes? So why then do you have a problem with a woman deciding whether or not she wants her insides scraped?

the part you have missed is that what people object to when someone says that about the woman is that the objector is usually stating that she is somehow cheating by getting an abortion. they are slamming her for dealing with the pregnancy as she sees fit.

Well, she was only half involved in creating the pregnancy isn't she?

So she gets to deal with the pregnancy as she sees fit, and the male has no choice what so ever to deal with the pregnancy he also was half responsible for as he sees fit?

Now of course the man should NEVER be able to make the choice of whether to have the abortion or not. However to say he has NO say what responsibility he will bear AT ALL is unequal

He already has bodily autonomy, yes? She can't force him to be circumcised unless he wants it, yes? So why then do you have a problem with a woman deciding whether or not she wants her insides scraped?

I don't.

None what so ever.

I fully 100% support a woman's right to bodily autonomy. I would never suggest otherwise. That is a choice she, and ONLY she, can make.

However, in making that decision, she pre emptively terminate legal responsibility for the future child. A male has no such option. He should.

He did not HAVE to have sex with her; he CHOSE to.

And she chose to have sex with him...

I am assuming that she did not want to have a child, and if she did she did not tell him.
Therefore they are both are on level ground.

The point is that she can abort if she wishes to, while he cannot "abort" physically, so should be able to through a painfull legal process.


Get it?

If people only had sex if they could take care of the resulting child, then life would not be worth contemplating. I hope to God that if I ever get someone pregnant she gets an abortion, preferably without telling me about the pregnancy at all. However I would support her is she chose to tell me, but would certainly want to terminate my link to the baby if she would not have an abortion.

Either way if the woman chose to keep the baby and you are not in a position to take care of both baby and yourself then you are in a bit of trouble now aren't you? But I suppose you have to take the risk, eh? This is yet another reason that one should get to know the person and have a foundation so that you will know their beliefs on the abortion issue and not be shocked that the girl you hooked up with now has her claws in your financial future.

And she chose to have sex with him...

I am assuming that she did not want to have a child, and if she did she did not tell him.
Therefore they are both are on level ground.

The point is that she can abort if she wishes to, while he cannot "abort" physically, so should be able to through a painfull legal process.


Get it?

I get the part about men complaining that they can't get out of their obligation to their child just because the woman is being "unreasonable" and won't abort to please them.

Get that?

Allow me to explain a bit.

Women have the right to bodily autonomy.

Men have the right to bodily autonomy.

The right for women to their bodily autonomy manifests in one aspect as their ability to get an abortion.

Men, by not being able to get pregnant, can not have an abortion. But there is no right TO AN ABORTION, only the right to bodily autonomy. An abortion is ONE WAY that this right is manifested.

HOWEVER when a woman chooses to exercise her right of bodily autonomy and gets an abortion, this creates a second legal right. The right to preemptively terminate legal rights and responsibilities towards the future child.

So women have:

1) the right to bodily autonomy

2) the right to preemptively terminate legal rights and responsibilities towards the future child

Men have:

1) the right to bodily autonomy

However they have NO right to preemptively terminate legal rights and responsibilities towards the future child.

Ergo, women have a right that men do not. This is unequal.

fine, i'll say it

if she didnt want to risk getting pregnant, she shouldnt have had sex.

now she has to deal with having an abortion or bearing a child.



the part you have missed is that what people object to when someone says that about the woman is that the objector is usually stating that she is somehow cheating by getting an abortion. they are slamming her for dealing with the pregnancy as she sees fit.

exactly, what a lot of people forget is that raiseing a child as a yong single mom is no easy thing. sally would also have had to drop out of college to raise the child, should could also be risking being disowned by her family not to mention a large portion of socitety. shw will also have a lot of a harder time later in life dateing. just becaues a guy is paying child support does not mean that the girl is doing nothing she also has a finantual resposibilty to the child as well as having to raise it.

Billy and Sally were drunk. How can you guarantee that Billy and Sally used contraception properly? Billy knows nothing about Sally so he is compounding his risk. Sally sounds like an alcoholic so she may not exactly be able to make incredibly rational decisions, even about things like an abortion.

"So, the key issue is: If the man has no say on whether or not a baby is born, why is he responsible for supporting that child to age 18?....

The average cost of raising a child from birth to age 18 is $250,000 working out to about $20,850 a year.....

It seems unfair to me that men are on the really short end of the stick here. They have no part in the decision making process, but have atleast half the financial responsibility.....

I'm not suggesting that fathers should have the power to force mothers into getting an abortion, but instead that if the mother opts not to get an abortion, the father should be able to, through legal action, sever himself from the financial burden of the unwanted child...."


1. I agree that there is an imbalance of power and obligation when it comes to this issue.

2. I don't think a man should be forced to enter into a financial/emotional commitment to a child if he has taken all precautions not to have children and it happens anyway. Think about it from the child's perspective, too, if they are brought into the world by their mother/adoptive parents. I think most people would like to have a relationship with their father based on a mutual love, not a forced arrangement.

3. These stats about how much it takes to raise a kid...$20, 850?!!! What crap. Everytime I've heard those figures, it really irritates me because it's not true across the board! Perhaps for high-needs children who have illnessses, learning difficulties, etc., it would be that much or a great deal more but the kids I know have decent clothes, good food, education and plenty of fun for a lot less than $20, 850 a year.

4. I guess situations like the one described in the story happen all the time. Sex is a complicated business with a lot of consequences, even when done responsibly. Time would be the real indicator as to whether or not they made the right decisions.

I get the part about men complaining that they can't get out of their obligation to their child just because the woman is being "unreasonable" and won't abort to please them.

Get that?

Do women have to support the future child? Yes or no? Do women have to, if they wish, take responsibility for the raising of the child or can they abort?

Do you support the right for women to not take responsibility for the consequences of the pregnancy, yes or no?

If yes, then logically, fairly, HOW can you not support the right for men to do the same?

Allow me to explain a bit.

Women have the right to bodily autonomy.

Men have the right to bodily autonomy.

The right for women to their bodily autonomy manifests in one aspect as their ability to get an abortion.

Men, by not being able to get pregnant, can not have an abortion. But there is no right TO AN ABORTION, only the right to bodily autonomy. An abortion is ONE WAY that this right is manifested.

HOWEVER when a woman chooses to exercise her right of bodily autonomy and gets an abortion, this creates a second legal right. The right to preemptively terminate legal rights and responsibilities towards the future child.

So women have:

1) the right to bodily autonomy

2) the right to preemptively terminate legal rights and responsibilities towards the future child

Men have:

1) the right to bodily autonomy

However they have NO right to preemptively terminate legal rights and responsibilities towards the future child.

Ergo, women have a right that men do not. This is unequal.

wrong. the man has the right to preemptively terminate legal rights and responsibilities towards the future child by exorsising his right to bodily autonomy

exactly, what a lot of people forget is that raiseing a child as a yong single mom is no easy thing. sally would also have had to drop out of college to raise the child, should could also be risking being disowned by her family not to mention a large portion of socitety. shw will also have a lot of a harder time later in life dateing. just becaues a guy is paying child support does not mean that the girl is doing nothing she also has a finantual resposibilty to the child as well as having to raise it.

I'll ask the exact same question.

Do you support the right for women to not take responsibility for the consequences of their pregnancy, yes or no?

If yes, then logically, fairly, HOW can you not support the right for men to do the same?

I get the part about men complaining that they can't get out of their obligation to their child just because the woman is being "unreasonable" and won't abort to please them.

Get that?


No, no I do not. While some people may be like that, this is an equality issue here.

A woman is allowed to have an abortion, correct?

A man cannot have an abortion, correct?

