financial/male 'abortion' rights?
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Like when they give up a child for adoption/into care? Perhaps because they aren't in a position to raise a child.
Though fortunately they have the option of terminating a pregnancy these days. In the past young unmarried girls who fell pregnant were often sent away from their home town to give birth and then have the child adopted.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,352
like it's rights to be born in the first place? because abortion is a thing.
general idea seems to be that if women can have an abortion, or not have an abortion, regardless of what the father may want, but if the baby is born then he's stuck with the payments.
i can see the argument for something like this, but i suspect the reality of anything like it actually happening has odds of slim to nonexistant, possibly due to the fact that there's still enough cases of men wandering off leaving women to raise the kids themselves to keep jeremy kyle in business.
I think anything that is done where the Dad gives up responsibility always has to be done with the Mum's consent. Ultimately the Mum is going to carry the baby around for nine and a half months (they don't tell you the first month is six weeks!) and give birth, with all of the physiological and psychological impact and risks that has. Therefore the Mum should be afforded most protection.
But I can see situations where both parties agree to this. Just have to be careful it's not used as a reactive excuse by Dads to bugger off and not live in the bed they made.
Don't want to get a woman pregnant? Wear protection, try to use two types of birth control, and time sex (if you can) to not occur when your partner is most fertile. Otherwise men should be well educated on the subject and should know (as adults) exactly what they are in for.
But I can see situations where both parties agree to this. Just have to be careful it's not used as a reactive excuse by Dads to bugger off and not live in the bed they made.
Don't want to get a woman pregnant? Wear protection, try to use two types of birth control, and time sex (if you can) to not occur when your partner is most fertile. Otherwise men should be well educated on the subject and should know (as adults) exactly what they are in for.
the mum doesn't have to carry the baby for nine and a half months, she can chose to abort... especially in the case where the couple concerned were taking birth control and actively trying not to have a baby
the main issue this is trying to address here is if she choses to keep the unplanned pregnancy that both parties took measures to prevent and that is still unwanted by the dad - the mum still is afforded the most protection, the abortion decision is absolutely hers to make and the stance of the dad can be made clear from the start too
I think you're right to state "Just have to be careful it's not used as a reactive excuse by Dads to bugger off and not live in the bed they made." - in principle if a couple aimed to get pregnant and the dad retrospectively wants to change this after the event or walk away then I'd consider that to be rather different to the case where the couple clearly used birth control because their intent was to not be parents. In the first scenario the woman has been actively encouraged and is under the impression she has a supportive partner, that is a factor that plays into her decision and to change that after is wrong IMO.
TBH I think the biggest negative against this is the thing we haven't really touched on. The life of the child itself. Financial contributions are/should be a way of giving the child a better start in life. Removing the support of the father is going to have a detrimental effect on the child*.
As much as not every father pays maintenance this would affect a lot more children than it currently effects now.
*whether that's major or minor would be related to individual cases (well off mother, poor father or poor mother, well of father for example).
Yes Dowie I would agree, and I think the key principle here is clear communication and agreement up front. And it needs to be made legally binding, otherwise all sorts of ambiguities can creep in.
The Mum's decision on abortions is a right afforded to her in order to have control over her body and to allow her to minimise risk to her safety should the pregnancy cause any. Obviously the Dad can have a say in this but cannot force a decision either way. The right thing for a Dad to be able to do is agree not to take part and be a sperm donor in effect, not have sex, or live with the potential consequence of what sex has been designed to do. Pretty good options if you ask me.
Or just have sex with one of those creepy doll things
The Mum's decision on abortions is a right afforded to her in order to have control over her body and to allow her to minimise risk to her safety should the pregnancy cause any. Obviously the Dad can have a say in this but cannot force a decision either way. The right thing for a Dad to be able to do is agree not to take part and be a sperm donor in effect, not have sex, or live with the potential consequence of what sex has been designed to do. Pretty good options if you ask me.
Or just have sex with one of those creepy doll things
sorry guys but you seriously cannot legislate life in this way.
it's hilarious to even think if a scenario that would meet dowies requirements ever comming about.
plus how easy would it be to argue/overturn that.
man: "well when we first started dating 5 years ago we said no kids and we'd use condoms so I think legally I have no financial obligations to the child"
woman: "we said that at the start however he agreed he wanted kids in a verbal contract before we engaged in the coitus that resulted in the pregnancy"
and everu sane judge in the land will err on the side of caution and say the farther is obligated to support the child.
all of this would be in the family courts remember so any discussion of the case could result in the dad being fined/imprisoned
it's hilarious to even think if a scenario that would meet dowies requirements ever comming about.
plus how easy would it be to argue/overturn that.
man: "well when we first started dating 5 years ago we said no kids and we'd use condoms so I think legally I have no financial obligations to the child"
woman: "we said that at the start however he agreed he wanted kids in a verbal contract before we engaged in the coitus that resulted in the pregnancy"
and everu sane judge in the land will err on the side of caution and say the farther is obligated to support the child.
all of this would be in the family courts remember so any discussion of the case could result in the dad being fined/imprisoned
So that could extend to any "financial abortion" then, correct?
Sexual assault is contact or behaviour without consent, rather than lack of contraception without consent. Morally wrong but not illegal.
To your other point on the courts, yes this is why a legally binding agreement needs to be in place before any shenanigans between the sheets, otherwise it's a verbal agreement and I have seen too many Judge Judy/ Rinder to know how adhered to they are.
Hence the need for some kind of non verbal contract, which can then be terminated prior to trying for a child. Most couples will be on non condom based birth control which takes at least a little time to wear off/be removed so it's unlikely there wouldn't be time to rescind the contract.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,352
there's always going to be an impact on the child though, financial contribution is only one relatively small part of being a parent. i've seen enough of single parent households to know everyone gets affected to some degree by it, some can cope better than others- find other role models etc, but others can't.
we'd like to think that most people would "think of the children" but in reality there's plenty who don't care enough.
and if you've consented on the condition that contraception is used and the other person agrees then without your knowledge doesnt use it, you no longer consent and you have been raped.
if you promise not to cum inside a girl then do you have committed rape and yes people have been jailed for thay exact circumstancs.
nope because not everyone pays csa to all parents.
child tax credits/benifit/schools are paid regardless of if you pay your csa or not so no you csnt use general taxation to cover csa payments like you can healthcare spending
Care to expand? Why is a contract insane? As I asked earlier do you feel the same way about prenups?
And that's exactly the same argument many Americans use to argue against universal healthcare.
I've never heard of such a case and I really don't think this is the definition of rape. Do you have an article or something you could send a link to that clarifies this and confirm either of these cases happened?