Douchebag tricks his girlfriend into taking abortion pills

[Broomstick]

Going down the path of artificial wombs, what is a man wants to keep the child and is willing to carry it to term. Is it infringing on her rights, to the degree that we allow her to terminate the pregnancy, to tell her to either carry the fetus to term or allow it to be transferred to the man?

Who ever carries the child to term makes the decision as to whether or not the pregnancy goes forward. So far, throughout history, that has always been a woman. If that changes, then a man who takes the risks of pregnancy gets to make the go/no-go decisions about that pregnancy.

Not what I meant. Say a men gets a woman pregnant and she wants to abort, but the man has the ability to carry the child to term in his own implanted womb. Assume that the ability exists to safely transfer the fetus. What should be done in this case?

If she doesn't want the kid but he does I would be OK with such a transfer. However, there would be some legal and ethical details to work out here.

To some extent we already have this - people have "adopted" embryos that are unwanted by the bio-parents, implanted them in a womb, and carried them to term.

It would change some things.

[Broomstick]

Does anyone know how the law works if the women wants to have the child, but doesn't want to keep it? Does the father get first dibs in custody of the child? If he does, can he force child support payments from her?

Yes and yes, at least in the jurisdictions I have lived in.

[Jub]

Whatever the woman wants, dumbass. She still has to undergo the procedure to transfer the fetus.

Even assuming that the abortion is equally invasive?

Also, how is that not similar to what people are saying in here? This is now the willful termination of a life that otherwise has a good chance to survive with no further physical involvement required of the original party after the transfer has taken place.

If she doesn't want the kid but he does I would be OK with such a transfer. However, there would be some legal and ethical details to work out here.

To some extent we already have this - people have "adopted" embryos that are unwanted by the bio-parents, implanted them in a womb, and carried them to term.

It would change some things.

That's pretty much what I expected to hear.

Obviously the ethics of body integrity are touchy, but this would certainly be worth exploring if/when it becomes possible on a reasonably large scale.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Seeing as you seem to have looked into this, could you post some sources confirming it. If it's true it obviously changes things by a huge amount.

There was a study that, while I admit I've never read directly, is cited in a few areas, including this one. That one includes other studies I hadn't seen and spreads out the range by including some that involve joint custody, but in every case men have the advantage.

Doing some brief reading it seems that most of this bias is due to the man being better informed and more able to afford council. I would also suspect that financial well being of the child is a major consideration in custody cases and as the higher earner that will tend to favor the male party.

Does this actually mean that there is a conscious bias towards men? I'm not sure, we don't see how cases where the woman is the higher earner with better access to legal resources go. I would suspect that she might be just as well off and if so that is a flaw of the courts, not the law.

Regardless of whether or not that's the case, it doesn't much help the argument that men are cheated in this way if they only get favoured not because of a specific bias, but because of a general bias that puts them in a better position in everything in life

[Jub]

Regardless of whether or not that's the case, it doesn't much help the argument that men are cheated in this way if they only get favoured not because of a specific bias, but because of a general bias that puts them in a better position in everything in life

True enough. Though, as unfair as it seems, I would favor the higher earner assuming similar living conditions and time spent with the children. It sucks, but a higher parental income bracket tends to create better outcomes for the children involved.

[Patroklos]

Child, I want you to learn one thing from this thread: biology is not fair.

Where else can this be applied?Something tells me where this line might negatively impact a women you won't be so quick to drop it into the conversation.

[Broomstick]

Regardless of whether or not that's the case, it doesn't much help the argument that men are cheated in this way if they only get favoured not because of a specific bias, but because of a general bias that puts them in a better position in everything in life

True enough. Though, as unfair as it seems, I would favor the higher earner assuming similar living conditions and time spent with the children. It sucks, but a higher parental income bracket tends to create better outcomes for the children involved.

There can also be social bias that applies to career women. For example, I know of a situation where the two people of a couple were both doctors. The man argued his wife was an unsuitable primary caregiver because she wouldn't be able to stay home with their kids because her job required her to be absent so many hours of the day. She argued his would have the same requirement. He countered that he would hire a nanny. She pointed out she could do the same. He said that a real mother wouldn't turn her parenting duties over to someone else.

