And that's my point, if the woman decides to keep an unwanted pregnancy even after the man offers to pay for all the costs of it's termination, then the man should be absolved of that legal responsibility as she has chosen to assume 100% of the responsibility for the decision so she should also assume 100% of the financial responsibility.
financial/male 'abortion' rights?
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,372
it's called birth control. condoms, pill, etc.
if you done this then you would have women in schemes getting pregnant to sugar daddies then they claim tax credits whilst he gets to keep all his cash to himself.
Associate
If the woman is keeping the baby, it is not unwanted. The woman hasn't chosen anything - the man has chosen to leg it, the woman is left with a baby and no financial support from the man.
I'm 34 years old, I really shouldn't be surprised that an Internet forum contains some people with some crazy views. Lesson learnt! Think I'll stick to the non-controversial threads from now on.
An unwanted pregnancy means that the couple didn't want to conceive a child, not that neither of them will want to keep it.
If the offer is made to pay all the costs of terminating an unwanted pregnancy and it is declined, then the woman has chosen to continue with the pregnancy and the responsibility for that child coming into the world is solely on her, in fairness she should also bear sole responsibility for the costs of raising it.
Yes, as per her decision. I'm pro-choice but I am not in favour of making other people responsible for the consequence of that choice.
I think the difference in opinion is you're approaching the situation from an emotional viewpoint of what you think is fair for the woman, I'm approaching it from a logical one of what is most right for both.
Anything that upsets those sanctimonious finger-wagging busybodies is a win in my book. Link away.
That place is like redpill/pua for over-the-hill homemakers and 'full-time-mommies'
Soldato
No one would dare and try to make this law, even if they wanted to, the backlash would be immense!
I agree it is somewhat unfair for a woman to hold all the cards over a man financially but I'm not sure him being able to say "I don't want this, therefore I don't have to contribute" is the answer.
But then we as humans are supposed to be evolved enough to keep a level head over our primal urges and 'not do the crime if we aren't prepared to do the time'
I agree it is somewhat unfair for a woman to hold all the cards over a man financially but I'm not sure him being able to say "I don't want this, therefore I don't have to contribute" is the answer.
But then we as humans are supposed to be evolved enough to keep a level head over our primal urges and 'not do the crime if we aren't prepared to do the time'
you seem to have missed the rest of the thread and just jumped on with (yet another) another anti abortion argument - are you pro life in general? If not then why use the argument here?
Also what a bizarre idea - women don't get any additional tax credits for having a baby with a 'sugar daddy'.
No one is ignoring the physical risk and pain AFAIK, there isn't much you can change about biological facts to someone making a statement of "men taking an equal share of the physical risk and pain involved in being pregnant and giving birth" is pretty meaningless. This concerns not giving birth and [/b]not[/b] being pregnant any more after all i.e. abortion. A woman has the physical risk of the pregnancy, she's therefore got 100% control over whether she carries on with it - in the situation where the man decides he wants to be a parent and the woman doesn't there is therefore no one arguing for 'equality' as the situation isn't equal, it is the woman's body. The 'equality' being argued for is the decision to not be a parent - purely the financial/legal one... not the physical one which is 100% under the control of the woman and rightly so.
Caporegime
But in the current situation, if a pregnancy occured that neither party planned for, the women has full choice to terminate it (regardless of the father's wants) or keep it (regardless of the the father's wants).
To be clear, he is not talking about a couple trying for a baby, then once she is pregnant, the father suddenly choosing to wash his hands of the situation.
Indeed - the use of this IMO is when neither party, ostensibly, wants to have a kid - i.e. they're using birth control to prevent one (or at least the father has been lead to believe they are in supposed scenarios others have mentioned re: people getting trapped) then one occurs and the woman rather than going for an early stage solution exercises her free choice to keep the pregnancy and become a parent - this unilateral decision to become a parent (from a legal/financial perspective) when both parties seemingly didn't previously intend to be one shouldn't compel the man from a legal/financial perspective but rather his choice ought to be made clearly too and the woman's choice ought to be made with the full understanding of his position/intent. Whether this means a pre-existing choice from the man (which maybe has an option to change and assume parental responsibility within a short time period of being notified of a pregnancy) or a decision to 'abort' shortly after being informed of the pregnancy and again well before any legal abortion limit for the woman.
Fact is we allow for actual abortions for more than medical reasons/rape - we assign some value simply to a woman's choice to not want to be a parent at this point in their life due to career, income, whatever etc..etc.. they therefore have complete discretion. The legal/financial aspect of that complete discretion/choice for the woman shouldn't need to compel a third party provided the intent to not be a parent was clear and still is made clear well in advance of any deadlines by which the woman would need to exercise her choice.
What's your definition of "before sex"? If you mean while you're in bed, just about to get it on, then I'd broadly agree with you. That's relatively unworkable.
If on the other hand you mean at a time prior to sex, be it a week or year where a contract is signed after agreement between both parties then no, it's not unreasonable at all, or at least any more unreasonable than other contracts signed prior to marriage (for example).
