It's the father's choice!

[slant]

I think this option would be fair, as long as the state absolves all parental rights the father has in regards to the child, and he gives up any right he may have to see or be involved in the child's life.

Indeed, that was the idea behind it.

 

[Shai Gar]

I agree that the rights of fathers aren't recognized enough but i disagree that simply because he doesn't want the child, that he shouldn't pay child support. As long as the child is born, it's his, and only someone of questionable character wouldn't want to support their own flesh and blood once it's born. Whether or not he supports the mother's choice to keep the child, it is still his child. It is a life he has a part in creating, so he is still responsible. That's "my" opinion.

I would not want to support a child whether or not it was my biological child. Not until I am ready anyway. I want to adopt a child later on.

I will not support, financially, any child I did not choose to have. As the law is against my opinion I would have to have it arranged that the child was miscarried.

 

[Sithious]

The world is over populated as it is, abortions should be free and we should have infertility lotteries.

The souls of unborn children is a small price to pay for this delcious and bloody steak

 

[NeverAmI]

I was going to say that I would be more inclined to push more equal custody laws for men vs women, but I didn't want to open that can of worms.

Back on topic:

A man or woman 'not wanting' a baby doesn't really get any sympathy from me. Although I realize the argument here is for the sake of the unborn child in most cases.

But... If someone engages in sex and the woman suddenly gets pregnant *SURPRISE*... why is there confusion?

I can show diagrams on how this all works.

Abortion has real risks and complications, emotional trauma, etc. Things that simply can't be predicted. I don't feel that a law like this would be fair to women that would never have considered abortion in the first place.


Oh and if you don't want, or aren't prepared for, a child with someone... DON'T HAVE SEX WITH THEM!

 

[Shai Gar]

The world is over populated as it is, abortions should be free and we should have infertility lotteries.

The souls of unborn children is a small price to pay for this delcious and bloody steak

Marry me.

 

[slant]

Yeah, but, neverami, that turns into an entire debate about whether people should have sex or not and people are going to continue to have sex- it's the most cheap recreational passtime on the market, no matter where you live. That's why poverty stricken countries tend to have more children than your average 1st world country.

There are lots of solutions to how not to get pregnant, but what we're talking about is when the deed is said and done, and this thread is working on the premise of someone who is considering an abortion.

Whether abortion is moral or not is a completely different topic for another thread and another day; in fact, I'm sure there are hundreds of them lying around on these forums alone.

 

[TheLastMohican]

I believe the financial opt out and age where abortion can be performed should coexist. If an abortion can no longer be performed, the financial option is also off. That will probably warrant people paying a lot closer attention to their sexual partners to make sure they are not impregnated, seeing as, you say, there is a time limit to that sort of thing.

There is a pre-set abortion 'window' so to speak, correct?

Yes: from conception to birth.

So you do not think there should be any trade-off as the fetus grows and the mother has suffered through more and more of the pregnancy?

 

[BenW]

The campus left is as partial to the censorship of contradicting opinion as is the religious right.
Maybe more so, today.

 

[slant]

Yes: from conception to birth.

So you do not think there should be any trade-off as the fetus grows and the mother has suffered through more and more of the pregnancy?

I would have to say that's the share of the deal she gets, just like the man has to pay more and more money when a child is NOT aborted and he's forced to pay.

Having some sort of pain-scale which you'd use to somehow equalize it between both sexes sounds kind of ridiculous, although, I would insist there be a certain deadline that be met with the decision.

There is a certain, more specific window for abortion because many people won't abort children past a certain point, such as, 21 weeks. It would be a reasonable thing to say because that is when abortion is the most effective and sometimes less dangerous than childbirth at this point. But I'd place that into effect as merely a safety procedure rather than some guilt-ridden my pain-for-your-pain act.

 

[NeverAmI]

Yeah, but, neverami, that turns into an entire debate about whether people should have sex or not and people are going to continue to have sex- it's the most cheap recreational passtime on the market, no matter where you live. That's why poverty stricken countries tend to have more children than your average 1st world country.