Two (2) people are needed to creat a child, correct?

Both should have the choice to abort.

Neither should be able to force the other to abort or restrict them from doing so.

---
Would you say the same if a woman wished to have an abortion and a man wanted to keep the child? But no... it is in the woman's body and therefore she has complete control over it. No mention over it screwing up the man's life, knowing how he unintentionally caused the death of a fetus.

But if the woman cannot abort.. *shock* *horror*

I'm saying your argument to deny a man the ability to get a paper abortion can be used with only a modification in gender to deny a woman the ability to get an abortion.

Sally has the choice to abort, or not abort, up to 6 months after conception.

From the MOMENT of concept a man has NO choice (legally, anyway) to avoid responsibilities for the child. A woman does.

I am fully in support of the right to an abortion for women. I think however men should have a rough legal equivalent.

Give me one good argument that says men shouldn't without having that argument being able to be used to deny abortion rights to women.

A paper abortion is an ideal concept, but it misses one major point. In an actual abortion, there is no child to be considered. However, if a man were to get a paper abortion, it's as if he's saying, "I never had a child, therefore I am not financially obligated." However, the fact remains that he did have a child. That child exists and that child needs to be cared for.

I understand your desire for a man to able to choose whether or not he wants to be responsible for a child. The only way I could see something like that happening is to have some sort of intercourse prenup that says, "If I have sex with this woman, she agrees to not hold me financially responsible for any consequences of said intercourse."

If a pregnancy occurs, even accidentally, a woman has the option to chose NOT to support it, ever, in any way.

A man can not.

Not true. I have a woman here at work who is complaining that she works two jobs and is having child support taken from both jobs to care for the child. A women can be held legally responsible for child support just the same as any man. As a matter of fact, consider this. If a woman marries a man who is responsible for child support, her income can be garnished to pay his back child support.

wrong. the man has the right to preemptively terminate legal rights and responsibilities towards the future child by exorsising his right to bodily autonomy

Only up until, and not after the point of conception.

A woman's right extendes 6 months after conception.

Again unequal.

wrong. the man has the right to preemptively terminate legal rights and responsibilities towards the future child by exorsising his right to bodily autonomy

But the woman does not have to excersize her right to bodily autonomy.

;)

No, no I do not. While some people may be like that, this is an equality issue here.

A woman is allowed to have an abortion, correct?

A man cannot have an abortion, correct?

Two (2) people are needed to creat a child, correct?

Both should have the choice to abort.

Neither should be able to force the other to abort or restrict them from doing so.

---
Would you say the same if a woman wished to have an abortion and a man wanted to keep the child? But no... it is in the woman's body and therefore she has complete control over it. No mention over it screwing up the man's life, knowing how he unintentionally caused the death of a fetus.

But if the woman cannot abort.. *shock* *horror*

Yes because if the woman cant abort it is about controll over her body and medical privace ... not an issue the man has to deal with whatsoever

Ok ok ok ... enough of this nonsense ... who gets custody of the STD?

I get the part about men complaining that they can't get out of their obligation to their child just because the woman is being "unreasonable" and won't abort to please them.

Get that?as I understand it...

Arthais101 is saying that should the woman not get an abortion, the man has to pay child support until the child's 18th birthday or the woman get's married (whichever comes first.) now if the woman aborts, that's fine and dandy, but if she CHOOSES not to (assuming it's a state that allows for abortion) the man has no CHOICE but to pay child support.

The male has no choice in the matter, he cannot "force" the woman into getting an abortion if she doesn't want to. and thus he's "forced" to pay child support.

A paper abortion is an ideal concept, but it misses one major point. In an actual abortion, there is no child to be considered. However, if a man were to get a paper abortion, it's as if he's saying, "I never had a child, therefore I am not financially obligated." However, the fact remains that he did have a child. That child exists and that child needs to be cared for.

Actually, in my example, the child would NOT have been born yet. I concede that once the term period for an abortion for women runs out then the time period for men also runs out.

Once the child is born, and the father has taken no action, he's obligated.

His choice would exist in pregnancy. If he chose to not support it, the mother would have the legal right to abort it if she did not wish to raise it alone.

I would NEVER EVER advocate that a woman be stuck raising a child on her own if she did not CHOSE to raise it on her own. She must be able to still have an abortion after the man's choice, otherwise that's not fair.

I understand your desire for a man to able to choose whether or not he wants to be responsible for a child. The only way I could see something like that happening is to have some sort of intercourse prenup that says, "If I have sex with this woman, she agrees to not hold me financially responsible for any consequences of said intercourse."

That's as silly as making the woman sign a form saying "I agree to abort any pregnancy caused by this sexual act".



Not true. I have a woman here at work who is complaining that she works two jobs and is having child support taken from both jobs to care for the child. A women can be held legally responsible for child support just the same as any man. As a matter of fact, consider this. If a woman marries a man who is responsible for child support, her income can be garnished to pay his back child support.

Did she not have the right to an abortion?

If yes, then she CHOSE to have those children, did she not?

as I understand it...

Arthais101 is saying that should the woman not get an abortion, the man has to pay child support until the child's 18th birthday or the woman get's married (whichever comes first.) now if the woman aborts, that's fine and dandy, but if she CHOOSES not to (assuming it's a state that allows for abortion) the man has no CHOICE but to pay child support.

The male has no choice in the matter, he cannot "force" the woman into getting an abortion if she doesn't want to. and thus he's "forced" to pay child support.

that is a fair summary yes. Also every state MUST allow abortion, it's a constitutional right.

Yes because if the woman cant abort it is about controll over her body and medical privace ... not an issue the man has to deal with whatsoever

That is true, however the man will have to raise the child, which can be harmfull to both his body and medical health.

Whether he just sends the woman money for the child or physically cares for it.

I propose a solution. Any woman who aborts is legally required to support an orphan (Financially) if the father of the aborted child can be found to be forced into child support (for the orphan). Now no one has the legal right to cut off responsibility for a child.

Yes because if the woman cant abort it is about controll over her body and medical privace ... not an issue the man has to deal with whatsoever

it's about her right to control her body AND her right to terminate future legal obligation.

The male has the first, not the second. Ergo the woman has a right the man does not.

Terminating her legal rights to what?
Do you mean legal obligations or responsibilities?

Well, she is terminating her legal obligations to the prospective child, being as an aborted fetus is not hard to take care of or nurture. The man would do essentially the same thing. The fact that men cannot bear children is almost irrelevant here, unless the woman is severely crippled and/or incapacatated due to the pregnancy before the abortion, the man should not have to pay or anything..

Could you further explain how the fact that men do not actually carry the fetus around is important? Not to be rude, but I don't understand really.

she has no legal obligations to a child that does not exist yet.

WHEN a child is born the right to support is the child's not the mother's. the mother CANNOT sign away someone else's rights. the child has 2 parents and both parents have the responsibility to care for it. (and both have rights to care for it)

its not that hard a concept. biology isnt equal in childbearing. sally has a fetus inside her. it will never be inside billy. that puts the decision to continue a pregnancy or not right on sallys shoulders. billy has the downside of having that decision afffect his life without getting to make the decision himself. sally has the downside of being pregnant and squeezing a baby out of a hole that is normally smaller than her hand.

the baby has rights of its own.

Only up until, and not after the point of conception.

A woman's right extendes 6 months after conception.

Again unequal.

wrong agian. women have the abilty to get pregant- an extra burden. women also, if they chose to get get an abortion not only have to support the child finantualy, and do end up paying a majority of the cost of raising a child ,but they also have to raise the child.

Actually, in my example, the child would NOT have been born yet. I concede that once the term period for an abortion for women runs out then the time period for men also runs out.

