financial/male 'abortion' rights?

The problem in first world countries is that there are too many oldies and not enough kids. There is plenty of information about this. In addition, large numbers of children per mother in developing countries is expected to correct over the current generation.

Anything can be "argued" but that doesn't make it true!
 
Not enough kids now, yet according to some, once robots have supposedly stolen all our jobs in the next decade, perhaps not the case then....
 
Amp34 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Western population is very old, soon the numbers will drop off quickly. We need to have a new generation to come through. Don't you know that all the electric gadgets you have
Favour use rare earths and other precious materials? Humans if taught properly can live relatively non evasive lives.
 
LabR@t said:
Western population is very old, soon the numbers will drop off quickly. We need to have a new generation to come through.
Click to expand...

People don't want children. You can't force them to have them.

LabR@t said:
Don't you know that all the electric gadgets you have Favour use rare earths and other precious materials? Humans if taught properly can live relatively non evasive lives.
Click to expand...

Not sure quite what is going on here as there seem to be a couple of typos, but anyway. There's no harm in using rare earth minerals and so on provided they are a) responsibly sourced and b) recycled once the goods in question have been finished with. What else are we going to use the rare earth elements for?
 
dowie said:
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
Click to expand...

Ignoring the financial impact on the state for one moment which both yourself and Dolph seem to dismiss on the basis of the state already pays, even though what is actually being argued is that the state will pay more.

Your suggestion is 'to making the process more equal', however in actual fact what you are arguing for is only making it more equal for the male, and completely dismissing everything else on the basis that 'we can't do anything about that'. So either you what an equal process or you are arguing for a slightly difference but still unequal process.

Your original suggestion is ridiculous as it only works in isolation providing you ignore everything else and assume this change would have no negative impact on anything else. As has been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple people.
 
johnny6 said:
Your suggestion is 'to making the process more equal', however in actual fact what you are arguing for is only making it more equal for the male, and completely dismissing everything else on the basis that 'we can't do anything about that'. So either you what an equal process or you are arguing for a slightly difference but still unequal process.

Your original suggestion is ridiculous as it only works in isolation providing you ignore everything else and assume this change would have no negative impact on anything else. As has been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple people.
Click to expand...

what a bizarre statement - "more equal for the male" is making it more equal... that's like saying (assuming it exists) addressing the pay gap only makes things equal for women... in this instance the male is the one lacking this option

we can't do anything about the biological side - I don't really see what you expect there, I've not dismissed anything there AFAIK no one has proposed any changes to the biological side. This proposal is to address an inequality on the financial side.

I've not assumed this change will have no negative effect though I believe it would be more likely to be a positive thing.
 
I think it's unfair for Men to have no say in whether they have children or not, with that said you obviously can't force a woman to have an abortion. I feel like unless a woman has deliberately planned to get pregnant without your prior knowledge then a man should be financially responsible for a child. The reason I feel like this is because ultimately the only loser here is going to be the child. More men being responsible for their children is what's required, not less. Kids need Dads, otherwise you end up with a generation of boys with no male role models who end up making bad life decisions and raising another generation like them. Ideally Men should be able to opt out in the same way Women can, but I don't see how that's viable without the child being the ultimate loser, and they essentially had no choice in this at all.
 
Can the women also choose financial abortion, whereby they aren't responsible for any of the costs and the father has to pay everything?
 
TallPaul1878 said:
I'd like to see these people explain that "it's just a few cells" to someone who has suffered a miscarriage.

When all their hopes and dreams have been shattered. It's strange how people are so willing to dehumanise a baby because it is unborn.
Click to expand...

You are talking about hopes and reams being shattered, not the unborn fetus. And yes, we have been through a miscarriage
 
D.P. said:
Can the women also choose financial abortion, whereby they aren't responsible for any of the costs and the father has to pay everything?
Click to expand...

They have the choice to abort, they can already offer to either let the child be adopted or give sole custody to the male if he wants to keep it and she's willing to go through with the pregnancy. There isn't a lack of choice here for Women in this scenario.
 
CapitalOne said:
The problem in first world countries is that there are too many oldies and not enough kids. There is plenty of information about this. In addition, large numbers of children per mother in developing countries is expected to correct over the current generation.

Anything can be "argued" but that doesn't make it true!
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand that, it's the reason western countries are so keen on immigration - population increase drives growth and population pyramids with large bases help keep the older generation in the "style the are accustomed" (pensions and care). The issue is an ever growing population is unsustainable (which is what is needed for the above). There's no true argument against that IMO, unless you're happy with say 200 million people in the UK in a couple of centuries?

Probably worth looking at what I was replying to - L@brats assertion that it's people's moral imperative to have kids. Not having kids doesn't make you morally wrong.

LabR@t said:
Western population is very old, soon the numbers will drop off quickly. We need to have a new generation to come through. Don't you know that all the electric gadgets you have
Favour use rare earths and other precious materials? Humans if taught properly can live relatively non evasive lives.
Click to expand...

Take the current biggest environmental issue at the moment - CO2. The best thing anyone can do to reduce their carbon footprint is not get a slightly more fuel efficient car, stop flying, or better home insulation. It's to not have kids. That same argument can be used fo rare earth minerals. If you don't have two kids, that's "twice" the amount of material "you'll" be saving even if you keep your current electronics habit.

Anyway, that's going off topic. For the subject at hand I think financial abortions seem a reasonable option, with a few caveats. I think that agreement should be had pre conception rather than allowing people to choose after the fact and there should be safeguards in place to deal with issues like coercion and clarity on just when the agreement is considered null and void. Both I'd consider as being things fairly commonly considered in all contracts.

There would also need to be a discussion what would/could happen in the event the father decided later on in life they wanted to reconnect with the child. Presumably with a financial "abortion" the father would have no right to contact the child - and perhaps even forfeit the contract/"abortion" if they did. But what if they wanted contact at a later date? Presumably this could be modelled around current laws involving adoption? I don't know enough on the subject either way to go into more detail.
 
Last edited:
IMO if a man doesn't want a child, offers to pay 100% of the abortion cost and the women says no then she should then legally take 100% of the responsibility for bringing that child into the world and 100% of the costs involved.
 
Roar87 said:
They have the choice to abort, they can already offer to either let the child be adopted or give sole custody to the male if he wants to keep it and she's willing to go through with the pregnancy. There isn't a lack of choice here for Women in this scenario.
Click to expand...


and you think abortion or giving the child up for adoption are equal to simply not paying a fair share towards child costs?


The man also has a choice not to have unprotected sex with a women. If man really ants financial abortion then they can take the male pill + wear a condom, which is a much more preferable than the choices the women faces.
 
ubersonic said:
IMO if a man doesn't want a child, offers to pay 100% of the abortion cost and the women says no then she should then legally take 100% of the responsibility for bringing that child into the world and 100% of the costs involved.
Click to expand...


You think the only reason a women might not have an abortion is the cost of the procedure?

If a man doesn't want the cost of a child then taking the male pill + condom is a very simple and cost effective solution.
 
D.P. said:
and you think abortion or giving the child up for adoption are equal to simply not paying a fair share towards child costs?


The man also has a choice not to have unprotected sex with a women. If man really ants financial abortion then they can take the male pill + wear a condom, which is a much more preferable than the choices the women faces.
Click to expand...

That's why if it was to be allowed the financial "abortion" would have to be agreed prior to sex. The woman then has complete understanding of where they stand in the event of pregnancy. They can then take a more informed decision on whether they are willing to have sex with someone.

That way both parties can go into the act with informed decisions. Currently it's a rather one sided "agreement".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom