It's the father's choice!

[NeverAmI]

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

This is true, but the whole premise still assumes that abortion is a universally acceptable option for all women, either that or there needs to be some way to distinguish between women who are willing to abort and not willing to abort.

 

[slant]

If the men's financial rights are granted to all men (therefore implicated on all women who have sex with men), what does it make a difference to distinguish the women who don't believe in abortion?

 

[NeverAmI]

If the men's financial rights are granted to all men (therefore implicated on all women who have sex with men), what does it make a difference to distinguish the women who don't believe in abortion?

The money is given as an entitlement to the child, not to the woman. Although the money may go to the woman for obvious reasons, it is provided with the expectation that the money is used to support the child. The woman doesn't benefit from this money, children cost money.

Because in the light of certain morality and/or medical discussions, abortion is simply not an option for some women and they would never consider it. There are still risks involved in having an abortion and some women are not willing to undergo that risk. It is not like you simply walk into an office and they push a button and you are magically cured from pregnancy. To suggest to a woman that a man isn't required to bear responsibility for an act they both commited because it is physically possible for her to have an abortion seems too far of a stretch for me.

I believe that a person's body (and risks to a body) has more priority than money. I believe that abortion is not an option for everyone, I don't believe that creating laws with the idea that abortion is available to everyone is justified.

 

[Entyqua]

WOW...If a child is created by TWO people why is it such a hard concept for BOTH parties to have EQUAL financial responsibilities for the child. What is being proposed her supports dead beat dads everyone...the argument has always been you dip it in, you get the repercussions.

And why does it have to go straight to abortion, there is still such a thing as adoption, and plenty of people who cannot have babies at all. Why cant both parties take responsibility for their actions???
So you didn't want the child, well you wanted the sex bad enough to risk it. DEAL!

In the instance where the mother refuses the abortion, and the father doesn't want the child, why does all the responsibility for the COMBINED mistake fall on her? I can tell you she was no more financially capable of raising a child, but as a mother she cannot fathom killing the child, or giving it up. You all don't understand the bond that happens between mother and child, even at conception...as I am the only woman participating that has had a child, this seems to be a very one sided debate.

 

[christmas]

True restraint, but I think that the father must also have some input in the choice if it gets aborted or not.
I'm talking about the situation where the father wants to keep the child but the mother doesn't.
Not the other way around.
I just think that if one of the parents wants to raise it, it shouldn't be killed.

Don't put your penis in someone until you've talked about it first. End of Story.

 

[Reon]

Before I start, I haven't really been paying a lot of attention to this thread nor have I really been thinking about it

WOW...If a child is created by TWO people why is it such a hard concept for BOTH parties to have EQUAL financial responsibilities for the child. What is being proposed her supports dead beat dads everyone...the argument has always been you dip it in, you get the repercussions.

I don't really think this supports dead beat dads that much, most avoid paying child support and such anyway. Equal financial responsibilities is more of a current thing today though, I do suppose. Some of these dad's might not be dead-beat either, some might have reasons to not have a kid. (More schooling or a big presumption that it was not possible to have a baby)

And why does it have to go straight to abortion, there is still such a thing as adoption, and plenty of people who cannot have babies at all. Why cant both parties take responsibility for their actions???
So you didn't want the child, well you wanted the sex bad enough to risk it. DEAL!

This is actually a very specific topic, the other things are possible yes, but this particular topic was picked because that's what slant wanted to talk about (iirc, she was talking about it yesterday on tinychat and then brought it here.) Adoption is always an option, although that's a whole different bag of issues.

In the instance where the mother refuses the abortion, and the father doesn't want the child, why does all the responsibility for the COMBINED mistake fall on her? I can tell you she was no more financially capable of raising a child, but as a mother she cannot fathom killing the child, or giving it up. You all don't understand the bond that happens between mother and child, even at conception...as I am the only woman participating that has had a child, this seems to be a very one sided debate.

It's a double standard, I suppose, even in the case that we have presented here, it basically falls on her to raise the baby if the man wants out. At this point, though, the woman also has the ability to get an abortion if she wants even if the man does not. You're right, I am not a mother, and I perhaps do not understand the "connection" between a mother and child. Still, would the mother rather see the child live in pain because of lack of finances?

As I was discussing with Slant earlier, I am all for sex contracts.

Edit: This really isn't a good post, I am sorry, but I am distracted.

 

[Entyqua]

Before I start, I haven't really been paying a lot of attention to this thread nor have I really been thinking about it



I don't really think this supports dead beat dads that much, most avoid paying child support and such anyway. Equal financial responsibilities is more of a current thing today though, I do suppose. Some of these dad's might not be dead-beat either, some might have reasons to not have a kid. (More schooling or a big presumption that it was not possible to have a baby)

This is actually a very specific topic, the other things are possible yes, but this particular topic was picked because that's what slant wanted to talk about (iirc, she was talking about it yesterday on tinychat and then brought it here.) Adoption is always an option, although that's a whole different bag of issues.



It's a double standard, I suppose, even in the case that we have presented here, it basically falls on her to raise the baby if the man wants out. At this point, though, the woman also has the ability to get an abortion if she wants even if the man does not. You're right, I am not a mother, and I perhaps do not understand the "connection" between a mother and child. Still, would the mother rather see the child live in pain because of lack of finances?

As I was discussing with Slant earlier, I am all for sex contracts.

Edit: This really isn't a good post, I am sorry, but I am distracted.

First I want to say this, I think that a man SHOULD have a say in weather the child is aborted or not, that is something that I think needs to be changed big time.

Even when i struggled in life financially, i could NEVER imagine getting rid of the child just to ease the financial burden. Its like I said before

this is basically the discussion:

The man should have to right to tell a woman to get an abortion or he wont pay for the child.

Oh I got you pregnant, your loss. Get rid of it or whatever. i don't want anything to do with it.

So you weren't financially ready for a child NO ONE is...So you dont want the kid...well If a woman is against abortion, and she grows attached to the child what choice is she left with?

As a woman who also experienced this, a surprise child out of wedlock only been seeing the guy for a few weeks. I am very concerned about this. Leaving a pregnant woman to fend for herself just seems cowardly to me.
(The father of my baby stuck around, and after a year of being together we married, and are still married)

 

[Celsius100]

True restraint, but I think that the father must also have some input in the choice if it gets aborted or not.
I'm talking about the situation where the father wants to keep the child but the mother doesn't.
Not the other way around.
I just think that if one of the parents wants to raise it, it shouldn't be killed.

Of course, the woman has to carry it for 9 months.. and give birth.
So there is no possible right or wrong.

I'm closer to this answer than anything else in terms of the male's rights. However, if the women does want to keep it, and it's his, I have a hard time justifying not providing some level of support. As you said, Slant, the male is responsible for 50% of it's creation. And while that implies that he should have some choice in the matter, I feel it also implies that he should also provide an equal amount of support in the child's care. Otherwise, I can guarantee there would be more single mothers who are completely on their own. Unfortunately, there are guys out there who just want sex and don't give a rat's ass about what happens to the girl. If nothing else, it's more common from what I've noticed than the inverse of the situation.

Though to be fair, my biological father pushed strongly for an abortion, and never provided a bit of support, and my mom was able survive modestly. Mind you, she had to drop out of college due to financial issues, and I've always felt a heavy guilt myself for having been a cost, but things have been turning out okay, I think.

For the record, I never met the guy, and hardly care if I ever do or not. Not out of anger, just an honest lack of care over whether I do or not. Much like if an acorn hit me in the head. I really just wouldn't care much either way.

 

[dneecey]

So... I have experienced a lot about this subject in my life sadly.

Slant I understand where you're coming from on the father having a choice.

Let me say that besides being raped.. sex is a choice! Two people consent to have sex with one another, whether or not they are thinking about it at the moment, it's like signing an agreement.. There is enough knowledge about this to know that when having sex there is the possibility of pregnancy... There. Right then and there. The choice was made.