Once the child is born, and the father has taken no action, he's obligated.so what happens if he never knew she was pregnant. lets say he was going overseas to study, so the sex was a "Farewell" gift from her to him... he comes back a year later and she surprises him with his child...

it's past the point that he can act, so he's stuck. that's still not fair. a woman knows she's pregnant (unless she's in a coma or something.) but he only knows when he's told (or when she starts showing.)

biology isnt equal

The law is. Sally has the legal ability to do something Billy does not. That is unequal under the law. The law should change.

sally has the downside of being pregnant and squeezing a baby out of a hole that is normally smaller than her hand.

Biology, as you say, isn't equal. However the law must be equal REGARDLESS of biology.

The law is supposed to be.

corrected for truth.

but to be fair, the law also has no control over biology, thus some leeway should be taken into account.

But the woman does not have to excersize her right to bodily autonomy.

;)

yes she does have to exorsie that right it is part of being a woman weather or not she choses to have a child she will suffer emotionaly and physicaly, not to mention finantualy. as well as haivng to explain to her husband and children one day that yes she did have an abortion when she was younger

so what happens if he never knew she was pregnant. lets say he was going overseas to study, so the sex was a "Farewell" gift from her to him... he comes back a year later and she surprises him with his child...

it's past the point that he can act, so he's stuck. that's still not fair. a woman knows she's pregnant (unless she's in a coma or something.) but he only knows when he's told (or when she starts showing.)

Well there's a thing in law called a "tolling" provision. As in something doesn't start a count down until it's "tolled". I think the time period would be within the time frame he became aware, unless the mother made all reasonable efforts to contact him.

If she intentionally didn't tell him in order to force him into missing that time frame, that's her fault, and she should have to bare the burden alone for the duplicity.

If she makes every good faith effort to inform him, and just can't...oh well...sometimes shit happens, she tried.

If she intentionally witheld that information, then it's her problem if he choses to disassociate himself.

The law is. Sally has the legal ability to do something Billy does not. That is unequal under the law. The law should change.



Biology, as you say, isn't equal. However the law must be equal REGARDLESS of biology.

Indeed. I don't have the same mental capabilities as say... Stephen Hawking, yet I get to vote. Now, unless people want to get into an all "men" are created equal debate, I just don't see how legal equality can be ignored.

He could have kept it in his pants.

She could have swallowed it instead.

Shoulda woulda coulda never did no gooda.

There's a child now. Billy's petty whining ceases to matter.

What they said. Too bad, so sad, for Billy.

yes she does have to exorsie that right it is part of being a woman weather or not she choses to have a child she will suffer emotionaly and physicaly, not to mention finantualy. as well as haivng to explain to her husband and children one day that yes she did have an abortion when she was younger

having to? When is she under any obligation to tell ANYONE?

You don't think it might cause a man to suffer emotionally to sign away any rights to his child he might have?

yes she does have to exorsie that right it is part of being a woman weather or not she choses to have a child she will suffer emotionaly and physicaly, not to mention finantualy. as well as haivng to explain to her husband and children one day that yes she did have an abortion when she was younger

She didn't have to close her legs to prevent responsibility. Yet he has to keep it in his pants? That isn't fair.

Well, she was only half involved in creating the pregnancy isn't she?

So she gets to deal with the pregnancy as she sees fit, and the male has no choice what so ever to deal with the pregnancy he also was half responsible for as he sees fit?

Now of course the man should NEVER be able to make the choice of whether to have the abortion or not. However to say he has NO say what responsibility he will bear AT ALL is unequal

yes, it IS unequal.

duh

childbearing is inherently an unequal proposition.

there is nothing to be done about that. NOTHING. sally will always be the one who has to deal with being pregnant. she is the one who has to face the physical consequences.

when a baby is born, both have equal rights and responsibilities.

it's about her right to control her body AND her right to terminate future legal obligation.

The male has the first, not the second. Ergo the woman has a right the man does not.

you are seeing these tow things as being differant when in reality they are not

having to? When is she under any obligation to tell ANYONE?

You don't think it might cause a man to suffer emotionally to sign away any rights to his child he might have?

Ah but men are emotionless bastards trying to keep the womenfolk indoors. ;)

she has no legal obligations to a child that does not exist yet.

WHEN a child is born the right to support is the child's not the mother's. the mother CANNOT sign away someone else's rights. the child has 2 parents and both parents have the responsibility to care for it. (and both have rights to care for it)

its not that hard a concept. biology isnt equal in childbearing. sally has a fetus inside her. it will never be inside billy. that puts the decision to continue a pregnancy or not right on sallys shoulders. billy has the downside of having that decision afffect his life without getting to make the decision himself. sally has the downside of being pregnant and squeezing a baby out of a hole that is normally smaller than her hand.

the baby has rights of its own.

No, but she is "cancelling" legal obligations to a child that normally would exist if no aborted.

Perhaps, maybe I just do not know the actual law in place about the obligations unmarried child-bearer's have towards the children.


Yes, I am aware of the biological process..
So, the woman has to carry a baby for a while and then squeeze it out of a hole. The man must send money to the child for 18 years. However, the woman will raise it as well. The man of course had no choice in the matter after conception. The woman still had three legal options -(abortion,adoption,keep the little bugger:p ).. Perhaps it balances out in the end, but you will feel different depending on what side of the bridge you are on.
In the end, it is a legal/equality issue and the pain of childbirth/pregnancy has no bearing on "who has it worse". It is simply a lack of a right for men.

Biology, as you say, isn't equal. However the law must be equal REGARDLESS of biology.

why? biology is the base for the law.

it's about her right to control her body AND her right to terminate future legal obligation.

The male has the first, not the second. Ergo the woman has a right the man does not.

you are seeing these tow things as being differant when in reality they are not
How are they not?

yes, it IS unequal.

duh

childbearing is inherently an unequal proposition.

there is nothing to be done about that. NOTHING. sally will always be the one who has to deal with being pregnant. she is the one who has to face the physical consequences.

when a baby is born, both have equal rights and responsibilities.

But she can stop the kid from being born, and get off scot-free. He has no such decision.

Since it is an undesirable baby, I think that it ought to be sold into compassionate slavery.

You are heartless abortion and slavery are inhumane. We should love are children not sell them or kill them. Abortion is just like murder, you are killing a human being. I think I proved my point.
~Abortion and slavery are inhumane, and should be a captial murder felony!~
:( :upyours: :mad: :sniper: :mp5:

[SIZE="4"][COLOR="Black"]You are heartless abortion and slavery are inhumane. We should love are children not sell them or kill them. Abortion is just like murder, you are killing a human being. I think I proved my point.
~Abortion and slavery are inhumane, and should be a captial murder felony!~
:( :upyurs: :md: :siper: :p5: [/COLR][/SZE]

Welcome to NSG! You have just exercised your right to a stereotypical nfirst post. A mod will be with you shortly to expedite the pwning process.

Ok ok ok ... enough of this nonsense ... who gets custody of the STD?

LMAO! I am amazed to find somebody else refer to children as STDs. I thought I was the only warped individual who did that.

*snip*

The fact of the matter is that I'm at work and do not have time, unfortunately, to debate every little detail.

It all boils down to this. A man doesn't have the choice to abort because he doesn't have the choice to carry a fetus to term. It's not fair, I know. Blame biology. It's the way we're made. A man doesn't have to go through menstruation or menopause. A man doesn't have to make a personal physical decision to bear a child, considering health risks and morals. A woman doesn't get to scratch her balls, run around topless in public, or piss standing up. It's not fair.

