OK so the problem with this then is that financial abortion proposed here is conditional on actual abortion being ok for financial reasons. If you don't agree with that to being with then you've got a problem with current abortion laws, your criticism is of abortion in general. The thread however is to suggest a solution to bring in some equality in financial terms given that abortion is allowed and is easily available.
financial/male 'abortion' rights?
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
OK so the problem with this then is that financial abortion proposed here is conditional on actual abortion being ok for financial reasons. If you don't agree with that to being with then you've got a problem with current abortion laws, your criticism is of abortion in general. The thread however is to suggest a solution to bring in some equality in financial terms given that abortion is allowed and is easily available.
Surely financial reasons partially covers "good quality of life?"
By that logic , a woman should also not be permitted to abort a child she can't afford to look after.
Except the more likely scenario is that the burden on the state would increase after the public outcry caused by the increased percentage of children living in poverty. You can't force wholesale behaviour change based on financial penalties alone. If you could you would have almost zero fully functional adults on the dole.
For the fourth time, since 2003 the payment of child maintenance has not been taken into account when state benefits are means tested.
The state pays in additional to the non resident parent, not instead of.
The problem is that we do not have equality of opportunity when it comes to getting pregnant. Solve that one first and then we can possibly look at equality of opportunity for abortion afterwards.
If the mother decides not to abort then a child is probably going to be born. How does that child have equality of opportunity of having two parents if you have allowed one to abrogate their responsibilities?
The difference in rights at the moment is due to biology, I cannot see how trying to equalise those rights would lead to anything other than more harm.
And for the fourth time the level at which the state payment is calculated does not make for a financially secure household for a single parent with zero financial contribution from the absent parent. Seriously what is so difficult to understand? A single mother not getting any money from the father is more likely to be on the breadline surely you can see that in your day to day life or do you only interactive with affluent households? What you are suggesting puts more mothers into that category therefore greater child poverty or alternatively an increased financial burden on the state to tackle increased child poverty.
Last edited:
having the lastest tech and rubbish people expect today is why people say they can't afford to bring up a child. If you get your piriorities right its not a problem for anyone who lives in the west.
She should give up for adoption, or seek help. To snuff out a life because you can't afford it at that moment in time says a lot about society today.
That doesn't preclude more children living in poverty.
A child with a single parent, state support and financial support from a father is less likely to live in poverty than a child with a single parent and just state support.
When did we start forcing mothers to name and involve the father?
The mother can already choose to effectively exclude the father in the absence of marriage and it is very hard to resolve that, requiring court involvement and time and expense.
https://theparentconnection.org.uk/articles/parental-responsibility-for-unmarried-couples
https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities/apply-for-parental-responsibility
Once again, all the power is sat with one half of the equation already, all we are talking about is equalization. We effectively have the situation at the moment where the mother can exclude the father from having parental responsibility, but the father cannot excuse himself...
The father can, by not having sex in the first place. At the moment more risk is on the woman so she has more rights to help mitigate some of that risk. What would you do to help mitigate the risk to the woman so that the man can have equal rights?
Would you see "financial abortion" as reducing overall harm (it certainly reduces financial harm to the father, but not so much the mother or the child) or increasing it?
Yeah I suppose you could look at it that way, alternatively you could view it as stopping some crazy bint naming David Beckham as the father of her kid without his knowledge and suddenly becoming financially responsible for a kid which isn't his.
Look over there, a badger with a gun!
Or in other words, what you have posted makes no sense whatsoever to the point, which is that in the UK, in the absence of marriage, parental responsibility is determined by the mother.
but the no one is advocating changing the biological aspect, this is separate from that and just concerns bringing more equality to the financial aspect/financial risk
as for having two parents - there are plenty of fathers who walk out on mothers and babies, this idea here is they make their decision not to want to be a parent known in advance - it is completely up to the mother if she wants to bring up a baby as a single parent
that's poor - that argument can be used against abortion too for the mother yet you're in favour of that. The mother still has more rights to mitigate that risk - the risk they share though is the financial one which currently the man has no rights over - by separating that and giving equal rights to that aspect both potential parents can exercise a free choice over whether they wish to become a parent at this stage of their life.
I think it could be positive, so long as the deadline for doing it is well before the limit on abortions the mother can decide whether she wishes to carry on with a pregnancy and become a parent or not - I'd see that as preferable to having a father walk out on her and the child etc..
the point is for example that if two people have made a clear choice not to have a child, through the use of birth control, and then a pregnancy occurs the woman has 100% discretion on whether the man now becomes a father even if he didn't want to... if she choses to abort then that is up to her (even if he does now want to become a father) if she choses to not abort even though he never wanted to be a father at this stage of his life then then she's forcing him to accept a financial burden. This isn't fair/equitable - if we want more equality then there ought to be a right for both parties to not become a parent... while it is the woman's body and she should have complete control over it (the biological side) the parent/financial aspect is something we've created as a society and something that we can change to become fairer. I know it is a slightly radical proposal and has generally only been advocated on the fringe but I think in principle it is correct and eventually we'll see something like this in a generation or two. (unless we do go the whole hog and have everyone getting their tubes tied and sperm/eggs put into storage and so no unexpected pregnancies occur).
But because of biology there isn't equal risk when it comes to sex. Not to mention that the main argument for abortion is about rights over your own body. The man doesn't need those rights as he cannot get, and then force to remain, pregnant.
If a man can also abrogate his financial obligations then he takes none of the risks of sex, instead it becomes all of the woman's. How is that equal? Where does that fit with your mantra of individual responsibility?
Property rights don't deserve protection?
The rights already belong exclusively to the woman, the mantra of individual responsibility means that you are responsible for the choices you make, not the choices others make. As soon as one party has exclusively rights to make the choices, then it follows that they cannot obligate another through their choice with no opt out.
it isn't equal, thanks to biology as you pointed out - ergo the woman should have 100% control over the biological aspect as she has 100% of the risk there. The financial risk however is shared but the woman has 100% control, that is where some equality can be introduced, by giving both parties the option to have control over that risk.
Yes, but I would put them secondary to the rights over your own body. Rights which a man doesn't require as he cannot get pregnant.
So you want women to shoulder all of the risks of having sex?
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2014
- Posts
- 7,975
- Location
- The Cronx
If the father doesn't pay, then the taxpayer does. Take responsibility and have a child if you want one, or not, that is your choice and there are plenty of ways to exercise it.