I am just barely, just hanging on by a thread, pro choice and only to rape victims/women who have experienced sexual abuse. You don't want to get pregnant, you don't want to have a baby, use a condom, use birth control, don't have sex. That is your choice.

As for the rape victims.. even this is hard for me to swallow. I am related to two flesh and blood adults who were results of rape in teenage girls. One is my cousin.. my very favorite cousin, whose life is so amazing. I can not even imagine what life would be like if her mother, my aunt, had decided to abort her. She was 14 when she was raped by a minister from her church.. She chose to keep the baby, my beautiful cousin..

The second is my brother in law. My mother in law was raped when she was 15 and she went through hell to keep her baby. Her family shunned her, she had to support him on her own.. and I fully believe that my life would be completely different if she hadn't kept her baby boy.

So.. this is why I am just barely pro choice and only for rape victims, because I know the full and amazing LIVES that are being ended when abortion is chosen..

Now as for the choice of the father... my other brother in law is still to this day devastated over the choice that his ex girlfriend made almost 8 years ago to abort the child they created.. He mentions it often.. I have seen the pain and grief this causes and it is so sad.

I think in choosing whether or not to give a child, yes.. it's my opinion that this is a child, a chance at life.. both parents SHOULD have a say.

I know what it's like to carry a baby in my body. I have had two very rough pregnancies that both resulted in emergency C-sections... I almost died giving birth to my daughter, and giving birth to my son was only slightly better. I also spotted heavily during my pregnancy with my son, and was afraid the whole time that I was going to lose him, in fact the doctors said my body was literally trying to abort him... I know how hard pregnancy can be.

But when two consenting adults make decisions they should realize there ARE consequences, sometimes the consequences aren't what we would like. If the woman does not feel capable of caring for the child but the father wants the child, then she should carry to term, with his FULL support,and then sign over custody to the man. She made her bed damnit! Lie in it. If she does not want anything to do with that child, then she should stay out of that childs life until that child is old enough to make the decision to seek her out...

Women learn to be single parents with no support. My mom was one. You learn. You adapt. A man can do the same thing. I think there should be more help for single parents, but it's possible. The man should go into that situation knowing he may not have any help at all, and if he still wants to go through with it, then the woman should, and they should probably sign some sort of contract.

If the woman wants the child and the man does not.. then he should do the same thing that I said the woman should do. She should prepare herself to do what many.. MANY women have done before her, and be ready to raise a child on her own if she wants that child. If she doesn't and chooses not to abort, then she should consider adoption... That man should stay out of that childs life and that womans life, until the child is old enough and makes a decision to seek him out...

And both of the people who don't want to have a child and decide to abort, need to grow the F up, quit having sex, quit procreating, quit being so damn selfish and get a freaking life where they stop taking someone elses....

( I wasn't going to post on this topic... sorry Enty, if I didn't say what you thought I might.. )

 

[slant]

WOW...If a child is created by TWO people why is it such a hard concept for BOTH parties to have EQUAL financial responsibilities for the child. What is being proposed her supports dead beat dads everyone...the argument has always been you dip it in, you get the repercussions.

And why does it have to go straight to abortion, there is still such a thing as adoption, and plenty of people who cannot have babies at all. Why cant both parties take responsibility for their actions???
So you didn't want the child, well you wanted the sex bad enough to risk it. DEAL!

In the instance where the mother refuses the abortion, and the father doesn't want the child, why does all the responsibility for the COMBINED mistake fall on her? I can tell you she was no more financially capable of raising a child, but as a mother she cannot fathom killing the child, or giving it up. You all don't understand the bond that happens between mother and child, even at conception...as I am the only woman participating that has had a child, this seems to be a very one sided debate.

No. It is not equal at all. A male should not have to pay a child he did not want. And if he's let that know before the child is born he IS being responsible. The way that this is working, and why we're talking about abortion before adoption and such is because this is the topic of the thread.

It is not about adoption.
It is not about whether abortion should be legal or not.

It is about abortion, and the rights of the father.