I also mentioned earlier that it would have to gain societal traction - I.e it would take a while to become more common an occurance (such as with prenups) but could quite easily become a relatively normal condition.
And for many Americans against universal health it's also a completely separate personal issue. You live in a country where universal healthcare is taken as given and sensible. If someone breaks their leg doing something stupid on a motorcycle we consider giving a small part of our taxes to help heal them as normal. In the US that's not the case.
The only reason fathers who don't have any contact with their child are compelled to pay towards their care is because of a law implemented in the UK. It's an artificial construct and could be changed with the stroke of a pen.
Your failure to grasp this is a prime example of taking the current situation in law as a fixed entity, rather than realizing law and morality are fluid and change both internationally and through time.
Any argument that involves trying to claim that everyone's else shouldn't pay for people's mistakes can equally be used in relation to things like the NHS.
Edit: To have a discussion about whether you (as a couple and as inddividuals) want a child, and what you would both want if pregnancy happened is a perfectly rational thing to do in a relationship. All I'm "advocating" is you put your verbal agreement into a more formal agreement, with the termination conditions clearly laid out. Those being the man absolving himself of financial responsibility if the woman decides to keep the foetus (having both agreed to termination) for starters, but they could also include clauses that benefit the woman as well.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 1,080
You appear to be equating signing a piece of paper, with undergoing a medical procedure that has the potential to cause short and long-term side-effects. It's not much of a reach to say you definitely are ignoring the physical risk and pain. You're also choosing to ignore any psychological after effects or any social stigma. If you tried talking to a few women about abortions, you might just find that it's not as easy as emptying your PCs recycle bin.
You're also completely ignoring the fact that it's perfectly acceptable to have beliefs that change when challenged. I am pro-carnivore, but if I had to raise/kill/butcher my own meat I would almost certainly become a vegetarian. I've known Jehovah's Witnesses who agreed their child could have a blood transfusion when surgery was required, because when it came down to it their son was more important than their religion. A woman can be 100% pro-choice, but find it different when she is pregnant. Nothing is wrong with any of those things.
You're not actually arguing for equality. You're arguing that men should have the right to claim zero responsibility in the creation of a child.
Sex may be a fun pastime, but its sole biological purpose is to create children - if you're old enough to have sex, you should know that. If a man is so definite that he doesn't want children that he is prepared to leave the contraception to someone else, I'm afraid I have little (zero) in the way of sympathy if he gets caught out. For example:
If only there was some method they could have used to control whether they were at risk of having children or not. Maybe some kind of latex sheath they could use to catch the sperm...
Even the most hysterical of "trapping" fantasies (she put holes in the condom/used the sperm out of it) could be easily prevented by bringing your own condom and washing it out after the deed was done.
You're claiming you want equality, but a man already has equality in choosing to risk children by his own contraception choices. If they are stupid or lacking, that is no-one's fault but the man.
Im sorry but this is such a stupid comment/outlook. Contraception choices are, for most couples, a joint decision, if the woman wants off the pill then fine, tell the partner. But just stopping because they want to have a kid without telling them is absolutely disgusting and the man should have no responsibility to pay for it.
Last edited:
Great post.
The problem with trivializing abortion to be the same as signing a bit of paper declaring you are a selfish git only interest in sex, is this kind of attitude plays directly into the pro-life bridage, and in extremely insulting to a women who has ever had the misfortune to have to chose between abortion or raising a child.
The man can abstain from sex if they really don't want the financial responsibility that a mature adult has.. As soon as you engage in sexual intercourse there is a chance of conception, even when all the necessary preventive measures are taken.
and you can use the same argument re: a woman and actual abortion... yet most people who are not pro-life would object quite strongly to it then
I'm not ignoring that, I even posted a paper earlier re: psychological effects of unwanted pregnancies vs abortions... still carry on with the straw man argument
I'm not ignoring that either...
I'm arguing that both parties, who have taken steps to prevent them from becoming parents should have an independent choice to make the (legal/financial) decision to become a parent - currently one party unilaterally decides for both, while it is right that the woman gets 100% control over the biological side I don't feel it is right that she can compel someone financially if they've not intended to become a parent at that point int time but rather her choice to keep the child ought to be made with their preference in mind.
you've basically ignored a lot of what has been posted, this premise here is contraception is being used and the couple are ostensibly trying to take steps to avoid becoming parents - you've now presented an argument that the man has taken a risk by his own contraceptive choice - that argument could also apply to a woman... we allow for more than abortion for rape/medical reasons. Presumably you're OK with a woman have complete discretion re: abortion yet you're seemingly using what could easily be a pro life argument against this concept for a man.
And any mature adult with reasoned thinking would accept that there is always a risk, but IF that 1% happens, then the couple would decide how to proceed.
Which is an entirely different argument of a woman intentionally stopping birth control deceptively to get pregnant without telling the other partner.
One is an accident, the other is malicious, to try and lump them together is stupidity.