Either parent who has a child can be held responsible for the well-being of that child. That is fair. It sure would be nice to have a magic marker to erase the face of a child who gets brought into this world by a hapless, drunken one-night stand, but when that child comes knocking on the father's door to say, "Hey, wussup Pops?", I want to see the father say, "Nooooooo! I aborted you!"

I'll ask the exact same question.

Do you support the right for women to not take responsibility for the consequences of their pregnancy, yes or no?

If yes, then logically, fairly, HOW can you not support the right for men to do the same?

if you allow for "paper abortions" its still unequal.

billy and sally have sex, sally gets pregnant. billy can sign a paper and walk away. sally still has to deal with being pregnant. she cant walk away.

its still not equal

when you add that to the societal problem of massive numbers of men walking away from their financial responsibility to their own children, its a bad idea.

Welcome to NSG! You have just exercised your right to a stereotypical nfirst post. A mod will be with you shortly to expedite the pwning process.

considering Kat is participating in this thread...

*sits back with popcorn* want some?

You are heartless abortion and slavery are inhumane. We should love are children not sell them or kill them. Abortion is just like murder, you are killing a human being. I think I proved my point.
~Abortion and slavery are inhumane, and should be a captial murder felony!

After some font shrinkage and smiley removage..
I do not believe in abortion just for the reason to get rid of a child.. there has to be some extenuating circumstance like rape/mother will die in childbirth/baby will die seconds after birth. Though, if rape is the case and the other two are not in evidence, adoption is the way that I would suggest. At least then the now large animated fetus has a chance to see the outside world, no matter how dismal.

if you allow for "paper abortions" its still unequal.

billy and sally have sex, sally gets pregnant. billy can sign a paper and walk away. sally still has to deal with being pregnant. she cant walk away.

its still not equal

when you add that to the societal problem of massive numbers of men walking away from their financial responsibility to their own children, its a bad idea.

Fine. If a man has a paper abortion, he must be castrated. If a woman has an abortion, she must have her uterus removed. THAT'S equality.

How are they not?

becausethe right to abortion is the woman exorsising her right to bodily autonomy. if she decides to have the child she is placing her self with a huge burden. she will also have to pay for the child for 18+ years, and those costs will far exced the $400ish a month the guy will pay. the girl not only has to put up money for the child but she also has to put up her time for the child.



But she can stop the kid from being born, and get off scot-free. He has no such decision.
he can also stop the kid from being born- not have sex.
and you are wrong she does not get off scot-free, an abortion is not an easy thing to go through with. once a guys sper in in a womwn he has lost the right to say what happens to it

LMAO! I am amazed to find somebody else refer to children as STDs. I thought I was the only warped individual who did that.


YAY!

considering Kat is participating in this thread...

*sits back with popcorn* want some?

Yes please. :)

The fact of the matter is that I'm at work and do not have time, unfortunately, to debate every little detail.

It all boils down to this. A man doesn't have the choice to abort because he doesn't have the choice to carry a fetus to term. It's not fair, I know. Blame biology. It's the way we're made. A man doesn't have to go through menstruation or menopause. A man doesn't have to make a personal physical decision to bear a child, considering health risks and morals. A woman doesn't get to scratch her balls, run around topless in public, or piss standing up. It's not fair.

Either parent who has a child can be held responsible for the well-being of that child. That is fair. It sure would be nice to have a magic marker to erase the face of a child who gets brought into this world by a hapless, drunken one-night stand, but when that child comes knocking on the father's door to say, "Hey, wussup Pops?", I want to see the father say, "Nooooooo! I aborted you!"
especially when he holds the Paper Abortion up like a cross. :D

You are heartless abortion and slavery are inhumane. We should love are children not sell them or kill them. Abortion is just like murder, you are killing a human being. I think I proved my point.
~Abortion and slavery are inhumane, and should be a captial murder felony!~
:( :upyours: :mad: :sniper: :mp5:

why is slavery inhumane?

if you allow for "paper abortions" its still unequal.

billy and sally have sex, sally gets pregnant. billy can sign a paper and walk away. sally still has to deal with being pregnant. she cant walk away.

its still not equal

when you add that to the societal problem of massive numbers of men walking away from their financial responsibility to their own children, its a bad idea.

Eh?
You ever hear of abortion? I think the women can walk away shortly thereafter..

Yes, the men may get away from financial responsibility.
The women already slay fetii by the womb-load.

Both are a bad idea in most cases.

Billy should of kicked her in the stomach repeatedly.

Or killed himself.

I'd take the second route, after first informing the person of my decision.

Only because I feel violence is wrong.

why is slavery inhumane?

because sometimes the collars just don't match the slave... and yet they're forced to wear them.

because sometimes the collars just don't match the slave... and yet they're forced to wear them.


Or worse, they don't even get collars and they become all confused over who they belong to.

becausethe right to abortion is the woman exorsising her right to bodily autonomy. if she decides to have the child she is placing her self with a huge burden. she will also have to pay for the child for 18+ years, and those costs will far exced the $400ish a month the guy will pay.
Prove it.

the girl not only has to put up money for the child but she also has to put up her time for the child.
She can put the kidlet up for adoption, another thing the man can't do.


he can also stop the kid from being born- not have sex.
She had the same ability. She didn't use it. If they both made the same decision, why does he get slapped with a bill while she gets a decision?

and you are wrong she does not get off scot-free, an abortion is not an easy thing to go through with.

Show me an unbias source.

once a guys sper in in a womwn he has lost the right to say what happens to it
So once a guy completes the act, he loses his rights, but once a woman completes the act, she gets a second chance? That's not fair.

because sometimes the collars just don't match the slave... and yet they're forced to wear them.

ah, so its back to the whole power thing eh?
welll i guess i should exorsies my right to be a good humanist and shoot my self. becuse then iam doing to world a favor by taking my self out of the inborn mamel instinct of fighting for power and providing myself with the right to exorseis "power" and let every one elce have a go at it.
i gotta love history

The law is. Sally has the legal ability to do something Billy does not. That is unequal under the law. The law should change.



Biology, as you say, isn't equal. However the law must be equal REGARDLESS of biology.

the law is as equal as it can be and as equal as it should be.

they both have equal right to have sex

they both have equal right to control their own bodies

they both have equal right to any child born from their sexual congress.

it is not in the best interest of society to force an unequal financial burden upon mothers. its not in the best interest of society to force more women into abortion for financial reasons. its not in the best interest of society to have fatherless children. its not in the best interest of society to have children who are not supported by both parents.

ah, so its back to the whole power thing eh?
welll i guess i should exorsies my right to be a good humanist and shoot my self. becuse then iam doing to world a favor by taking my self out of the inborn mamel instinct of fighting for power and providing myself with the right to exorseis "power" and let every one elce have a go at it.
i gotta love history...

but you ask why slavery is inhumane... *sniff*

I'm sorry, please don't hit me again...

the law is as equal as it can be and as equal as it should be.

they both have equal right to have sex

they both have equal right to control their own bodies

they both have equal right to any child born from their sexual congress.

it is not in the best interest of society to force an unequal financial burden upon mothers. its not in the best interest of society to force more women into abortion for financial reasons. its not in the best interest of society to have fatherless children. its not in the best interest of society to have children who are not supported by both parents.

Humanity and the human race aren't in the best interest of society.

Edit: reread that first line and... Whoa.. all I can say is whoa..

She didn't have to close her legs to prevent responsibility. Yet he has to keep it in his pants? That isn't fair.


she cant avoid responsibility. she is pregnant. she cant walk away.

as it turns out it would have indeed been better if either or both of them had decided to abstain.\


wooohooo i finally caught up with this thread! thatll teach me for watching the opening credits of FF12.

especially when he holds the Paper Abortion up like a cross. :D

That would be a sight! I can see the father shuddering as his imaginary world collapses, "You're not real! You're not real! You're not real!"