You continue to focus again upon the mother and child and how it is irresponsible for the father not to pay. When have you taken into account when a father wants the child and a mother does not? You are suggestion an abortion is an emotional ordeal and that a mother and child bond. I agree.

Why can this not be the same for a man who finds out he has impregnated a woman and made life- are you suggesting that because the male is not carrying the baby he cannot bond with it? What about hearing it's heartbeat, seeing the pictures of it, feeling it kick.

The arguments you're using about mothers can, and should be applied to fathers but they are not. Just as a woman has a right to keep a child instead of abortion, so does a man. You are choosing to focus on that point only because you believe that the 'dead beat' argument will prevail. Society tends to think low of fathers who run with the women they impregnate- it's a societal thing.

But at the same time, it's also very important to note that a man should have a way out of it, just like a woman does. Suggesting they do not have sex, suggesting they adopt out, all of the topics are irrelevant because we are SPECIFICALLY talking about the idea of abortion and men's rights, none of these other things.

Responsibility combined falls on her because SHE chose to have sex. Why is it always the man's fault that he decided to have sex- the woman decided to have sex too, and if she knew AND OR did not ask that the man would not want a child to be birthed out of it, he has the right to opt out of payment, just like she has the right to abort.

 

[NeverAmI]

So 2 people have sex and the woman becomes pregnant.

The woman has 2 choices: Have an abortion or have the baby.

The man has 2 choices: Pay money or don't pay money.

 

[Entyqua]

No. It is not equal at all. A male should not have to pay a child he did not want. And if he's let that know before the child is born he IS being responsible. The way that this is working, and why we're talking about abortion before adoption and such is because this is the topic of the thread.

It is not about adoption.
It is not about whether abortion should be legal or not.

It is about abortion, and the rights of the father.

You continue to focus again upon the mother and child and how it is irresponsible for the father not to pay. When have you taken into account when a father wants the child and a mother does not? You are suggestion an abortion is an emotional ordeal and that a mother and child bond. I agree.

Why can this not be the same for a man who finds out he has impregnated a woman and made life- are you suggesting that because the male is not carrying the baby he cannot bond with it? What about hearing it's heartbeat, seeing the pictures of it, feeling it kick.

The arguments you're using about mothers can, and should be applied to fathers but they are not. Just as a woman has a right to keep a child instead of abortion, so does a man. You are choosing to focus on that point only because you believe that the 'dead beat' argument will prevail. Society tends to think low of fathers who run with the women they impregnate- it's a societal thing.

But at the same time, it's also very important to note that a man should have a way out of it, just like a woman does. Suggesting they do not have sex, suggesting they adopt out, all of the topics are irrelevant because we are SPECIFICALLY talking about the idea of abortion and men's rights, none of these other things.

Responsibility combined falls on her because SHE chose to have sex. Why is it always the man's fault that he decided to have sex- the woman decided to have sex too, and if she knew AND OR did not ask that the man would not want a child to be birthed out of it, he has the right to opt out of payment, just like she has the right to abort.

I continue on this topic because you just said that only the woman should paythe consequenses of consensual sex. Really!!! Both parties agreed to the sex and agrees to the consequenses.

I already said IAGREE that a man should have a say in weather his baby is aborted. But the argument going on is more about a man having no reaponsibility in the making of a child. He does!!! If his semen did not penetrate an egg there would be no baby. HE chose the sex too!! Your argument is way onesided. So in your perfect world a man can go around creating any babies whenever where ever and just because he didn't want em he should have no responsibility for the fatherless children?
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Gaze]

And both of the people who don't want to have a child and decide to abort, need to grow the F up, quit having sex, quit procreating, quit being so damn selfish and get a freaking life where they stop taking someone elses....

( I wasn't going to post on this topic... sorry Enty, if I didn't say what you thought I might.. )

I agree with this. I'm tired of people using abortion to justify irresponsible behavior. Abortions should not be a "desirable" choice, only a last resort under extreme circumstances. Abortion for reasons of "inconvenience" are never and will never be justifiable imo. You made your bed, now lie in it. Why should a foetus lose a chance at life because two consenting adults were irresponsible? If you don't want the child, consider adoption first. The foetus right to life is separate from mine. That child has every right to a chance at life, in spite of, the parent's feelings. They have every right to be born, grow, and develop outside of how I feel about them. That's a view many people don't support and will never accept.