Yes, of course. I will get off my soap box, but in those countries they certainly don't have laws letting fathers get out of raising their kids, I mean they can run off if they want. Usually the kids are expected to help out with work in those societies or they starve. This seems more like a law to bypass "inconvenience" for irresponsible people, which is one reason I am opposed to it.

There are lots of solutions to how not to get pregnant, but what we're talking about is when the deed is said and done, and this thread is working on the premise of someone who is considering an abortion.

How do you define that they are considering abortion? How does it pan out for a woman that wouldn't consider abortion in the first place? How does the law justify whether a man is entitled to 'opt out?' Does a woman have to designate whether she is pro or anti abortion beforehand?


Do they get cards to show to their potential 'mate' so they are well informed beforehand?

 

[slant]

Yes, of course. I will get off my soap box, but in those countries they certainly don't have laws letting fathers get out of raising their kids, I mean they can run off if they want. Usually the kids are expected to help out with work in those societies or they starve. This seems more like a law to bypass "inconvenience" for irresponsible people, which is one reason I am opposed to it.

How do you define that they are considering abortion? How does it pan out for a woman that wouldn't consider abortion in the first place? How does the law justify whether a man is entitled to 'opt out?' Does a woman have to designate whether she is pro or anti abortion beforehand?


Do they get cards to show to their potential 'mate' so they are well informed beforehand?

No. This right would be given to all women, regardless if they are interested in abortion or not. If they do not abort, good, they never have to worry about that particular issue and neither do the men.

 

[NeverAmI]

No. This right would be given to all women, regardless if they are interested in abortion or not. If they do not abort, good, they never have to worry about that particular issue and neither do the men.

But I thought this was to get the man out of paying child support if the woman chooses not to abort? Unless I am misunderstanding the topic, I would think all my questions are applicable.

 

[TheLastMohican]

I would have to say that's the share of the deal she gets, just like the man has to pay more and more money when a child is NOT aborted and he's forced to pay.

How is that relevant? In your preferred system, that would only happen if the man wants the woman to have the child.

As for the decision time, I'm thinking of it like unemployment benefits. Suppose a person has just lost shis job, and has up to six months to find a new one. During those six months (or until se gets a new job), se will receive regular unemployment checks for a steady income. What is this person likely to do? If se does not have a job already lined up, or readily at hand, se is likely to dawdle for five months and then get a job just before the checks run out.

The same would happen with a lot of the pregnancies. If the father is initially unsure of what he wants, he will have little incentive to make the decision until the deadline is looming. A lot of mothers would end up having to endure pregnancy for a long time anyway, just waiting for the father to choose between abortion and child support. I see this as unfair, and potentially used as leverage. It could be pretty well remedied, however, by establishing a certain cost to be incurred upon the father (to help cover the mother's medical expenses, with a little pain-and-suffering bonus), which would increase with each passing week that he delays his decision, so that his incentive to hurry it along increases just as the mother's discomfort is increased.

 

[slant]

How is that relevant? In your preferred system, that would only happen if the man wants the woman to have the child.

As for the decision time, I'm thinking of it like unemployment benefits. Suppose a person has just lost shis job, and has up to six months to find a new one. During those six months (or until se gets a new job), se will receive regular unemployment checks for a steady income. What is this person likely to do? If se does not have a job already lined up, or readily at hand, se is likely to dawdle for five months and then get a job just before the checks run out.

The same would happen with a lot of the pregnancies. If the father is initially unsure of what he wants, he will have little incentive to make the decision until the deadline is looming. A lot of mothers would end up having to endure pregnancy for a long time anyway, just waiting for the father to choose between abortion and child support. I see this as unfair, and potentially used as leverage. It could be pretty well remedied, however, by establishing a certain cost to be incurred upon the father (to help cover the mother's medical expenses, with a little pain-and-suffering bonus), which would increase with each passing week that he delays his decision, so that his incentive to hurry it along increases just as the mother's discomfort is increased.