Prove it.
prove it? prove what? that a woman in desiding to keep a child does not only have a finantualy resposibily to said child as well as having to raise said child?


She can put the kidlet up for adoption, another thing the man can't do.
oh and spent the rest of her life wondering when said kidlet is going to come knocking on her door as well as the dads?
dad can put the kid up for "adoption" when he picks to not stick around and help raise the kid. hes leaving the opertunity for another guy to come and do that


She had the same ability. She didn't use it. If they both made the same decision, why does he get slapped with a bill while she gets a decision?
she does get slaped with a bill as well. the guys howerev expiers after only 18 years here does not hers lasts for life. not to menation its ok for a guy to have random kids out there but its not ok for a single woman to be having kids. her family is not going to accept her any more ect. there are a differant kind of price.


Show me an unbias source.


that says what????


So once a guy completes the act, he loses his rights, but once a woman completes the act, she gets a second chance? That's not fair.
she does not get a second chance

You ask why the man cannot legally "abort" liability to the rearing of the child.. I'll tell you why.

Because society has decided that it's important to not leave pregnant woman with the short end of the stick when they get knocked up (no matter whose fault it is) and baby daddy decides he'll just walk out and sign away his liability to the child, leaving mommy (whose religion may not allow for an abortion, or for whatever reason) to raise the child on her own. Why should she be left with all the liability (aka responsibility) for the child that was not solely of her making?

To liken it to liability in law, those who gain from dangerous activities (ie sex) should equally have to pay for the damages (ie pregnancy) of those activities.

We cannot and should not automatically assume that all women will get or want to get abortions. It is not like clipping your toenails or getting a manicure. No matter how much people sugar coat it, losing a child (be it to adoption or abortion) is a scarring process (in addition to the physiological changes a woman's body undergoes).

I also think that a father should not have the right to require the mother of his child to carry the child to term because he doesn't want an abortion (and she does).



And if you don't like this reasoning, then start doing some work to change it.

...

but you ask why slavery is inhumane... *sniff*

I'm sorry, please don't hit me again...

what i was trying to point out was slavery is not in-human or "inhumane"
as mamels its what we do to each other, we cant help it its how we servive. there is one thing that changes that by its no longer viewed as a good thing to have in our socioty.

Since it is an undesirable baby, I think that it ought to be sold into compassionate slavery.

Okay... Next on by Means:

Compassionate rape.

Gentle torture.

Kind mother-raping.

Nice pedophilia.

And so on. Means, come on, now, where's that credible trolling that had people going way back when you were younger, like... 1 month ago?

ANYTHING if it'll get people to hate you, eh Means? By the way, since you'll obviously complain about "oh, no logical refutation against my absurd propositions", I defy you to answer me if you'd like that done to you.

prove it? prove what? that a woman in desiding to keep a child does not only have a finantualy resposibily to said child as well as having to raise said child?
prove it costs more.


oh and spent the rest of her life wondering when said kidlet is going to come knocking on her door as well as the dads?
dad can put the kid up for "adoption" when he picks to not stick around and help raise the kid. hes leaving the opertunity for another guy to come and do that
Not the same, Dad still has to pay, she wouldn't.

she does get slaped with a bill as well. the guys howerev expiers after only 18 years here does not hers lasts for life. not to menation its ok for a guy to have random kids out there but its not ok for a single woman to be having kids. her family is not going to accept her any more ect. there are a differant kind of price.

Not the point. If she has an abortion and keeps her trap shut (assuming she's an adult) no one has to know. Hence she has an opt out for her "price" the man doesn't.

that says what????
that abortion is in anyway traumatic to a woman.

she does not get a second chance
Chance 1 (woman). Keep your legs shut.

Chance two(woman). Abortion/adoption.

Chance 1 (Male). keep it in your pants.

Chance 2 (male). ?????? (Suicide?)

No, but she is "cancelling" legal obligations to a child that normally would exist if no aborted.

Perhaps, maybe I just do not know the actual law in place about the obligations unmarried child-bearer's have towards the children.


Yes, I am aware of the biological process..
So, the woman has to carry a baby for a while and then squeeze it out of a hole. The man must send money to the child for 18 years. However, the woman will raise it as well. The man of course had no choice in the matter after conception. The woman still had three legal options -(abortion,adoption,keep the little bugger:p ).. Perhaps it balances out in the end, but you will feel different depending on what side of the bridge you are on.
In the end, it is a legal/equality issue and the pain of childbirth/pregnancy has no bearing on "who has it worse". It is simply a lack of a right for men.

when a woman has a baby she also supports it. its not just the father who is out 18 years worth of money.

she cant put a child up for adoption without the fathers consent.

she CAN control her own body and choose to have an abortion. its her body and her decision. a man has no equivalent burden to pregnancy.

Lets see

With abortion (no paper abortion)

Male and female have full rights to body - Yes
After birth both are responsable for the well being of child - Yes
Each can give up phisical support as long as monetary support is in place - Yes

Abortion with paper abortion
Make and female have full rights to body - Yes
After birth both are responsible for the well being of child - No
Each can give up phisical support for monitary support - Yes,But not required on the fauthers part if he signed a paper abortion


Seems less fair to me to have the paper abortion

You know, if the dude kept his libido under control, or the women kept her legs closed, this would not have happened.

Sex is a risk, even with contraception. They played the game, and they lost. Now they both have to pay.

You know, if the dude kept his libido under control, or the women kept her legs closed, this would not have happened.

Sex is a risk, even with contraception. They played the game, and they lost. Now they both have to pay.

Doesn't seem like she does.

You know, if the dude kept his libido under control, or the women kept her legs closed, this would not have happened.

Sex is a risk, even with contraception. They played the game, and they lost. Now they both have to pay.


Sex is even more of a risk with you involved... lava lamps *shudders* ;)

You ask why the man cannot legally "abort" liability to the rearing of the child.. I'll tell you why.

Because society has decided that it's important to not leave pregnant woman with the short end of the stick when they get knocked up (no matter whose fault it is) and baby daddy decides he'll just walk out and sign away his liability to the child, leaving mommy (whose religion may not allow for an abortion, or for whatever reason) to raise the child on her own. Why should she be left with all the liability (aka responsibility) for the child that was not solely of her making?

To liken it to liability in law, those who gain from dangerous activities (ie sex) should equally have to pay for the damages (ie pregnancy) of those activities.

We cannot and should not automatically assume that all women will get or want to get abortions. It is not like clipping your toenails or getting a manicure. No matter how much people sugar coat it, losing a child (be it to adoption or abortion) is a scarring process (in addition to the physiological changes a woman's body undergoes).

I also think that a father should not have the right to require the mother of his child to carry the child to term because he doesn't want an abortion (and she does).



And if you don't like this reasoning, then start doing some work to change it.
Society is not always right. Though I agree we need some sort of common guidelines to prevent mass chaos.

I do not know why a religion would allow pre-marital sex, but not abortion. The two are almost synonymous these days. (whether they should be or not)

Yes, losing a child (though willingly through abortion) may be scarring or traumatizing, but if you do not want to risk the chance of ever losing a child. Do not have sex.


So the father cannot "abort" (as in financially, not physically forcing the child out of the woman) if the woman does not want to?
But the woman can abort even if the man does not want to?

Doesn't seem like she does.

Being a single parent, with or without child support, is definately no walk in the park.

So the father cannot "abort" (as in financially, not physically forcing the child out of the woman) if the woman does not want to?
But the woman can abort even if the man does not want to?

That is the heart of the issue methinks.

Being a single parent, with or without child support, is definately no walk in the park.

