financial/male 'abortion' rights?

[Caracus2k]

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.

Abortion doesn't just have financial implications.... It has physical and moral ones two.

I just don't think you can equate men being able to financially remove themselves either pre or post conception from these consequences of a child with abortion.

I'm regularly on GD arguing against a Marxist view of the world (one major facet or which is that the state can and should seek an equality of outcome) and I think this is one of thoose case in points. Men and women are not the same, the consequences of a child being conceived are not the same and so any attempt to 'equalise' rights in this regard between the sexes is a bad idea.

Theoretically I can understand the argument as to why a man should not held financially liable for a child in situations which could include at an extreme a sexual partner deliberately lying about contraception with the intent of becoming preganant against her sexual partners expressed wishes. However practically this would increase the burden on the state as more of the costs of raising children would pass to the state and no doubt some people would seek to abuse the system by declaring themselves financially divorced from their offspring whilst continuing their relationship with the mother...

That's before you get to the myriad of problems it would cause if someone wished to 'reverse' their decision and be a parent to a child they previously 'fincially' aborted and what the effect would be on the children 'financially' aborted by their fathers' (yes I know this already happens in practice - but do we want it state sanctioned?)

I just don't think you can separate up the financial, moral and physical implications of conceiving, bearing and giving birth to a child. As such there can't be an equality of rights in this regard for men and women in my view as the implications of child conception, and carriage to and after birth are not the same for men and women

 

[Dolph]

I'm regularly on GD arguing against a Marxist view of the world (one major facet or which is that the state can and should seek an equality of outcome) and I think this is one of thoose case in points. Men and women are not the same, the consequences of a child being conceived are not the same and so any attempt to 'equalise' rights in this regard between the sexes is a bad idea.

This is where we diverge massively, as I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Equality of outcome requires unequal treatment and authoritarian practices and as such cannot be considered acceptable.

Theoretically I can understand the argument as to why a man should not held financially liable for a child in situations which could include at an extreme a sexual partner deliberately lying about contraception with the intent of becoming preganant against her sexual partners expressed wishes. However practically this would increase the burden on the state as more of the costs of raising children would pass to the state and no doubt some people would seek to abuse the system by declaring themselves financially divorced from their offspring whilst continuing their relationship with the mother...

In the UK at least, child maintenance does not reduce state entitlements, so this is largely irrelevant.

That's before you get to the myriad of problems it would cause if someone wished to 'reverse' their decision and be a parent to a child they previously 'fincially' aborted and what the effect would be on the children 'financially' aborted by their fathers' (yes I know this already happens in practice - but do we want it state sanctioned?)

We already have a solution to this, the adoption process allows someone without responsibility or rights to gain and accept them.

I just don't think you can separate up the financial, moral and physical implications of conceiving, bearing and giving birth to a child. As such there can't be an equality of rights in this regard for men and women in my view as the implications of child conception, and carriage to and after birth are not the same for men and women

I disagree, but I respect your position as it was clear, well presented and generally unemotional. That we disagree on the fundamental idea of how the world should work doesn't change that.

 

[dowie]

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.

This seems like rather a flawed premise - parents can already discharge themselves of responsibility for their offspring by giving them up for adoption, this doesn't change that - the ability to do that already exists. I've certainly not suggested that putting kids into care should be more socially acceptable, this has nothing to do with handing kids into care - something that parents can already do!

 

[johnny6]

In the UK at least, child maintenance does not reduce state entitlements, so this is largely irrelevant.

It is completely relevant as surely you can see it reduces the required level of expenditure by the state. Say tomorrow no fathers paid for their children under this financially aborted scenario. Would you expect the expenditure required by the state to remain at the same level as it is now or would you expect state expenditure to rise to fill the void.

Personally I feel (extreme scenario's excluded) all children voluntarily given up into the care of the state should still be the financial responsibility of the father and mother who conceived the child until such time the child is adopted or reaches adulthood. Why should any person (again extreme scenario's excluded) be able to remove themselves from the consequences of their actions just to save themselves a bit of cash.

God you can't even get everyone in this country to agree paying for 4-6 years olds school dinners is a good idea, yet people in this thread are suggesting the state should be responsible for all expenditure required to maintain a healthy child.

 

[dowie]

Personally I feel (extreme scenario's excluded) all children voluntarily given up into the care of the state should still be the financial responsibility of the father and mother who conceived the child until such time the child is adopted or reaches adulthood. Why should any person (again extreme scenario's excluded) be able to remove themselves from the consequences of their actions just to save themselves a bit of cash.

God you can't even get everyone in this country to agree paying for 4-6 years olds school dinners is a good idea, yet people in this thread are suggesting the state should be responsible for all expenditure required to maintain a healthy child.

no you're just making a straw man argument, adoption already exists, the state is already responsible for children taken into care - this thread isn't about adoption or putting children into care.... as pointed out already that is something that already exists!

 

[johnny6]

This seems like rather a flawed premise - parents can already discharge themselves of responsibility for their offspring by giving them up for adoption, this doesn't change that - the ability to do that already exists. I've certainly not suggested that putting kids into care should be more socially acceptable, this has nothing to do with handing kids into care - something that parents can already do!

Equally I would argue that your suggestion is rather a flawed premise. Please explain who is going to pay for the upkeep of all these children once contracts are signed to allow one or more party to financially abort themselves in your scenario?

 

[dowie]

Equally I would argue that your suggestion is rather a flawed premise. Please explain who is going to pay for the upkeep of all these children once contracts are signed to allow one or more party to financially abort themselves in your scenario?

The other parent (mother) pays for them if she makes the choice to keep the pregnancy in the full knowledge that her partner wasn't interested in having a child and wants nothing to do with the child, I thought that was clear?