Both people had equal incomes/careers. He got primary custody, and she had to pay him child support. I have to wonder if societal notions might have swayed the arguments here, in that it was seen as OK for a father to hire a nanny, but a for a woman to do so would mark her as a lesser parent. Anecdotal, of course, but an example of how there can be bias against women in custody disputes.

[Jub]

There can also be social bias that applies to career women. For example, I know of a situation where the two people of a couple were both doctors. The man argued his wife was an unsuitable primary caregiver because she wouldn't be able to stay home with their kids because her job required her to be absent so many hours of the day. She argued his would have the same requirement. He countered that he would hire a nanny. She pointed out she could do the same. He said that a real mother wouldn't turn her parenting duties over to someone else.

Both people had equal incomes/careers. He got primary custody, and she had to pay him child support. I have to wonder if societal notions might have swayed the arguments here, in that it was seen as OK for a father to hire a nanny, but a for a woman to do so would mark her as a lesser parent. Anecdotal, of course, but an example of how there can be bias against women in custody disputes.

Somebody picked up the idiot ball in that one. With all things equal you really need to start digging to figure out who the better primary care giver would be.

[Broomstick]

I could have gone on for several thousand words regarding those two, but even I would find that boring and I actually knew the people. It does illustrate the point that women aren't necessarily at an advantage.

[Jub]

I could have gone on for several thousand words regarding those two, but even I would find that boring and I actually knew the people. It does illustrate the point that women aren't necessarily at an advantage.

I don't support that sort of thing. Unless you're talking things like physical strength or sense of smell, where there are demonstrated differences between the sexes, people should be treated as equals.

[Serafina]

I could have gone on for several thousand words regarding those two, but even I would find that boring and I actually knew the people. It does illustrate the point that women aren't necessarily at an advantage.

I don't support that sort of thing. Unless you're talking things like physical strength or sense of smell, where there are demonstrated differences between the sexes, people should be treated as equals.

So, does that mean that you concede your entire argument - since, after all, "ability to get pregnant" is ALSO a demonstrated biological difference between the sexes?

[Jub]

So, does that mean that you concede your entire argument - since, after all, "ability to get pregnant" is ALSO a demonstrated biological difference between the sexes?

No, I still think that men should have an out clause under a fairly narrow set of circumstances. I will concede that things are more in favor of the man than I thought, but I still feel that this should be an option.

[Metahive]

What "fairly narrow set of circumstances" should that be? Please explain.

[Jub]

What narrow set circumstances should that be? Please explain.

Cases where the man used protection or was under the impression that the woman was using protection, where the man tried to convince the woman that he was unable to support the child and asked if she was open to an abortion, and where the man demonstrates undue financial harm due to the decision of the woman to keep the child. A woman who would be unable to afford college and raise a child has the option to abort the pregnancy thus saving her the financial burden, a man in a similar situation has no such option and could be locked out of a higher education and thus higher earning potential. Overall in such a case it benefits the state to cover the man's child support payment in the near term with the expectation of getting higher tax revenue at a later date. It benefits the mother in that she doesn't need to worry about the man's ability to pay his portion. The benefit to the man is fairly obvious. The man would still have to take up his obligation to pay after his schooling is finished unless the mother declines such payments. Paying back the state funded portion may or may not be required depending on the desire of the state in this case.

Does this make sense to you?

[Metahive]

Sorry, but no. A student who's an addicted gambler could make the very same argument with the same justification. The bottom line is that men shouldn't stick their little brains into other people without thinking good and hard about the possible consequences. I really do see no point to make exemptions in this regard other than trying to preserve male privilege.

[Jub]

Sorry, but no. A student who's an addicted gambler could make the very same argument with the same justification. The bottom line is that men shouldn't stick their little brains into other people without thinking good and hard about the possible consequences. I really do see no point to make exemptions in this regard other than trying to preserve male privilege.