I was refering to her right to not have to be a single parent. I know it's no walk in the park, I was raised by a single mother.

Because society has decided that it's important to not leave pregnant woman with the short end of the stick when they get knocked up (no matter whose fault it is) and baby daddy decides he'll just walk out and sign away his liability to the child, leaving mommy (whose religion may not allow for an abortion, or for whatever reason) to raise the child on her own. Why should she be left with all the liability (aka responsibility) for the child that was not solely of her making?

To liken it to liability in law, those who gain from dangerous activities (ie sex) should equally have to pay for the damages (ie pregnancy) of those activities.

Frankly, I don't think you're framing these statements very fairly. Men just don't go around "knocking people up", excluding rape, sex is a mutually consentual act. Therefore, if men "should have to pay for damages", then by the same logic women should pay for those damages. Personally, that's not the way I would frame the question, its just your words.

I wish I could remember the exact details of this case, but I believe the general principles with suffice. Mr. A had sex with Ms. B. Ms. B told Mr. that she was using birth control. Guess what? She lied. Furthermore, Ms. is pregnant, is not going to abort, and demands child support from Mr. A.

And what about when birth control fails?

If we reversed the genders in the above examples. People would be outraged. Mr. A has no right to demand Ms. B carry through with the pregnancy just because he wants to be a father.

Personally, I don't think anyone should ever be a parent if they don't want to be. Its simply too huge a responsibility and burden not to be undertaken willingly.


I also think that a father should not have the right to require the mother of his child to carry the child to term because he doesn't want an abortion (and she does).


I'm on board with you %100. See above comment (and note that its gender-neutral).

Sex is even more of a risk with you involved... lava lamps *shudders* ;)


Indeed, although pregnancy is among the least of your concerns.

You know, if the dude kept his libido under control, or the women kept her legs closed, this would not have happened.

Sex is a risk, even with contraception. They played the game, and they lost. Now they both have to pay.

Or they can choose not to ruin their lives because of one drunken night.

Yeah I sometimes post drunk, too. Hehehe.

Yah, we're in agreement.

Though I do think a "paper abortion" would be severely abused by men who just don't want to pay child support. After all ... it's quick and easy and painless for the man.

Can we set it up so that men get a white hot coat hanger shoved up the pee-pee hole in order to be able to sign such a paper?

He gets kicked in the balls as soon as the signature dries.

Doesn't seem like she does.

how do you figure?

she is pregnant, she has to deal with that

she has an abortion, he walks away

she has the baby, they put it up for adoption, they both walk away

she has the baby, keeps it, they both pay for a minimum of 18 years.

she always pays, he sometimes gets to walk away.

He gets kicked in the balls as soon as the signature dries.

I already suggested mandatory castration.

Doesn't seem like she does.

How doesn't she? As the physical provider, she is also financially responsible, emotionally responsible, and morally responsible for the child. She is also commited for a far longer time as having the constant role of parent. She pays just as much -and possibly sacrifices just as much- if not more as the father. He signs a check over. Woo-hoo.

Society is not always right. Though I agree we need some sort of common guidelines to prevent mass chaos.

I do not know why a religion would allow pre-marital sex, but not abortion. The two are almost synonymous these days. (whether they should be or not)

Yes, losing a child (though willingly through abortion) may be scarring or traumatizing, but if you do not want to risk the chance of ever losing a child. Do not have sex.


So the father cannot "abort" (as in financially, not physically forcing the child out of the woman) if the woman does not want to?
But the woman can abort even if the man does not want to?


I never said it was right. I said it's what society has decided. I also said that if you don't like it, you are fully free to work to change it.

Yes, we must always keep in mind that the price a woman pays is far more than out of pocket. A man may have to work to pay money to support a child, but a woman will pay in psychological and physical effects. The father does not go through the same physiological changes that a woman does when she is pregant. Above all we must (in my opinion) support a woman's right to be in control of her own body (and until that cord is cut at birth, in my opinion, that child is a part of the woman; this is not to suggest I support abortions in cases where the foetus would be self sustaining if removed from the womb).

And I know plenty of women whose religions allow neither pre-marital sex nor abortions; but they have pre marital sex but would never have an abortion (or so they say now).

I was refering to her right to not have to be a single parent. I know it's no walk in the park, I was raised by a single mother.

I'm confused. She's not paying by being a single parent?

Oh, and I was raised by a single father, so I know, as well, how it is.

Now I know why MTA is everywhere...
Everything you do in your life is a means to an end...

But remember MTA, the ends do not justify the means.

First off, I don't plan to debate this, I just want to see what the reaction is to this concept of abortion. I'm not heartless, I'm just curious. So, here goes.

Let's start with a hypothetical situation: Billy and Sally are two young people. They have no clearly defined religious beliefs, and are attending the same college. Billy has a part time job to pay for expenses, and Sally's parents cover hers.

Billy and Sally meet at a party and really hit it off. They leave together and go to Billy's apartment. They spend a night getting to know each other in the biblical sense (while using a condom of course). They bid each other adieu the following morning both accepting it as a one night stand.

A month later, Sally is concerned because she is far over due for her period, and has been missing classes because of nausea. She goes to her doctor to discover that she is pregnant.

Calling Billy, she relays the information. He is shocked and doesn't know how to respond. He can't support a baby financially without quitting school and going to work full time, but that would ruin his hope of one day being a doctor. Turning to the only alternative he could see, he suggests an abortion. Sally is appalled, for she is morally opposed to abortion, and would never do such a thing. Because of the laws in his nation, Billy has no say in the matter.

Several months later, Sally gives birth to the baby. The baby suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome from Sally's college drinking binges, and requires significant medical attention. The baby will need extensive medical care through out its development, but is mentally fine.

Billy is forced by his state to pay child support for the following 18 years and is forced from college and into the workforce so that he can meet the high payments. He leads a life not at all comparable to the one he would have had he finished school or not been forced to pay child support.



So, the key issue is: If the man has no say on whether or not a baby is born, why is he responsible for supporting that child to age 18?

The average cost of raising a child from birth to age 18 is $250,000 working out to about $20,850 a year. That is a significant dent to almost anyone's income, but especially if you are not college educated and can not attain a high salary position. This is not even considering that a mentally or physically retarded baby would cost astronomically more.

It seems unfair to me that men are on the really short end of the stick here. They have no part in the decision making process, but have atleast half the financial responsibility.

I'm not suggesting that fathers should have the power to force mothers into getting an abortion, but instead that if the mother opts not to get an abortion, the father should be able to, through legal action, sever himself from the financial burden of the unwanted child.

It takes two parties to make a baby, but only the mother gets to decide whether or not the baby goes to term or is aborted, and by extension, the fate of the father.

Thoughts, criticisms (constructive preferably)?


So, let's see if I've got this correct. If the mother opts to have a child, the father, by your logic, should not be culpable for his actions. After all, the child is half his fault. Billy, or any man, needs to be willing to accept responsibility for his actions and their consequences. If you make the decision to have sex, you make the decision to accept the possibility of conceiving a child. Most of the time, it is unintended; hence the reason for the law--a father should be just as, if not more, responsible for the child than the mother. Otherwise, what is to prevent some cad from going around, impregnating women, and leaving them out to dry with the child? The law is there for a reason, and it should stay. Keeps integrity in the system, and ensures that Billy is held responsible for the consequences of his actions.

how do you figure?

she is pregnant, she has to deal with that

she has an abortion, he walks away (They both walk away)

she has the baby, they put it up for adoption, they both walk away

she has the baby, keeps it, they both pay for a minimum of 18 years.

she always pays, he sometimes gets to walk away.

Seems like she gets to walk away under one more circumstance then him.

