financial/male 'abortion' rights?

[Tefal]

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?

http://metro.co.uk/2013/04/24/sex-with-consent-can-still-be-rape-3665975/


that's the husband raping his wife by not pulling out one.


and then there's dozens and dozens of articles on "stealthing" ie agreeing to shag with a condom then removing it.

remember if consent comes with conditions and you break those conditions you do not have consent.


fairly relevant to this thread as it resulted in an unwanted pregnancy caused by the male.

The husband now faces prosecution for rape following the court’s ruling that, if he deliberately ignored his wife’s wish that he withdraw before ejaculation, she had not consented to sex.

 

[Tefal]

Care to expand? Why is a contract insane? As I asked earlier do you feel the same way about prenups?

if you cannot see signing a contract before sex is a ludicris proposition im not sure I can help you understand that.


feel free to ask any woman in your life to sign such a thing.

And that's exactly the same argument many Americans use to argue against universal healthcare.

that makes no sense in this context.

we have universal health care.

we have universal child benifit


csa is an utterly seperate and personal issue.

you could compare it to health care if we didn't have universal health car ebur some weird system where your obligated to pay for your kids but we dont

 

[LabR@t]

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?

Sounds more like a playground story tbh.

 

[ubersonic]

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

No, hence my post.

 

[dowie]

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.

That sounds pretty dubious - do you have an example of a woman lying about being on the pill etc.. and being charged with rape. Also regardless of that it doesn't absolve you of having to pay maintenance for the resulting child.

AFAIK in the US for example there was even a case of a male child raped by a woman who later was forced by a state court to start making maintenance payments - that is I guess a bit extreme but could be a good case where someone might want a 'financial abortion' beyond the envisioned unplanned pregnancy and partner changing their mind/deciding to keep it.

 

[Tefal]

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.

so your solution is just out and out coercion/blackmail?

 

[ubersonic]

so your solution is just out and out coercion/blackmail?

How is that blackmail? If a woman assumes 100% of the responsibility for bringing a child into the world she should accept 100% of the financial costs of her decision.

 

[G J]

A related video but I cant embed it here as the video has some swearies. Its called SpearmJacking by a Youtuber named Barbara4u2c and its not rude.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g-N24FEJaY

She discusses multiple stories of women getting pregnant or trying to without the fathers consent/on purpose.
I can't find the link for the source but she also discusses that a study shows that 42% of women lie about being on birthcontrol.

 

[Aa83]

http://metro.co.uk/2013/04/24/sex-with-consent-can-still-be-rape-3665975/

that's the husband raping his wife by not pulling out one.

Ah I see, so the issue was around consent for the husband not abiding by his wife's specific instructions around what she was prepared to do or not do. Thanks for clarifying your position. But going back to the topic at hand, in that case the wife would then need to decide whether to keep the baby, which is covered under current law and medical procedures/ drugs.

I'd still be interested to see the ramifications of a woman lying about contraception - I still don't think that is rape. Clearly an issue, but one a man can avoid in the first place with prophylactics.

How is that blackmail? If a woman assumes 100% of the responsibility for bringing a child into the world she should accept 100% of the financial costs of her decision.

But your original post only alluded to the situation of a man not wanting a child, and didn't mention than the caveat that the woman accepted 100% of the responsibility. Again, it comes down to a similar situation with a sperm doner. But a situation where a man can admonish himself of responsibility by insisting he pay for an abortion is quite abhorrent (I'm guessing that's not what you meant though).

 

[ubersonic]

But your original post only alluded to the situation of a man not wanting a child, and didn't mention than the caveat that the woman accepted 100% of the responsibility.

Apart from the bit where it talks about the woman accepting 100% of the responsibility ofc XD

 

[ubersonic]

a situation where a man can admonish himself of responsibility by insisting he pay for an abortion is quite abhorrent (I'm guessing that's not what you meant though).