Yet the woman has a way to absolve herself by - at the easiest - taking a simple pill. She has a reset button and can abort for any number of reasons. The man is locked in even though he and the woman were equally responsible for the creation of the zygote.

You're also basically saying the state shouldn't choose the option that gives it increased odds of both the child support being paid for and them getting higher tax revenue for the sole reason that you don't like it. May you never ever be in a position of power if that is the level of logic you choose to use.

EDIT: Your gambler bit is also false both for he reason that he knew going in that he was likely to lose money. The odds are not nearly so steep when it comes to sex. You also seem to miss the fact that I even left in an option for the government to demand repayment of the money they laid out at a later date.

[Broomstick]

Yet the woman has a way to absolve herself by - at the easiest - taking a simple pill.

I guess you are too ignorant to know, or too stupid to understand, that hormonal birth control is NOT "a simple pill". It alters her biochemistry in complex ways. It increase her risk of blood clots, including those in the lungs (which can kill you) or the brain (i.e. stroke), increasing the risk 3 to 6 times above baseline. The risk increases with the length of time the drug is used. It also increases potassium levels that, if combined with other risk factors, can cause arrythmias, even fatal ones. Hormonal birth control can lower libidio, decreasing a woman's desire and/or enjoyment of sex, and it can exacerbate depression. It increases the risk of high blood pressure, and will further increase already elevated blood pressure, which can lead to kidney damage or stroke. It increases the risk of gallstones, which can be excruciatingly painful. It interferes with the acquisition of lean muscle mass, making exercise less effective in increasing or maintaining strength.

In other words, it's a drug, and a powerful one at that. It has a non-zero risk. You keep saying it's a "simple" option yet for many women it's a real health risk that they should not take as it increases their risk of debility and death.

So... what was that again about women having it easy, about "just" needing to pop a pill and no worries....? Maybe you are unaware that there are a fuckton of women who should not take this drug. I sincerely hope it's a matter of ignorance rather than you being the sort of asshole who thinks his convenience takes precedence over the health and well being of other people.

Oh, and let's not forget that there are a LOT of other drugs that can render hormonal birth control ineffective, resulting in a lot of accidental pregnancies over the years no matter how careful and conscientious the woman has been in taking the drug. At which point we're talking back-up birth control... like, hey, condoms.

You're also basically saying the state shouldn't choose the option that gives it increased odds of both the child support being paid for and them getting higher tax revenue for the sole reason that you don't like it.

No, the state generally prefers payments of a certain amount right now rather than hypothetical future greater returns which may never materialize. It's not like we can put the baby on ice for a couple years, the kid needs diapers and food RIGHT NOW, not when baby daddy finishes school... which he may or may not ever manage to do.

[Metahive]

Yet the woman has a way to absolve herself by - at the easiest - taking a simple pill. She has a reset button and can abort for any number of reasons. The man is locked in even though he and the woman were equally responsible for the creation of the zygote.

No, they do not share equally in this since it's only the woman that would have to bear the brunt of maladies that come with carrying a pregnancy to term (including possible death and disfigurement). Holding the guy who enabled this responsible is only sensible. I also resent that you think of abortions as of something that's being done casually and easily.

It's not.

Bottom line: do not sleep around recklessly! Sorry, but a man ought to think with his big brain.

You're also basically saying the state shouldn't choose the option that gives it increased odds of both the child support being paid for and them getting higher tax revenue for the sole reason that you don't like it. May you never ever be in a position of power if that is the level of logic you choose to use.

Nope, that's your own MRA fantasy verions of my argument. I said it's unfeasible because the same reasoning could be made for pretty much every situation in which some aspiring student ends up in debt for some reason and specifically mentioned gambling debts. How about you try and argue with that instead?

[chitoryu12]

If you stick your dick in a vagina, you risk having a baby. Period. If the woman doesn't want to abort, tough shit. Don't trick her into an abortion, especially since the act is often psychologically difficult enough for a woman who wants the baby gone, to say nothing of someone who wants to carry it to term and is now suddenly being forcefully aborted by her boyfriend out of anger.

