financial/male 'abortion' rights?

Dolph · 17 Sep 2017 at 17:28

CapitalOne said:
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.

For the 5th time this thread, the taxpayer pays regardless. Child maintenance, since 2003, is not considered when calculating benefit eligibility.

The mother gets the state on hook, and the father on hook, regardless of consent from either of them, and regardless of whether one pays or not

Dolph · 17 Sep 2017 at 17:32

RDM said:
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?

I want the control of the risk equalised. We have a model of what is acceptable already, but it is unequally applied. No-one gets to deny a woman their right to choose using the idea that sex is consent to pregnancy, so why should a man not get the same right?

CapitalOne · 17 Sep 2017 at 17:33

Dolph said:
For the 5th time this thread, the taxpayer pays regardless. Child maintenance, since 2003, is not considered when calculating benefit eligibility.

The mother gets the state on hook, and the father on hook, regardless of consent from either of them, and regardless of whether one pays or not

So only the both cough up if the mother is on benefits. Is there an agenda here? What about the second sentence? That is really the point.

Dolph · 17 Sep 2017 at 17:34

CapitalOne said:
So only the both cough up if the mother is on benefits. Is there an agenda here? What about the second sentence? That is really the point.

The agenda is genuine equality under the law.

CapitalOne · 17 Sep 2017 at 17:34

Dolph said:
I want the control of the risk equalised. We have a model of what is acceptable already, but it is unequally applied. No-one gets to deny a woman their right to choose using the idea that sex is consent to pregnancy, so why should a man not get the same right?

Accept that having sex means you might get the woman pregnant? It really is that simple. Who promised you a right to conception free sex?

Dolph · 17 Sep 2017 at 17:40

CapitalOne said:
Accept that having sex means you might get the woman pregnant? It really is that simple. Who promised you a right to conception free sex?

Yes, I fully accept that. I'm happily married with two children, I'm fully aware of the process.

Now would you apply the same test to a woman, or are you pro choice?

I'm pro choice, I support the right to choose not to become a parent. I just don't think that choice should apply only to women.

dowie · 17 Sep 2017 at 17:42

CapitalOne said:
Accept that having sex means you might get the woman pregnant? It really is that simple. Who promised you a right to conception free sex?

this thread keeps repeating itself - another anti abortion argument that could equally be applied to women....

RDM · 17 Sep 2017 at 17:45

Dolph said:
I want the control of the risk equalised. We have a model of what is acceptable already, but it is unequally applied. No-one gets to deny a woman their right to choose using the idea that sex is consent to pregnancy, so why should a man not get the same right?

But the proposed solution means that only one person has any risk, the woman. She can choose to remain pregnant and have the health risks that go along with it as well as the financial commitment or she can choose to about and have the health risks that go along with that. The man gets to have sex with no real concern for the consequences as he can always walk away.

I do not see that as an improvement in the current situation.

CapitalOne · 17 Sep 2017 at 17:46

You have the choice not to be a parent as a man, emotionally etc just not financially. That sounds like common sense to me. I suppose I am pro choice because I really don't care that much about what other people do in these situations - it's not really my place to judge. Akward as that might be, the facts of life are the facts of life and the only way this situation could be considered equal is if man got pregnant too. I'd hope our legislators would have the sense to realise there are far more important things to concern themselves with!

Dirk Diggler · 17 Sep 2017 at 17:47

If you father kids, then stand by them financially, and also as a man. Could you really look that person in the eye 18 years on and say, "yes I could've been there for you, but I didn't want kids I just wanted my leg over. I signed a deal with your mum don't you know?"

mmj_uk · 17 Sep 2017 at 17:48

This thread makes a good point I think the argument from pro-abortionists is that it's not yet life so it's okay to terminate, if that's the case then why shouldn't the male who is expected to support the child financially not also have a choice? is that not what equality is all about? where is the equal right to decide? to then argue that terminating might leave the woman mentally traumatised defeats the widely accepted argument that it's not yet life.

