Rights balancing tends to come from the courts rather than parliament. Unfortunately, we still, have judiciary that had the same attitude towards women needing special treatment that you do.
financial/male 'abortion' rights?
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Rights balancing tends to come from the courts rather than parliament. Unfortunately, we still, have judiciary that had the same attitude towards women needing special treatment that you do.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
Okay in principle if the act of copulation, and the actual copulation where complete separate, and relied on both parties to agree then I would support the oddity stated in the OP without hesitation.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
Whisht. That was uncalled for. I haven't expressed such a view at all.
I agree, I edited it as you posted to clarify as it was overly harsh. My apologies.
That makes little sense? What do you mean act of copulation and actual copulation were separate? I'd hope both parties do agree to copulation! We're not talking about rape here!
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
here is a feminist who supports the idea if anyone is interested:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-04/financial-abortion-men-opt-out-parenthood/8049576
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-04/financial-abortion-men-opt-out-parenthood/8049576
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
Question, what if up until your date, he has previously given the idea that he has opted in.
She-bang-bang and all that, everything rosy, all great through a long relationship under the suggestion everything good if child arrived, then at twelve weeks, financial abortion...
It would be a complete shift in the paradim for the entire nation, even continent, possibly further to enshrine such in law.
Honestly, i see this concept on the same scale of madness as gender fluid, SJWering in general and other oddities.
If we could separate sex and reproduction, i would be in favour of this, but we can't currently, so nopers.
What do you mean by separate sex and reproduction? If you could do that then this and indeed actual abortion (outside of rape/medical etc..) wouldn't be necessary to begin with.
The whole point of this is because you can't and sometimes people end up pregnant despite not planning to - you seem to accept that in the case of women not wanting the pregnancy then an abortion is acceptable, though in the case of men wanting this 'financial abortion' you then trot out anti-abortion arguments re: them having to take responsibility etc.. this seems to be a rather obvious double standard and a bit dubious since those same arguments apply to abortion which you're apparently in favour of. Why are you supportive of abortion and not this? All I've seen so far is a handwaving 'because legal reasons' etc.. reply when the question was really about the principle.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
When people have sex, they know what the ultimate consequence is, it is rather well documented, in biology and in law.
If you get it pregnant, you pay for it.
No opt out later clause, you make your decision when you stuck you dick in financially responsible.
Changing it will cost the taxpayer, no matter what any Australian woman you quote ponders.
If you get it pregnant, you pay for it.
No opt out later clause, you make your decision when you stuck you dick in financially responsible.
Changing it will cost the taxpayer, no matter what any Australian woman you quote ponders.
OK but in spite of apparently holding that view you're in favour of abortions for women... say a condom breaks a woman can quite happily go and take a morning after pill or have an early stage abortion the moment they discover they're pregnant and "not pay for it" - yet they knew the ultimate consequence when they chose to have sex?
So you're not really addressing the point I raised re: the double standard, you've put forth yet another argument that could just as easily be used against abortion which was what I was highlighting in the first place!
Interesting question. I suppose I agree, if we're in the age of bashing out equal rights between women, men and attack helicopters, then - yes. Men should have right to absolve themselves just as much as women do.
Whats this I hear... is it the clanking of armor in the distance???
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
The argument is called biology, it is what got you here.
I'd love that half the world wouldn't do it anymore, but a piece of paper after the event isn't going to stop them.
Very little in the legal world can be signed after the event.
This suggestion of yours might be a first.
I'd love that half the world wouldn't do it anymore, but a piece of paper after the event isn't going to stop them.
Very little in the legal world can be signed after the event.
This suggestion of yours might be a first.
If you're man enough to stick your wick in a woman and get her pregnant you're man enough to pay for the resulting kid.... and I say this as a man who paid through the nose for a kid for almost 16 years in child support.
This isn't about being fair or making sure there are equal rights. It's about taking responsibility for ones actions. No contraception is 100% fool proof and that's why you don't rely on one form of contraception if you don't want kids.
This isn't about being fair or making sure there are equal rights. It's about taking responsibility for ones actions. No contraception is 100% fool proof and that's why you don't rely on one form of contraception if you don't want kids.
I didn't make any argument about legal documents being signed before or after etc.. I started the thread to discuss the principle and then I asked you to explain your double standards re: the arguments you've put forth which could equally apply to abortion in spite of you seemingly supporting abortion.
OK so another argument that could equally apply against a women choosing to have an abortion too. "If you're woman enough to have sex and get pregnant etc..."
might be better if people putting forth such arguments state whether they're also for or against abortion and in the case where they're for abortion why the double standard here?
It makes no odds if I am for or against abortion, as a man I'm not the one having the medical procedure done to my body.
Also to take your argument a step further are you suggesting that a woman should also have the right to a financial abortion should she not want kids with the particular man she has got pregnant with if she is against actual physical abortion?
As a collective shall we just dump even more kids into the care system to avoid paying for our individual actions?
it is interesting to know - someone who is against abortion in general can logically apply some of the same arguments to this, someone who isn't but then applies arguments that would also apply there perhaps ought to explain why the different standards
a woman can already give up their child for adoption and have nothing to do with it going forwards
but yes, if for some reason the woman didn't want the child but agreed to carry it through pregnancy because she didn't want an abortion and/or the man wanted to keep it I think she should be entitled to a "financial abortion" too
what does this have to do with dumping more kids into the care system?
Last edited:
Physical abortion is about not wanting a baby which you then need to care for and look after, a life which is emotionally dependant on you. Men (and I use the word men quite wrongly) already have the same rights as women in this respect by way of walking away from their child and refusing to have anything to do with them on an emotional or physical level.
In this utopian world of yours no one has to take responsibility for their actions and kids should just be fired out of a woman straight into government controlled social care?
Cause let's be honest what you are suggesting changes the risk reward balance. You are basically suggesting (for both men and women) that it should be more socially acceptable to pop out kids and hand them into care like some unwanted item because you know sex is fun and individuals involved in the activity shouldn't be held financially responsible.
Of course not, because the man cannot feasibly demand a pregnancy be continued, and no one is advocating that.
What is being proposed is equal access to remove all parental rights and responsibilities post conception but prior to another date. One partner currently already has this right, so using that as a basis, it is about extending it to the other.
Personally, I long for a world where both partners have that right, but the usage on either side is minimal due to personal responsibility.