 

[dneecey]

I continue on this topic because you just said that only the woman should paythe consequenses of consensual sex. Really!!! Both parties agreed to the sex and agrees to the consequenses.

I already said IAGREE that a man should have a say in weather his baby is aborted. But the argument going on is more about a man having no reaponsibility in the making of a child. He does!!! If his semen did not penetrate an egg there would be no baby. HE chose the sex too!! Your argument is way onesided. So in your perfect world a man can go around creating any babies whenever where ever and just because he didn't want em he should have no responsibility for the fatherless children?
Posted via Mobile Device

I see where you're coming from.. is Slant's solution unfair. yes. but whether the mother knows ahead of time about the dad skipping out, it happens all the time. Should he have to pay for his actions yes. But I've seen many fathers who never do.

And that woman should have thought about who she was getting busy with.. before she did it.

Is it right? No. Is it the truth, does it happen all the time...? I think so.

 

[acd]

All of this sounds fair enough.. Two people have sex, woman gets knocked up... It would seem like an equal decision, "what to do with baby?"

Yet, I'm not comfortable with saying that there should be laws in place over a woman's body to ensure that she does what someone else wants her to do with her body. I can't bring myself to say that a man should have a "equal" part in deciding whether or not a woman brings a child to term. It evokes a strange sort of slave system of womanhood in my mind.


If a man wants no part in the child's life and refuses to support the child, then he ought to sign over rights to the child and walk away forever, then.

Women carry babies and birth them, and for this reason, throughout history women have been subjugated by men.

 

[Entyqua]

I see where you're coming from.. is Slant's solution unfair. yes. but whether the mother knows ahead of time about the dad skipping out, it happens all the time. Should he have to pay for his actions yes. But I've seen many fathers who never do.

And that woman should have thought about who she was getting busy with.. before she did it.

Is it right? No. Is it the truth, does it happen all the time...? I think so.

I realize that, I do. My cousin never met his dad. I know the man should be chosen carefully. But placing all the blame on the woman is insane.

And I agree with all you have said. I know it happens all the time.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Entyqua]

All of this sounds fair enough.. Two people have sex, woman gets knocked up... It would seem like an equal decision, "what to do with baby?"

Yet, I'm not comfortable with saying that there should be laws in place over a woman's body to ensure that she does what someone else wants her to do with her body. I can't bring myself to say that a man should have a "equal" part in deciding whether or not a woman brings a child to term. It evokes a strange sort of slave system of womanhood in my mind.


If a man wants no part in the child's life and refuses to support the child, then he ought to sign over rights to the child and walk away forever, then.

Women carry babies and birth them, and for this reason, throughout history women have been subjugated by men.

Well said...
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[NeverAmI]

I would be all for having a legally binding choice beforehand on whether you would parent a child or not "financially" and have it held at the federal level.

Then a woman can ask to see your "Real Man" card to know that you would at least be financially responsible (legally) if she got preggo and didn't abort.

Make it a felony for the man to lie to a woman about his responsibility status.


You got the condom? "Yea"

You got the Man Card? "Yea"

"Good"

Now to find a way to prove beforehand that the woman acknowledges the "not financially liable" card. Maybe have them log it in a website?

Then the man gets off free of any legal bindings if she becomes pregnant.


Maybe then some decent men will get laid.

 

[slant]

I was discussing contracts being signed before the sex deciding how the baby would be handled it if were ever to come into place.

I think contracts regarding these things are an excellent idea.

 

[Gaze]

I don't think the woman should take all the responsibility of course. But women should realize that we bear a burden the men don't. Whether or not it's fair, we do need to be more responsible, at least to ourselves, about who we sleep with, especially without protection, or else we put ourselves in a position where we're having kids with someone who doesn't care.