CapitalOne · 17 Sep 2017 at 17:51

Not sure it's as simple as pro or anti abortion - isn't it obviously about money?

johnny6 · 17 Sep 2017 at 17:52

Dolph said:
For the 5th time this thread, the taxpayer pays regardless. Child maintenance, since 2003, is not considered when calculating benefit eligibility.

The mother gets the state on hook, and the father on hook, regardless of consent from either of them, and regardless of whether one pays or not

And yet (and also for the 5th time I believe) that is not what is being argued in counter to your own agenda. What is being argued is that father payments allow state benefit to be suppressed. Therefore it is not a huge leap of faith to assume removing father payments would result in state benefit needing to be re-evaluated and increased. Your argument only works if you assume the removal of one has no negative impact on the other.

CapitalOne · 17 Sep 2017 at 17:53

The premise being, I had sex with a woman and she got pregnant (both at fault if not the intention). As she can decide to terminate I should be able to decide not to pay.

Answer - again, the facts of life are there and well known, enter at your own risk and do your due dilligence. Or, get insurance for it. That's how we normally mitigate financial risk you know!

Ring the Lutine bell! A johnny has split!

dowie · 17 Sep 2017 at 18:03

RDM said:
But the proposed solution means that only one person has any risk, the woman. She can choose to remain pregnant and have the health risks that go along with it as well as the financial commitment or she can choose to about and have the health risks that go along with that. The man gets to have sex with no real concern for the consequences as he can always walk away.

I do not see that as an improvement in the current situation.

but you're talking about the biological side, we can't change that (at least not at the moment) and this doesn't seek to change that - there is no change to the current situation from that perspective - the change is to the financial side, given both parents a choice re: whether they want to be parents

two people have sex, the condom breaks, the man suggests the morning after pill, the woman doesn't want to and is happy to see what happens or perhaps decides she'd be happy to have a baby - that is entirely her choice however that choice has a significant financial impact on both her partner and her - while from a biological side it is her body ergo her choice from a financial side, the financial liability/parental rights are artificially constructed by society and as they affect both then both ought to have the same right to an opt out that we currently only give to the mother.

CapitalOne said:
The premise being, I had sex with a woman and she got pregnant (both at fault if not the intention). As she can decide to terminate I should be able to decide not to pay.

Answer - again, the facts of life are there and well known, enter at your own risk and do your due dilligence. Or, get insurance for it. That's how we normally mitigate financial risk you know!

so again yet another anti abortion argument, but you claim you're pro choice... why do the 'facts of life', 'enter at your own risk' not apply against having an abortion? You're happy for them not to need apply to the mother if she choses but you'll use the argument that could apply there against the father.

if the mother knows in advance that the father has no desire to be a parent at this point in his life and she has the free choice to have an abortion then why should he be liable for a pregnancy that she alone has decided to carry to term?

RDM · 17 Sep 2017 at 18:08

dowie said:
but you're talking about the biological side, we can't change that (at least not at the moment) and this doesn't seek to change that - there is no change to the current situation from that perspective - the change is to the financial side, given both parents a choice re: whether they want to be parents

But it does change the dynamic prior to having sex, currently there is financial risk to the man, financial and biological risk to the woman. If you remove the financial risk from the man then, due to biology, all risk now becomes the woman's. How is this fair? She already bears more of the risk with the current situation.

dowie said:
two people have sex, the condom breaks, the man suggests the morning after pill, the woman doesn't want to and is happy to see what happens or perhaps decides she'd be happy to have a baby - that is entirely her choice however that choice has a significant financial impact on both her partner and her - while from a biological side it is her body ergo her choice from a financial side, the financial liability/parental rights are artificially constructed by society and as they affect both then both ought to have the same right to an opt out that we currently only give to the mother.

Removing the man's financial risk means that he has no risk at all from sex. No responsibilities. The woman will then shoulder all the risk.

CapitalOne · 17 Sep 2017 at 18:09

CapitalOne said:
The premise being, I had sex with a woman and she got pregnant (both at fault if not the intention). As she can decide to terminate I should be able to decide not to pay.

