financial/male 'abortion' rights?

[dowie]

Should men have the right to a 'financial abortion' - essentially declare in advance somehow (perhaps via an official notification or a clear communication of some way to the mother - details not so important really but rather the principle here) that they're not interested in raising a child at this point in their life and therefore want a "financial abortion" whereby they're not responsible financially for the baby should the partner fall pregnant and decide for herself to keep it (and likewise they therefore forfeit any claim to the child too).

I mean currently a woman gets pregnant - she can quite rightly chose to abort the baby even if the man doesn't want to, she can also chose to keep the baby and the man will be financially liable for part of the costs of raising it. While it would be wrong for a man to have a choice to force an actual abortion (or indeed to force a woman to not have an abortion) some of the reasons why a woman may chose to have an abortion apply to men too - wrong time in their life, not established a career etc.. yet etc..etc.. if a couple has taken steps to prevent pregnancy via birth control and then one accidentally happens it seems rather unfair that (from a financial perspective) only one party has an option on what happens next and has complete discretion on whether the other party is going to be lumbered with a large financial liability.

I'd assume that lots of people who are already opposed to abortion in general would be opposed to this too (presumably family values/religious crowd etc..) - how about people who would support abortion on behalf of women for career/financial reasons?

 

[Tefal]

problem here is by doing this men get to "walk away free" as it where.

now while there may be a small percentage of women who can go through abortion with no I'll effects for most that choice is gping to leave lasting psychological scars.

at what point do you draw the line between responsibility for ones actions and a "mistake" is the real wuestiom

 

[Tefal]

but I suppose you have to balance everything with the unsavoury issue of suicide.


ban abortion and many women will simply kill themselves And thier child

 

[dowie]

problem here is by doing this men get to "walk away free" as it where.

that isn't really a problem, that is the whole point of it - women currently have completed control over whether they want to walk away free - while they ought to have complete control over the physical/biological side the financial side need not be 100% down to them but instead is an area of inequality that could be addressed.

If a couple is using birth control then their intent is clear, if a pregnancy happens then the choice re: the physical outcome of that is 100% down to the woman (and rightly so) - however I think the financial side is separate. If the morning after pill/early stage abortions are easily available but the woman choses not to make use of them an instead have the baby then that shouldn't be inflicted financially on the man.

I think there are potential limits to this the later in pregnancy it gets where an abortion isn't so simple - but at one extreme say a condom breaks and the man asks if she'd like to go and get the morning after pill (I've had this happen before and thankfully she agreed to go together to the local hospital to get it) and she refuses, says she actually wouldn't mind having a child if she ends up pregnant... then that isn't really fair from the male's perspective.

now while there may be a small percentage of women who can go through abortion with no I'll effects for most that choice is gping to leave lasting psychological scars.

that is an argument tried by anti abortion campaigners - plenty of abortions can simply be a case of taking a pill/getting rid of a bunch of cells, carrying an unwanted pregnancy carries greater risk (psychologically) than having an abortion

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/2592320

the argument isn't re: the physical side - that choice is down to the woman alone, it is simply the financial side

 

[Shoza]

You get her pregnant you must pay for your child. It can never work any other way. Male "pill" is nearly here if you're worried.

 

[BDEE]

So who is going to pick up the tab? The taxpayer?

No thank you.

 

[dowie]

You get her pregnant you must pay for your child. It can never work any other way. Male "pill" is nearly here if you're worried.

Why can't it work?

male pill is a potential solution if it is as effective as the female pill - but this stuff isn't always 100%

No. Men shouldn't risk it if they don't want any chance of having to take responsibility.

If you don't like the risk, don't have sex outside of solid relationships/have a vasectomy/whatever. Go for the vasectomy option but have sperm stored.

you could use that same argument against abortion for women outside of say rape etc..

 

[cheesyboy]

There are simply some facts of mammalian life that mean you can't offer complete equivalency of rights and obligations between men and women.

And I see no way at all that society would benefit from such a scheme. None.

 

[Destination]

Called a vasectomy.

 

[dowie]

There are simply some facts of mammalian life that mean you can't offer complete equivalency of rights and obligations between men and women.

Why? I'm separating the physical and financial here and just arguing for the financial which has little to do with "facts of mammalian life"

Called a vasectomy.

That doesn't work if you want kids several years later (they're not always reversible) and as per the other poster's comment - you could use that sort of argument against female abortion too... why not have everyone freeze their eggs and sperm, get their tubes tied in their teenage years and ban all abortion - everyone then only has planned pregnancies through IVF etc.. rather an expensive process

 

[cheesyboy]

Why? I'm separating the physical and financial here and just arguing for the financial which has little to do with "facts of mammalian life"

Not really - you're equating "financial abortion" rights with fetal abortion choice. As if it equalizes men's rights with those of women.