Man and woman share equal responsibility for creating a baby when they have consensual sex. That doesn't mean that the man can override the woman's decision. Never mind the illogical position of claiming that men should have a way out that's as "easy" as what women have, despite the woman needing to go through all of the physical difficulties of growing a fetus in her body and forcing an infant out of her vagina after 9 months of strange and often unnerving changes to herself. No, women have it easy! They can just pop a pill and fix everything with no love lost, while the men have to suffer through spending more money! It's an outrage, and I demand compensation because RAWR MAN!

[Jub]

Yet the woman has a way to absolve herself by - at the easiest - taking a simple pill.

I guess you are too ignorant to know, or too stupid to understand, that hormonal birth control is NOT "a simple pill". It alters her biochemistry in complex ways. It increase her risk of blood clots, including those in the lungs (which can kill you) or the brain (i.e. stroke), increasing the risk 3 to 6 times above baseline. The risk increases with the length of time the drug is used. It also increases potassium levels that, if combined with other risk factors, can cause arrythmias, even fatal ones. Hormonal birth control can lower libidio, decreasing a woman's desire and/or enjoyment of sex, and it can exacerbate depression. It increases the risk of high blood pressure, and will further increase already elevated blood pressure, which can lead to kidney damage or stroke. It increases the risk of gallstones, which can be excruciatingly painful. It interferes with the acquisition of lean muscle mass, making exercise less effective in increasing or maintaining strength.

In other words, it's a drug, and a powerful one at that. It has a non-zero risk. You keep saying it's a "simple" option yet for many women it's a real health risk that they should not take as it increases their risk of debility and death.

So... what was that again about women having it easy, about "just" needing to pop a pill and no worries....? Maybe you are unaware that there are a fuckton of women who should not take this drug. I sincerely hope it's a matter of ignorance rather than you being the sort of asshole who thinks his convenience takes precedence over the health and well being of other people.

Oh, and let's not forget that there are a LOT of other drugs that can render hormonal birth control ineffective, resulting in a lot of accidental pregnancies over the years no matter how careful and conscientious the woman has been in taking the drug. At which point we're talking back-up birth control... like, hey, condoms.

I'm referring to a morning after pill which should be obvious given the context of abortions.

No, the state generally prefers payments of a certain amount right now rather than hypothetical future greater returns which may never materialize. It's not like we can put the baby on ice for a couple years, the kid needs diapers and food RIGHT NOW, not when baby daddy finishes school... which he may or may not ever manage to do.

Other states already take on the cost of post secondary now in exchange for money later and they do it without the hassle of student loans. These nations are doing it correctly by eating the up front cost of schooling knowing that it increases the productivity of their work force. Are you going to try arguing that such a system doesn't work?

In other words,. stop thinking I'm speaking for a US point of view. I'm not an American and back asswards laws and ideas that take place there don't concern me. I'm much more interested in Australian and Canadian policies; the school policy is taken from my understanding of the Ausie school now, increased taxes for a period later, method of post secondary education.

[Metahive]

Other states already take on the cost of post secondary now in exchange for money later and they do it without the hassle of student loans. These nations are doing it correctly by eating the up front cost of schooling knowing that it increases the productivity of their work force. Are you going to try arguing that such a system doesn't work?

And why exactly should these payments include debts racked up by something that hasn't anything to do with education?

[Jub]

Other states already take on the cost of post secondary now in exchange for money later and they do it without the hassle of student loans. These nations are doing it correctly by eating the up front cost of schooling knowing that it increases the productivity of their work force. Are you going to try arguing that such a system doesn't work?

And why exactly should these payments include debts racked up by something that hasn't anything to do with education?

It makes up the money later on when they ask the man to pay them back, gives him a chance to better his odds of earning more money, and carries little risk to the state. In average cases the state at least breaks even. What is the downside of having this as a limited use system that allows people a chance to better themselves.