Answer - again, the facts of life are there and well known, enter at your own risk and do your due dilligence. Or, g

dowie said:

but you're talking about the biological side, we can't change that (at least not at the moment) and this doesn't seek to change that - there is no change to the current situation from that perspective - the change is to the financial side, given both parents a choice re: whether they want to be parents

two people have sex, the condom breaks, the man suggests the morning after pill, the woman doesn't want to and is happy to see what happens or perhaps decides she'd be happy to have a baby - that is entirely her choice however that choice has a significant financial impact on both her partner and her - while from a biological side it is her body ergo her choice from a financial side, the financial liability/parental rights are artificially constructed by society and as they affect both then both ought to have the same right to an opt out that we currently only give to the mother.

so again yet another anti abortion argument, but you claim you're pro choice... why do the 'facts of life', 'enter at your own risk' not apply against having an abortion? You're happy for them not to need apply to the mother if she choses but you'll use the argument that could apply there against the father.

if the mother knows in advance that the father has no desire to be a parent at this point in his life and she has the free choice to have an abortion then why should he be liable for a pregnancy that she alone has decided to carry to term?

Click to expand...

et insurance for it. That's how we normally mittigate financial risk you know!

I am not anti abortion - where on earth did you get that idea from? Please quote it. The question was about paying, and insurance is the answer. However, you aren't going to comment or consider it so I'll let you get on with your game.

dowie · 17 Sep 2017 at 18:18

RDM said:
But it does change the dynamic prior to having sex, currently there is financial risk to the man, financial and biological risk to the woman. If you remove the financial risk from the man then, due to biology, all risk now becomes the woman's. How is this fair? She already bears more of the risk with the current situation.

again the biological risk has little to do with this - that's simply biology and why we say it is a woman's body and therefore her choice re: abortion

re: the financial risk - how is it fair? Simple - both parties have a shared financial risk yet currently only one party has an option over whether to abort or become a parent - giving both parties that same option over that same risk makes things fairer

CapitalOne said:
I am not anti abortion - where on earth did you get that idea from? Please quote it. The question was about paying, and insurance is the answer. However, you aren't going to comment or consider it so I'll let you get on with your game.

I didn't say you were and I did quote it, you used an anti abortion argument against a man whereas paradoxically you're pro choice in the case of women.

You've not been clear re: what you mean re insurance and/or how it would work - should both parents take it out... or do women not need to as they have a choice to abort anyway? All you've done then in that case re: insurance is shifted the liability among men as a whole - the principle doesn't change in that one party has the sole option over an event that both parties are financially liable for - you've just spread the cash flows so that all sexually active men who don't want kids share the bill.

CapitalOne · 17 Sep 2017 at 18:27

I promise it's my last post. You asked why can't men mitigate the financial risk of an unwanted pregnancy when women can, by having a termination. The current system offers an instrument to mitigate financial risk, which is called insurance. If this was such an important problem then meerkats would be helping you choose the right policy, but there is no demand for it outside of a purely academic discussion. In terms of justice, women can get pregnant and then decide what to do and men can't - if you think that's unfair then "go into sex" knowing that's the case and prepare yourself accordingly. Why legislators should offer you a holding hand on something so obvious is beyond me. If you think this is such an injustice and worth a campaign, I'd suggest taking some time out to focus your energy on more serious problems which once solved, would provide a much greater benefit!

Have a nice sunday, that's all I have!

johnny6 · 17 Sep 2017 at 18:36

dowie said:
again the biological risk has little to do with this - that's simply biology and why we say it is a woman's body and therefore her choice re: abortion

re: the financial risk - how is it fair? Simple - both parties have a shared financial risk yet currently only one party has an option over whether to abort or become a parent - giving both parties that same option over that same risk makes things fairer

So I take it you are OK with men taking an equal share of the physical risk and pain involved in being pregnant and giving birth? You know in the name of equal rights and equality for both parties.