On the other hand if you're talking about both parents giving up a child to the state this neither introduces or change that - that is something that can already happen... kids already get adopted/taken into care.

 

[johnny6]

The other parent (mother) pays for them if she makes the choice to keep the pregnancy in the full knowledge that her partner wasn't interested in having a child and wants nothing to do with the child, I thought that was clear?

On the other hand if you're talking about both parents giving up a child to the state this neither introduces or change that - that is something that can already happen... kids already get adopted/taken into care.

I'm sorry but your argument (incorrectly in my view) relies on financial abortion by the father having zero impact on anything else. So are you suggesting that all these mothers are suddenly going to have enough money to support these children on their own without an increase in state expenditure. Does every single mother get given a magic money tree in this world you're are creating?

 

[Dolph]

It is completely relevant as surely you can see it reduces the required level of expenditure by the state. Say tomorrow no fathers paid for their children under this financially aborted scenario. Would you expect the expenditure required by the state to remain at the same level as it is now or would you expect state expenditure to rise to fill the void.

Personally I feel (extreme scenario's excluded) all children voluntarily given up into the care of the state should still be the financial responsibility of the father and mother who conceived the child until such time the child is adopted or reaches adulthood. Why should any person (again extreme scenario's excluded) be able to remove themselves from the consequences of their actions just to save themselves a bit of cash.

God you can't even get everyone in this country to agree paying for 4-6 years olds school dinners is a good idea, yet people in this thread are suggesting the state should be responsible for all expenditure required to maintain a healthy child.

That's an appeal to the absurd similar to 'what if every pregnant woman had an abortion', it isn't a realistic scenario. Additionally, were this idea to proceed, I could see some restrictions on the right to ensure it is not abused, default statements and so on. Anyone who acts like a father to their child, for example, could not give up their rights regardless. We are not talking about a simple severing of financial ties, but a complete dismissal of all parental rights.

 

[dowie]

I'm sorry but your argument (incorrectly in my view) relies on financial abortion by the father having zero impact on anything else. So are you suggesting that all these mothers are suddenly going to have enough money to support these children on their own without an increase in state expenditure. Does every single mother get given a magic money tree in this world you're are creating?

I've not said anything about a magic money tree or the mother's income. Sure there could be an increased cost to the state and that is a valid objection, a first for the thread so far... (and fear of that could perhaps be why there wouldn't be much support for implementing this by governments even if the principle is sound). This isn't certain, there could be an increase in abortions too if the position of the potential absent father is known in advance. The CSA won't have anywhere near the required workload, the court system could be freed up of case loads relating to people not making CSA payments for kids they didn't want in the first place etc...

The previous objection re: taking kids into care which I was replying to in that post isn't however - that is flawed as pointed out and something that already happens.

I'd suspect that if this idea wouldn't be palatable to the general public at the moment, you can already see some of the arguments earlier in the thread which are basically anti abortion arguments targeted at this (ironically sometimes by people who otherwise support abortion). This was however an idea proposed by the youth wing of a Swedish liberal party and I suspect that in a future generation when societies keep on trying to eradicate inequality something like this could start to occur.

 

[johnny6]

That's an appeal to the absurd similar to 'what if every pregnant woman had an abortion', it isn't a realistic scenario. Additionally, were this idea to proceed, I could see some restrictions on the right to ensure it is not abused, default statements and so on. Anyone who acts like a father to their child, for example, could not give up their rights regardless. We are not talking about a simple severing of financial ties, but a complete dismissal of all parental rights.

Why would you want to create a scenario where it is easier to completely dismiss all parental rights? Especially based on the original premise which was a financial one. The current system is wrong in that financial responsibility can be removed providing both parents agree to put the child into care, therefore allowing one party to not be financially responsible is equally wrong. Surely financial abortion is testament to shutting the gate after the horse has bolted, would a better solution not be improved education and more responsible breeding by both parties.

 

[dowie]

Surely financial abortion is testament to shutting the gate after the horse has bolted

financial abortion is simply rebalancing rights in that men also get the option to opt not to be a parent when an unwanted pregnancy occurs - something women already have the right to do so with a regular abortion - the choice to continue with the actual pregnancy is entirely down to the woman

 

[Haggisman]

Equally I would argue that your suggestion is rather a flawed premise. Please explain who is going to pay for the upkeep of all these children once contracts are signed to allow one or more party to financially abort themselves in your scenario?

It could also be argued that more women would be likely to have an abortion rather than keep a child they can't support financially themselves, once the safety net of knowing the father has to pay for it is removed, thus actually reducing the burden on the state...

 

[UTmaniac]

If you're the father according to reliable DNA tests, you're financially and otherwise responsible.

 

[dowie]

If you're the father according to reliable DNA tests, you're financially and otherwise responsible.

yes, that is correct currently, the point of the thread is to address situations where the father doesn't want to be a parent - something a woman currently has an option on but a father doesn't

 

[LabR@t]

snip/QUOTE]

You dipped your wick, you pick up the tab. To many people shirking their responsibilities now days.

 

[LabR@t]

yes, that is correct currently, the point of the thread is to address situations where the father doesn't want to be a parent - something a woman currently has an option on but a father doesn't

Don't have sex then.

 

[dowie]

Don't have sex then.

Are you in favour of actual abortion? Or would you apply that same argument there? If not then why the difference?

 

[LabR@t]

Are you in favour of actual abortion? Or would you apply that same argument there? If not then why the difference?

In case of rape or chances of baby born with no chance of a good quality if life then yes.

 

[LabR@t]

For financial reasons is just wrong.