The way I'm seeing things is that your view of things is that people who have kids before they're ready should be punished and the state should make no attempt to allow them to better their situation. Given that people that tend to have kids young are poor and under educated to begin with this attitude just compounds the issues they already face.

[Serafina]

Your entire argument still boils down to "Nu-uh, i don't want to pay child support!"
Your proposed requirements are laughable - combine how hard they'd be to prove and general male-favoring bias, it'll allow lots of men to weasel out of child support by simply claiming such circumstances. Oh, and yes it'll actually be weaseling out of child support - because there is no way you can pass a law that forces an abortion instead (its her body, and a fetus is not your possession).

Nevermind that child support is, you know, actually there to support the child. For whose existence you're partially responsible. But hey, fuck over women and children because taking responsibility is hard, right?

[Jub]

Your entire argument still boils down to "Nu-uh, i don't want to pay child support!"
Your proposed requirements are laughable - combine how hard they'd be to prove and general male-favoring bias, it'll allow lots of men to weasel out of child support by simply claiming such circumstances. Oh, and yes it'll actually be weaseling out of child support - because there is no way you can pass a law that forces an abortion instead (its her body, and a fetus is not your possession).

Nevermind that child support is, you know, actually there to support the child. For whose existence you're partially responsible. But hey, fuck over women and children because taking responsibility is hard, right?

So if you're 16, knock up a girl, and for whatever reason she wants to keep it, your life should now be forced to suck. You'd best forget about an education and hope that the local job market is reasonable. Oh man, this is so creating a great chance for the success of everybody involved. It could also work in reverse if the man takes custody and the woman desires a shot at education. Starting to see why other options might be worth exploring?

Of course if you come for a nation with extremely limited social safety nets the idea of investing in people might seem odd. To that I say more taxes and greater social safety nets. In nations as rich as the modern first world, post secondary should be there for all an poverty should be a very rare event. But hey, some people are opposed to smart ideas like random vehicle stops so who knows...

[TheHammer]

Your entire argument still boils down to "Nu-uh, i don't want to pay child support!"
Your proposed requirements are laughable - combine how hard they'd be to prove and general male-favoring bias, it'll allow lots of men to weasel out of child support by simply claiming such circumstances. Oh, and yes it'll actually be weaseling out of child support - because there is no way you can pass a law that forces an abortion instead (its her body, and a fetus is not your possession).

Nevermind that child support is, you know, actually there to support the child. For whose existence you're partially responsible. But hey, fuck over women and children because taking responsibility is hard, right?

His argument boils down to this: In a consentual situation resulting in pregnancy, both the man and the woman made decisions that lead to this result. However, in the end, women have the choice (in most cases) on whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. Men have no choice after conception and that this situation is inherently unfair. And quite frankly that argument has merit.

Most of the retorts I've seen on this discussion are fucking laughable:

"Life isn't fair"
"Don't stick your dick in someone if you don't want them to be pregnant"
"Use a condom!"
"Just accept your responsibilities!"

These are all variations of same pro-lifer BS that you hear spouted all the time as a reason for banning abortion completely. Sure the woman's body bears the burden of the nine months of pregnancy, and yes there are some health risks involved, but if health were the primary driver we would only ever see abortions in situations where a woman's health is threatened. And yet abortion because the mother's health is threatened tend to be the exception rather than the rule.

"I'm not ready/mature enough to raise a child."
"I can't afford to have a child right now."
"I won't be able to go to college and it will radically alter my life."
"I'm no longer in a relationship with the child's other parent."

All considered legitimate reasons by a which a woman would choose to have an abortion, and that most pro-choice people wouldn't even bat an eye. They make their decision not because of nine months of pregnancy, but because how it will impact the rest of their life. Yet many of you act as if a man who would have those same feelings is a complete asshole for having them. He should just step up, support the child, and shut his mouth for the next 18+ years.

I'm not defending the subject of this thread, obviously tricking someone into an abortion is a crime. And I'm not saying any of Jub's proposals are good solutions to the situation. There may not be a good solution, but at least recognize the utter hypocrisy of the counter-arguments many of you have been making.