If you're seperating, could a woman opt for a "financial abortion" then?

 

[Glaucus]

You get her pregnant you must pay for your child. It can never work any other way. Male "pill" is nearly here if you're worried.

this imo, just need the male pill to help balance it and reduce the risk of pregnancy even further.

 

[dowie]

Not really - you're equating "financial abortion" rights with fetal abortion choice. As if it equalizes men's rights with those of women.

I'm separating the financial and biological parts as men don't (and shouldn't) have any control over the biological side ergo ought to (IMO) have an option of a financial abortion in the case where a woman wants to keep the baby but a man doesn't.

If you're seperating, could a woman opt for a "financial abortion" then?

They can already do more than that - they can have an abortion. Though if they for some reason chose to still have a baby and don't want it they can give it up for adoption.

Otherwise I'm not really sure what you mean by the question as it makes no sense from the woman's perspective. They've already got control over this area - the premise here is to separate the financial side and bring in some equality purely over that while maintaining that the physical/biological side is 100% in the control of women.

 

[Destination]

Why? I'm separating the physical and financial here and just arguing for the financial which has little to do with "facts of mammalian life"



That doesn't work if you want kids several years later (they're not always reversible) and as per the other poster's comment - you could use that sort of argument against female abortion too... why not have everyone freeze their eggs and sperm, get their tubes tied in their teenage years and ban all abortion - everyone then only has planned pregnancies through IVF etc.. rather an expensive process

It does 'work' if you get tested after to check it has worked.
Yes it isn't always reversible.
So ******* what. If you are dipping your **** in ****, you want a good ****, the side effect is people get pregnant. Get her on the coil, use condoms, use the pill etc etc all 99%, never 100. So live with the effect of your decision to copulate, fun as it is, the side effect is well known, so pay for it, else get yourself a vacetomy,

 

[TallPaul1878]

That doesn't work if you want kids several years later (they're not always reversible) and as per the other poster's comment - you could use that sort of argument against female abortion too... why not have everyone freeze their eggs and sperm, get their tubes tied in their teenage years and ban all abortion - everyone then only has planned pregnancies through IVF etc.. rather an expensive process

Fantastic idea. Be a lot less expensive than the state subsidizing the existence of benefit babies.

 

[neil_g]

that is an argument tried by anti abortion campaigners - plenty of abortions can simply be a case of taking a pill/getting rid of a bunch of cells, carrying an unwanted pregnancy carries greater risk (psychologically) than having an abortion

Of course terminating a pregnancy at any stage can leave mental scars. "it's just a few cells" oh please.

 

[dowie]

It does 'work' if you get tested after to check it has worked.
Yes it isn't always reversible.

so it doesn't "work if you want kids several years later" - nothing to do with testing to check the vasectomy worked, but a comment on that working as a solution for someone who wants kids later in life but not now

So ******* what. If you are dipping your **** in ****, you want a good ****, the side effect is people get pregnant. Get her on the coil, use condoms, use the pill etc etc all 99%, never 100. So live with the effect of your decision to copulate, fun as it is, the side effect is well known, so pay for it, else get yourself a vacetomy,

are you against abortion for women too as your arguments re: birth control could be used in the same way there - if not then why is this so different? (edit - for clarity lets leave aside abortions for medical reasons or in the cases or rape etc...)

Of course terminating a pregnancy at any stage can leave mental scars. "it's just a few cells" oh please.

in the case of a morning after pill or early stage it literally is just a few cells - also see the research posted earlier carrying an unwanted pregnancy has greater mental health risks than aborting one

 

[TallPaul1878]

Of course terminating a pregnancy at any stage can leave mental scars. "it's just a few cells" oh please.

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.

 

[Dolph]

It's a huge double standard, and should be sorted out. If you have the exclusive right to make the choice, you should have exclusive responsibility that goes along with it.

There is no justification for not permitting this that wouldn't lead to outrage if the same logic was applied to women.

 

[IronWarrior]

You get her pregnant you must pay for your child. It can never work any other way. Male "pill" is nearly here if you're worried.

What if birth controlled was used or she lied about using birth control?

At first, I thought just like you, but what happens if this happens, brings up some interesting questions.

Should that man be tied and connected to that kid for life because birth controlled failed or she lied about it to trap him with by getting pregnant?