Frankly, I don't think you're framing these statements very fairly. Men just don't go around "knocking people up", excluding rape, sex is a mutually consentual act. Therefore, if men "should have to pay for damages", then by the same logic women should pay for those damages. Anyone who has taken a biology class knows babies arn't solely the result of men.

I wish I could remember the exact details of this case, but I believe the general principles with suffice. Mr. A had sex with Ms. B. Ms. B told Mr. that she was using birth control. Guess what? She lied. Furthermore, Ms. is pregnant, is not going to abort, and demands child support from Mr. A.

And what about when birth control fails?

Personally, I don't think anyone should ever be a parent if they don't want to be. Its simply too huge a responsibility and burden not to be undertaken willingly.



I'm on board with you %100. See above comment (and note that its gender-neutral).

I apologize if the statement seemed antagonistic towards the man in this issue. That was not my intention. It is obviously the liability of both parties in this situation. My premise was that the woman is paying for the consensual act. She undergoes physiological changes as a result of both the pregnancy and the birth. This is in addition to financial obligations to take proper care of herself and the foetus.

My argument was towards the idea of "paper abortions". I was assuming that the woman was also "paying for it". My apologies for not being clear enough.

Or they can choose not to ruin their lives because of one drunken night.

Of course, that's an option. Retrospectively, I would think most women would rather have avoided the sex in the first place rather than get an abortion.

I'm confused. She's not paying by being a single parent?

Oh, and I was raised by a single father, so I know, as well, how it is.

She is paying by being a single parent. But she could of opted out.

She is paying by being a single parent. But she could of opted out.

She could have, but are we now going to require abortions?

She could have, but are we now going to require abortions?

No. But I'm saying the man didn't have that choice. So it's unfair.

She is paying by being a single parent. But she could of opted out.

Yes, she could have opted out. But the man could have opted out by not thinking with his dick.

Yes, she could have opted out. But the man could have opted out by not thinking with his dick.

She gets to opt out TWICE. He only gets to opt out ONCE. How can you not see a problem there? I can't understand that.

No. But I'm saying the man didn't have that choice. So it's unfair.

Sometimes things are just going to be unfair. It's not always possible to make things exactly equal so we have to get as close as we can.

Billy, or any man, needs to be willing to accept responsibility for his actions and their consequences.

Does that mean that Sally, or any other woman, needs to be willing to accept responsibility for her actions and their consequences? Do you not support their right to an abortion?

what is to prevent some cad from going around, impregnating women, and leaving them out to dry with the child?

What is to stop women tricking some man by telling him she's on birth control and not being on it?

and ensures that Billy is held responsible for the consequences of his actions.

Asking again. Does that mean that Sally, or any other woman, needs to be willing to accept responsibility for her actions and their consequences? Do you not support their right to an abortion?

Yes, she could have opted out. But the man could have opted out by not thinking with his dick.

She could have opted out by not having sex with him. Do you not support her right to have an abortion after conception?

Of course, that's an option. Retrospectively, I would think most women would rather have avoided the sex in the first place rather than get an abortion.

True that, but they won't avoid ANY AND ALL sex because ONE might lead to a pregnancy. :p

Sometimes things are just going to be unfair.

After all, it's not like we have some sort of document, some kind of overarching supreme law, some form of...I don't know...national constitution that says everyone is equal under the law and has equal rights.

She could have opted out by not having sex with him. Do you not support her right to have an abortion after conception?

There's a difference between supporting a woman's right to *choose* to have an abortion an acting like she is *required* (or ought to be required) to have one.

She gets to opt out TWICE. He only gets to opt out ONCE. How can you not see a problem there? I can't understand that.

No, I see no problem. Women and men are not equil in sexuality.

Of course, the man could duck and run sometime during the pregnancy.

Solution:
We make sex, in any form, illegal for twenty years.
If that doesn't work, all of humanity can run off a cliff, un-like lemmings.

"Stories about lemmings go back many centuries. In the 16th and 17th centuries, there was much speculation in learned circles that lemmings were in fact spontaneously generated by conditions of the air."(Wikipedia)

Now where do people that have sex and assume nothing like a child will occur come from?

No, I see no problem. Women and men are not equil in sexuality.

They are, however equal under the LAW.

It's simple really.

If guys don't want responsibility for children, stop having sex or get yourself cut.

But but... law=sexuality
and we burned the "constitution" long ago

:rolleyes:

It's simple really.

If lemmings don't want responsibility for children, stop them from having sex or get them all cut.

Edited to remove gender bias.

yes, it IS unequal.

duh

childbearing is inherently an unequal proposition.


That is an issue with biology. The law ignores biology. Biology is irrelevant to the law.

Of course, the man could duck and run sometime during the pregnancy.

Yeah, but that's not legal, abortion is.

If men had the right to choose whether to pay for child support, I think many, if not all, would cheat the system so they wouldn't need to pay child support. Then, the mother is left all alone, with no money or anything to raise THEIR child. That is including his 'half' of the child. Even if she wanted to keep it, its still his responsibility too. Its half of his problem, even if he didn't want any of it to happen. Its now both of their problem because they both contributed to it. They both need to take responsibility and take care of this kid. It really sucks for him if he can't continue to stay in college, and do what he wants to do. Absence is key, as they always say.

True that, but they won't avoid ANY AND ALL sex because ONE might lead to a pregnancy. :p

Very true. I am just saying that when one has sex, one must be prepared to accept any and all consequences. Up to and including pregnancy.

It's simple really.

If guys don't want responsibility for children, stop having sex or get yourself cut.

And the same for women?

Yeah, but that's not legal, abortion is.

It's not exactly hard to get away with. My mother did it.

There's a difference between supporting a woman's right to *choose* to have an abortion an acting like she is *required* (or ought to be required) to have one.

she is never required to have one.

However as a matter of law she has two opportunities to avoid motherhood. Refraining from sex, and aborting a pregnancy should she chose not to refrain.

A man has only one.

If men had the right to choose whether to pay for child support, I think many, if not all, would cheat the system so they wouldn't need to pay child support. Then, the mother is left all alone, with no money or anything to raise THEIR child.

She may raise it alone, if she choses to, or she may abort the pregnancy, if she choses to.

No mother is ever, ever forced to raise a child they did not want.

It's not exactly hard to get away with. My mother did it.

Being broke and in jail on the other side of the country worked for my dad.:p

she is never required to have one.

However as a matter of law she has two opportunities to avoid motherhood. Refraining from sex, and aborting a pregnancy should she chose not to refrain.

A man has only one.

So what do you propose we do to change this problem? What option do you propose that cannot be severely abused?

If men had the right to choose whether to pay for child support, I think many, if not all, would cheat the system so they wouldn't need to pay child support. Then, the mother is left all alone, with no money or anything to raise THEIR child. That is including his 'half' of the child. Even if she wanted to keep it, its still his responsibility too. Its half of his problem, even if he didn't want any of it to happen. Its now both of their problem because they both contributed to it. They both need to take responsibility and take care of this kid. It really sucks for him if he can't continue to stay in college, and do what he wants to do. Absence is key, as they always say.


We take the Solomon route and cut the child in half, giving .5 child to each parent and forcing them to care for it.

Yes, absence is the key. No child, no problem.
No sex no problem.
No reproductive organs..no problem.
No human race..no problem.
No problems-No problem.

although, to be fair, I'd also fully support the right for a woman to do an equivalent "paper abortion" in which she brings the child to term, but does not wish to have legal responsibility for it.

Being broke and in jail on the other side of the country worked for my dad.:p

Woking under the table or not working at all also helps. It's working for my son's biological sperm donor.

Edited to remove gender bias.
How is there gender bias if I am a male.

A vasectomy is far less evasive then what is needed for a woman to get her tubes tied.

Seems like she gets to walk away under one more circumstance then him.
where does she get to walk away and he doesnt?

she NEVER gets to walk away. she always has to pay.

having a fetus sucked out of your body is paying

carrying a child to term is paying.

he has to do nothing but sometimes pay for the child. when HE pays, SHE pays plus she had the burden of making a baby from scratch.

although, to be fair, I'd also fully support the right for a woman to do an equivalent "paper abortion" in which she brings the child to term, but does not wish to have legal responsibility for it.

Wouldn't that be adoption?
Only other thing that would mean is force it onto the man.

So what do you propose we do to change this problem? What option will solve it while not simultaneously severely open to abuse?

as I said, tie the time limit the male has to make this choice to be equal (actually, probably less) than the time a woman has to have an abortion.

Make it also required for him to enform her before it takes affect. Make him bring a witness.

Then once the woman is informed, she may make her own choice as to whether to raise it alone, abort the pregnancy, or give it up for adoption.

And the same for women?

Find me woman that are trying to avoid paying support for their children and we can talk about it.

I know women who have had their tubes tied because they didn't want children.

The guys bitching about child support and the oppression of the system tend to not want to be cut.....

How is there gender bias if I am a male.

A vasectomy is far less evasive then what is needed for a woman to get her tubes tied.

It was biased against men, regardless of your gender...
I can be biased against white males and be a white male myself..

Find me woman that are trying to avoid paying support for their children and we can talk about it.

I know women who have had their tubes tied because they didn't want children.

The guys bitching about child support and the oppression of the system tend to not want to be cut.....


Who wants to have part of themself cut off...

as I said, tie the time limit the male has to make this choice to be equal (actually, probably less) than the time a woman has to have an abortion.

Make it also required for him to enform her before it takes affect. Make him bring a witness.

Then once the woman is informed, she may make her own choice as to whether to raise it alone, abort the pregnancy, or give it up for adoption.

But in each of these scenarios, there is still a cost to the woman where there is no cost to the man.

where does she get to walk away and he doesnt?

she NEVER gets to walk away. she always has to pay.

having a fetus sucked out of your body is paying


Not nearly as much as having your wages garnished for the rest of your life.

Wouldn't that be adoption?
Only other thing that would mean is force it onto the man.

A woman may not give a child up for adoption without the consent of the father.

If SHE does not wish to have anything to do with the child, she may give it over to the father, just as the father may give it over fully to the mother.

If NEITHER want responsibility, then yes, that is an adoption.

If a father does not wish responsibility, he may inform the mother who may chose to raise it herself, abort it, or give it up for adoption.

If the mother does not wish responsibility, she may either abort the pregnancy, or turn it over to the father, who may chose to raise it himself or give it up for adoption.

Woking under the table or not working at all also helps. It's working for my son's biological sperm donor.

You are not my mom are you? Do you have a daughter too? ;)

My old man did the same thing....

It was biased against men, regardless of your gender...
I can be biased against white males and be a white male myself..

Call it what you will. You don't find many women crying about supporting their children.

If an oppressed male, wants to make sure he doesn't get children. A simple procedure is all it takes.

Find me woman that are trying to avoid paying support for their children and we can talk about it.

Not the issue. You said in order to avoid responsibility men must abstain. Do you feel the same way about women? If you do, I'll shake your hand and leave.

Who wants to have part of themself cut off...

It's not cut off, it's cut in half and tied.

It's far cheaper then child support.

snipppp

Got it, thanks.

It's not cut off, it's cut in half and tied.



*edges away*

Not the issue. You said in order to avoid responsibility men must abstain. Do you feel the same way about women? If you do, I'll shake your hand and leave.

Sure. As said. The women I know that don't want children, got their tubes tied.

Sure. As said. The women I know that don't want children, got their tubes tied.

So all the single women who are sexually active but don't want a kid "right now" that you know got tied?

*edges away*

Ok. It was a high intensity day at work for me today so bare with me.

You understand what is involved with a vasectomy right?

Or was that an attempt of humor?

Sure. As said. The women I know that don't want children, got their tubes tied.

I know a woman who is about to undergo that precise procedure for that precise reason. I sure don't know any men doing the equivalent.

I know a woman who is about to undergo that precise procedure for that precise reason. I sure don't know any men doing the equivalent.

So all men are bastards for possibly wanting kids eventually?

So all men are bastards for possibly wanting kids eventually?

Both of these options (tubal ligation and vasectomy) are reversible procedures(unless they changed it while I wasn't looking).

So all the single women who are sexually active but don't want a kid "right now" that you know got tied?

Again. Those that don't want children.

A vasectomy is far easier on the man.

If you want children, you takes your chances. There is no "wait" I change my mind.

Most men step up. But there are many losers out there. My old man and Grannie's ex are good examples.

Both of these options (tubal ligation and vasectomy) are reversible procedures(unless they changed it while I wasn't looking).

How much do they cost?

But in each of these scenarios, there is still a cost to the woman where there is no cost to the man.

I guess what we should do is find out what women are charging to be surrogate mother's these days and attach a price tag to the whole thing so that the man pays a one time fee to get out of the affair.

I know a woman who is about to undergo that precise procedure for that precise reason. I sure don't know any men doing the equivalent.

Some guys do.

The ones bitching about child support, tend not to.

My old man, has had several children and ran out on them.

He was soo oppressed.

So, the key issue is: If the man has no say on whether or not a baby is born, why is he responsible for supporting that child to age 18?
Because babies are human beings with rights, like the right to be financially supported by their parents. This is much less unjust than any of the alternatives, which are to force a medical proceedure on the mother (unconstitutional) while allowing the state to have a direct hand in forcing the termination of pregnancies (ie giving the state a hand in control over a womens' reproductive capacities), or taking from the child the right to be financially supported by both their parents (and doing so at the risk of forcing the child into destitution), or to force someone else (let's say the innocent tax-payer who had much less say in the matter than the father) to pay up.

Unless you want to ignore the right of people to not have medical proceedures and abortions forced on them, or to infringe on the right of the child because of the poor decision making of the father and mother, or force innocent taxpayers who had less say than the father you claim had no say, to pay up, then there is no other alternative.

It's the fairest most just way of treating the matter consistent with social mores and the general tennets and principals at law.

The fact is there will always be 'hard cases' when it comes to law and justice. By 'hard cases' what is meant are cases where the rights of individuals apparently conflict. In such cases we return to 'first principals' - that is we start with the most basic fundamental rights and work our way out from there. The right to be supported by one's parents and the right to refuse to be subjectected to invasive medical proceedures and forced abortion are more fundamental rights than the right to opt out of legal responsibility for a liability that you incurred as a result of your own conduct....in fact only the first two are legal rights as general principals, the last isnt a legal right except other than where special provisision of some kind provides for it.

So in fact the alternatives are to not inpinge on anyone's legal rights (as is the status quo) and thus follow a path consistent with general principals of justice and law, or to invent laws in order to deprive people of existing rights in complete contradistinction to current principals of justice....

You are not my mom are you? Do you have a daughter too? ;)

My old man did the same thing....

I don't remember having another child, one without testicles that is. There were some hazy days several years back, though. How old are you again? :eek:

My "dad" and my DAD are two different people. The first having argued that I wasn't really his, though I was, and stopped working anyway. The second having not cared that I wasn't his biological daughter. In his eyes, I was his daughter no matter what.

I personally thank the world for the guys out there who are more than willing to be dads even though the kids aren't theirs. They are deserving of multitudes of respect for stepping up to the plate and taking over where other guys left off.