I suppose a fee is fair for the actual fee of the abortion, and I can see how your system would work. A way for a woman to get around this is to have the male to sign a legal contract before intercourse agreeing to the hypothetical situations that if a child is conceived it will be aborted or, if a child is conceived it will be kept and he will pay child support, etc.

If they guy doesn't want to do it then he doesn't have to have sex but that's one way a woman could be prepared for that.

Although, I don't see anything particularly wrong with the method you are suggesting either it just seems to complicate my original idea. But yes, I suppose something like that could be set up.

 

[NeverAmI]

I suppose a fee is fair for the actual fee of the abortion, and I can see how your system would work. A way for a woman to get around this is to have the male to sign a legal contract before intercourse agreeing to the hypothetical situations that if a child is conceived it will be aborted or, if a child is conceived it will be kept and he will pay child support, etc.

If they guy doesn't want to do it then he doesn't have to have sex but that's one way a woman could be prepared for that.

Although, I don't see anything particularly wrong with the method you are suggesting either it just seems to complicate my original idea. But yes, I suppose something like that could be set up.

These are potential answers to some of the questions I was asking. Thanks.

 

[slant]

But I thought this was to get the man out of paying child support if the woman chooses not to abort? Unless I am misunderstanding the topic, I would think all my questions are applicable.

No it's not a women's right I suppose but...I guess better wording would be

"The right of the man's ability to deny child support to a child he did not consent for is applied to all women, regardless if they are pro-choice or pro-life. Since the choice of abortion is a woman's choice, this situation wouldn't happen if the women did not decide to abort. It's a safety procedure to protect men's rights, and may remain a hypothetical for many women."

Although, option one [I think] sort of implies that a man would be able to abort a child if he did not want it or have the mother birth the child if he did want it, that does cross the lines upon how it would be determined if a woman didn't support abortion- and so I don't know, I don't have a solution to that.

I guess it just makes choice number 2 better.

 

[Shai Gar]

There is an easy way out for the father who doesn't want to raise the child. But it's far more damaging for the lass. Therefore the male should have legal recourse instead of needing to apply violence to the womb.

 

[TheLastMohican]

I suppose a fee is fair for the actual fee of the abortion, and I can see how your system would work. A way for a woman to get around this is to have the male to sign a legal contract before intercourse agreeing to the hypothetical situations that if a child is conceived it will be aborted or, if a child is conceived it will be kept and he will pay child support, etc.

If they guy doesn't want to do it then he doesn't have to have sex but that's one way a woman could be prepared for that.

Although, I don't see anything particularly wrong with the method you are suggesting either it just seems to complicate my original idea. But yes, I suppose something like that could be set up.

I foresee some difficulty in procuring a proper signature on a legal form prior to sexual intercourse. DNA tests are good enough, in my opinion.

 

[NeverAmI]

No it's not a women's right I suppose but...I guess better wording would be

"The right of the man's ability to deny child support to a child he did not consent for is applied to all women, regardless if they are pro-choice or pro-life. Since the choice of abortion is a woman's choice, this situation wouldn't happen if the women did not decide to abort. It's a safety procedure to protect men's rights, and may remain a hypothetical for many women."

Although, option one [I think] sort of implies that a man would be able to abort a child if he did not want it or have the mother birth the child if he did want it, that does cross the lines upon how it would be determined if a woman didn't support abortion- and so I don't know, I don't have a solution to that.

I guess it just makes choice number 2 better.

Sorry, all my arguments are based on option two.

Although it is hard to fathom men having equal rights in this situation since it is indeed only the woman's body being subjected to childbirth/abortion.

I don't mean in any way to turn this into a heated thread either FYI. It is just potential hurdles/different perspectives.

 

[Shai Gar]

Sorry, all my arguments are based on option two.

Although it is hard to fathom men having equal rights in this situation since it is indeed only the woman's body being subjected to childbirth/abortion.

I don't mean in any way to turn this into a heated thread either FYI. It is just potential hurdles/different perspectives.

You're not seeing the financial rights of a male.