No that's exactly what I was suggesting, if a man has zero interest in having a child, he shouldn't be forced too. If a woman decides she wants to keep an unwanted pregnancy, and the man even offers to pay for an abortion but she declines, then that should (in an ideal world) legally absolve him of any responsibility towards the child because the woman has assumed 100% of the responsibility for bringing the child into the world, she should take on 100% of the costs too.

 

[Nasher]

Maybe people should need permission to have kids, with supporting themselves being a requirement. Would fix a lot of issues

A related video but I cant embed it here as the video has some swearies. Its called SpearmJacking by a Youtuber named Barbara4u2c and its not rude.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g-N24FEJaY

She discusses multiple stories of women getting pregnant or trying to without the fathers consent/on purpose.
I can't find the link for the source but she also discusses that a study shows that 42% of women lie about being on birthcontrol.

And this is a big problem. Can you really trust them, or do you take precautions yourself and be accused of not trusting them? It's a trap. In this situation the guy should be able to cut themself off, not be forced in to paying for some kid they were tricked in to producing.

 

[NewGamer11]

Interesting news from the world of male contraception: https://www.joe.co.uk/life/the-new-****-click-male-contraceptive-could-change-sex-forever-36073

Vasectomy is simpler of course if you don't want kids at all.

 

[Aa83]

No that's exactly what I was suggesting, if a man has zero interest in having a child, he shouldn't be forced too. If a woman decides she wants to keep an unwanted pregnancy, and the man even offers to pay for an abortion but she declines, then that should (in an ideal world) legally absolve him of any responsibility towards the child because the woman has assumed 100% of the responsibility for bringing the child into the world, she should take on 100% of the costs too.

Maybe a scenario would help me understand your reasoning here, as I think I'm missing something.

A male and a female have sex, with no legally binding pre-agreements with regards to childcare responsibilities (i.e. the scenario which exists for 99.99999% of sex). Due to trying for a baby, lack of protection, birth control failure, an accident, whatever, the woman falls pregnant. After finding out this news, the man decides he does not want to be involved in this baby.

You are saying the woman should now only have two options:

1. Have the baby without the man, and not get any financial support from the man towards bringing the baby up
2. Accept a payment for the abortion and have the pregnancy aborted

Does the above fit in with your view?

 

[ubersonic]

You are saying the woman should now only have two options:

1. Have the baby without the man, and not get any financial support from the man towards bringing the baby up
2. Accept a payment for the abortion and have the pregnancy aborted

Does the above fit in with your view?

Yep, if it was an accident (or if she simply lied about protection) that sounds fair to me.

If the man expresses a wish not to be a father and offers to completely fund fixing the problem but the woman wishes to be a mother so chooses to have the child then as that is 100% her decision she should meet 100% of the costs involved in raising her child.

 

[Aa83]

Yep, if it was an accident (or if she simply lied about protection) that sounds fair to me.

Wow. You're not a massive advocate of women's rights then? You'd quite happily put all responsibility, cost etc of raising a child on a woman at the whim of a man. Mental.

Adding situational caveats does not make this OK. I hope you rethink your view on this.

 

[ubersonic]

Wow. You're not a massive advocate of women's rights then?

No I'm an advocate of equality. Although that solution still favours the woman's rights over the mans obviously.

 

[ubersonic]

You'd quite happily put all responsibility, cost etc of raising a child on a woman at the whim of a man.

No, it would be her choice, she would just be responsible for it unlike now where responsibility can be forcibly shared with an unwilling party.

 

[Glaucus]

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.

exactly, although we should strive for equality, not everything can be equal. yet so many people ignore that in this thread and go its not fair.

 

[Aa83]

No I'm an advocate of equality. Although that solution still favours the woman's rights over the mans obviously.

But the man is not carrying the baby for 9.5 months, that's why there are additional protections and rights for women. There can't be equality in terms of rights and protections because the situations are not equal.

No, it would be her choice, she would just be responsible for it unlike now where responsibility can be forcibly shared with an unwilling party.

Whether or not the man is unwilling, he has a legal (and moral) responsibility. Just because a man does not want this responsibility is irrelevant. He chose to have sex with a woman. He should know the risks of this and ultimately what sex is designed to do.