How do you propose to implement that?
Currently as women have 100% of the biological risk they quite rightly have 100% of the choice.
The financial risk however is shared and yet the choice isn't evenly shared.
financial/male 'abortion' rights?
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
How do you propose to implement that?
Currently as women have 100% of the biological risk they quite rightly have 100% of the choice.
The financial risk however is shared and yet the choice isn't evenly shared.
Yes because women are evil and I'm sure not a single one of them has got pregnant because it is more the husband/boyfriends desire to have a child.
I'm sure whoever you sign a no financial obligation contract with would be more than happy for you to sign a kick you in the gentleman's area to ensure birthing equality contract.
We should do more in support for young families, they are after all the future of the country. Future tax payers, doctors, etc as a wealthy country we should invest in our citizens
It does, it is part and parcel of the risks of having sex. The biology makes it uneven, we would make this worse with your suggestion.
But in doing so puts all of the onus on the woman when it comes to having sex. There is no equality of opportunity and considerably worse equality of outcome. It disincentives men from taking any responsibility for birth control. In trying to make things fairer you actually make things worse for the woman.
What exactly is your argument? Can you try to stick to presenting one and avoid the hyperbole/sarcasm etc... I think if the partner/girlfriend you were in a sexual relationship and using birth control with said in advance that actually they'd like to keep the baby if one accidentally
This has no change/impact on the biological part. That isn't something we have control over the risk is with the woman ergo the choice is 100% with the woman. This doesn't make anything uneven or worse it is separate from the biological argument.
The onus with respect to what exactly? From a physical perspective there is no change - the woman has 100% of the choice. From a financial perspective it addresses an inequality that can be addressed.
I'm not sure it does disincentivise men from from birth control any more than the morning after pill and easy access to abortion does the same for women - I doubt many guys are going to be happy with the prospect of getting their girlfriend/partner/wife pregnant just because they now have the same parental opt out from a financial perspective.
As for "In trying to make things fairer you actually make things worse for the woman." well from a financial perspective there is an unfair balance, we're going from shared financial risk and 100% of the control of that risk belonging to the woman to shared financial risk and shared control/option on that risk. So yes it is 'making things worse' for a woman from that perspective - that is the intention - the current system is unfair and needs rebalancing.
The onus on preventing pregnancy. There are now no negatives with regards to pregnancy as far as the male goes. He can walk away from any responsibility. Also the woman does not have 100% of the choice, part of the choice is still with the man, he can ensure he uses a barrier contraceptive, he can choose not to engage in sex. The woman has additional rights, not because of the financial, but because of the biological. I know you want to dismiss this but I don't think it should be.
But your method of making things fairer for one very limited part of it makes it even less fair for the woman, who already has to deal with more risk than the man.
Of course there are, not having a baby for a start! If you're in a relationship and you don't want a baby then having a baby is something you'd want to try and prevent!
So can she via an actual abortion.
now this is getting muddled - the choice re: abortion is 100% that of the man - the method of contraceptive used prior to conception has nothing to do with the fact the woman has 100% of the choice re: whether to have an abortion
I've not dismissed it, I fully accept it and have stated it myself - the woman has 100% of the choice re: abortion because it is her body. The man doesn't get any rights regarding that aspect.
No it doesn't, how is the financial aspect 'less fairer' if both have the choice to opt out?
(edit - spelling)
Last edited:
But the man doesn't have to worry about actually having the child or financially supporting the child. Makes casual sex much less of a problem. Pregnancy is now almost entirely the woman's problem.
An abortion is a medical procedure that comes with risk. Even the morning after pill. Therefore the woman does indeed take some of the responsibility.
But abortion is only one minor part of not getting pregnant. So the woman does not have 100% of the choice when it comes to getting pregnant. The man also has quite a bit of a say in that too. The woman just gets another option (which in of itself comes with risks) if she does get pregnant. Only a woman has a choice to end a pregnancy, but both men and women have choice when it comes to starting one in the first place.
You want to dismiss it as part of the argument as to why your idea isn't a good one.
Because, once again, you are only looking at one small part of the whole. Yes, that one decision becomes "fairer" but the entire process gets less fair towards the woman.
I think we have probably got to the "agree to disagree" part of the argument tbh.
From a biological pov it always has been, I don't think 'casual sex' is generally a problem to being with. And again a woman doesn't have to worry about having the child either - she's got complete control over whether to have an abortion.
again this is getting muddled - responsibility for raising a baby - if you have an abortion you don't as you won't have a baby
and no one is proposing changing any of that - it is still the woman's choice to end the pregnancy - again this isn't about the biological side, that is unchanged
I don't see how it is relevant - it is unchanged
I think so, I don't see how addressing an obvious inequality makes things less fair - the biological side remains 100% in control of the woman, we can't change that. The unfair aspect of the financial side gets addressed.
Let's add an alternative (and not that far fetched in future) scenario.
If the foetus could be removed from the woman's body and grown in an artificial womb outside of it, and this was used in situations where the woman did not want the child, but the man did, should the woman be financially liable?
If the foetus could be removed from the woman's body and grown in an artificial womb outside of it, and this was used in situations where the woman did not want the child, but the man did, should the woman be financially liable?
I think under that scenario you could have equal rights re: both the biological and financial sides... thus you'd potentially remove the right of the woman to unilaterally destroy the embryo if her partner wants to keep it and instead she could exercise the right to eject it for him to have in an artificial womb.
Both parents can chose to keep the baby and/or be financially liable.
Both parents can chose to keep the baby and/or be financially liable.
Absolutely not, those without kids should not be forced to spend their income subsidizing other peoples lifestyle choices in an attempt to create some kind of socialist utoptia.
Not letting innocent children suffer doesn't say to me "socialist utopia". It says "civilised society".
What alternative would you suggest?
e: I should say I'd like benefits to be removed - due to not being necessary. I'd like employers to have to pay wages that allow people not to depend on hand-outs.
But failing that, benefits exist (along with the social workers) to try to ensure kids have fairly decent start in life. Society has a vested interest in producing healthy adults, remember.
Benefits are only a small part of that effort. Supposed to ensure that the kids don't go hungry, etc. Sadly that doesn't ensure the kids won't turn into messed up adults - that's mostly due to the parenting.
Last edited:
Great, how is that in any way related to what I quoted?
Perhaps I misunderstood... but you seem to not want the state to pay for other people's kids.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 2,332
Babies should all be gassed at birth anyway. They're only going to turn into old people and we all know how old people are just a massive drain on the health service.
Let's invest in our future generations, not in foreign aid to corrupt regimes, or financing pointless wars.
It's not their income being spent, it's the government taxes. If it's not invested in the children it will be spent elsewhere.
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.
Why do you think having children is the "right" priority?
Especially so when it can easily be argued that there is an unsustainable number of humans on earth already. Arguably the "right" priority is to not have kids and spend your money on electronics, because even then you're still going to have less of an affect on earth than someone having kids.