Abortion Rights Question

[Mr. T]

I admit that the child should come first, but at the same time a man should have some voice. I mean sure he doesn't have to deal with nine months and pregnancy or give birth, but he shouldn't be slapped with 'Well she decided to have he child so your footing the bill now'. I honestly don't think there's a better way to do things though so I concede that the man should pay his share for the child.

I don't think there's much opposition here to the idea of the man "having some voice". I'd agree that the man has the right to try and convince, to beg, to plead for the woman to get an abortion, but ultimately the decision is up to her as opposed to both unfortunately.'

[Norade]

I admit that the child should come first, but at the same time a man should have some voice. I mean sure he doesn't have to deal with nine months and pregnancy or give birth, but he shouldn't be slapped with 'Well she decided to have he child so your footing the bill now'.

The reason you say this, if I might hazard a guess, is because intuitively you feel that it's simply not fair to the guy to have to pay for his girlfriend/wife/partner/one-night-stand's dishonesty. Well, there's a simple way of dealing with that intuitive objection: life really isn't fair. For example, it's also not fair that you were born in a first world country or upper-class family and don't have to worry about where your next meal will come from.

Bullshit. Life is fair without tempering of mercy or justice. It's just not nice.

Exactly what I was getting at, however I can't think of any many punishments that only hurt the mother and not the child in that case. As I can say from first hand experience foster care can be a total gong show and is certainly not a good alternative to parental care IMO. However I suppose that if the mother was jailed and forced to give the child up for adoption that could be 'fair' in this case, especially if she has to pay for the child still.

To be more on-topic: if the father were able to prove that the woman engaged in such dishonest behavior, there should be legal repercussions for the mother. They must not, however, apply to the child. As for exactly what penalties could be applied...damned if I know. Any ideas?

[Norade]

Damned lack of an edit button...

I agree that in his case assuming that man can prove that he was tricked some punishment that only effects the mother should be in order. The only option I can see is for the child to be adopted and her paying child support for it; that way the child lives in a family with extra income coming in and should have a superior life to if she raised it with her income and the father's child support payments.

[Darth Holbytlan]

To be more on-topic: if the father were able to prove that the woman engaged in such dishonest behavior, there should be legal repercussions for the mother. They must not, however, apply to the child. As for exactly what penalties could be applied...damned if I know. Any ideas?

Practically, I can see no good solutions. Anything that damages the mother much will hurt the child, too.

Legally, I suppose the father could sue the mother to recover his child support payments on the grounds that her bad acts resulted in him owing the money in the first place. He would still technically be on the hook, so the mother could seek bankruptcy protection if she can't afford to reimburse him and raise the child.

I have no idea how egregious her behavior would have to be for him to win such a case, though. Maybe if she drugged him and stole his sperm? The reverse situation (date rape) is far more likely, though.

[b00tleg]

Yay, so now men can be arbitrarily enslaved to a woman that was impregnated by the man?

Its interesting how everyone is so very willing to state that a woman has 100% decision making power over whether a fetus is allowed to develop into a living breathing person, or to abort it at will. And the man has absolutely no say in it just because the woman has to give birth to it?

Thats a pretty fucking sad state of affairs. What if a couple become pregenant and the man wants to keep the child, even offers to take custody of it and willing to support it for the first 18 years of life, and the woman still wants to abort it. The woman gets that right even though she willingly engaged in sexual activity knowing it could result in a pregnancy? Thats pretty fucking arbritrary when its not just the woman's life being put at risk to give birth, but also the life of the man's offspring that can be dismissed as easily as a woman saying "I don't want to take the risk."

Its amazing to think that the woman, and the woman alone gets to decide if a life is allowed to enter the world, where is the mother's responsibility for raising and supporting the kid? It shouldn't take effect after the kid is born, it should be well in place of both the parents minds if they are going to accept the responsibility of procreation or not.

[Darth Wong]

Yay, so now men can be arbitrarily enslaved to a woman that was impregnated by the man?

It's not about the woman, you idiot. It's about the child.

What if a couple become pregenant and the man wants to keep the child, even offers to take custody of it and willing to support it for the first 18 years of life, and the woman still wants to abort it. The woman gets that right even though she willingly engaged in sexual activity knowing it could result in a pregnancy? Thats pretty fucking arbritrary when its not just the woman's life being put at risk to give birth, but also the life of the man's offspring that can be dismissed as easily as a woman saying "I don't want to take the risk."

It's not "arbitrary", moron. It's biology. A woman has to carry the child for nine months in her womb, and she has the right to refuse to carry that burden. The man is not part of the equation at that point.

Its amazing to think that the woman, and the woman alone gets to decide if a life is allowed to enter the world, where is the mother's responsibility for raising and supporting the kid? It shouldn't take effect after the kid is born, it should be well in place of both the parents minds if they are going to accept the responsibility of procreation or not.

No, it's amazing to think that the woman, and the woman alone has to bear the child for nine months, yet idiots like yourself think that the assignment of rights should be precisely equal despite this massive asymmetry.

[K. A. Pital]

Enslaved? So helping your child to have a decent life is "slavery", moron? I thought slavery is when people are, or are treated like, inanimate property.

[Stark]

Enslaved? So helping your child to have a decent life is "slavery", moron? I thought slavery is when people are, or are treated like, inanimate property.

He, like many, probably wouldn't consider the child 'his' unless he wanted it. Many people seem to think that if you get a woman pregnant and she decides to keep it, this someone means she's taken full responsibility on herself, thus it's entirely 'hers'.

Because talking about your own child like that is just bizarre. The amount of immaturity in threads like this is bizarre - oh noes, my girlfriend is pregnant now she is the enemy because this might change my life! It's all her fault!

[Flagg]

Enslaved? So helping your child to have a decent life is "slavery", moron? I thought slavery is when people are, or are treated like, inanimate property.

He, like many, probably wouldn't consider the child 'his' unless he wanted it. Many people seem to think that if you get a woman pregnant and she decides to keep it, this someone means she's taken full responsibility on herself, thus it's entirely 'hers'.

Because talking about your own child like that is just bizarre. The amount of immaturity in threads like this is bizarre - oh noes, my girlfriend is pregnant now she is the enemy because this might change my life! It's all her fault!

I'd wager that the majority of the people who have made a "yes" vote in this thread are within 1 or 2 years of 17. I actually felt that way when I was about that age. Once again proving that the most important definition of being under the age of 18 is "fucking stupid".

[Stark]

I'd wager that the majority of the people who have made a "yes" vote in this thread are within 1 or 2 years of 17. I actually felt that way when I was about that age. Once again proving that the most important definition of being under the age of 18 is "fucking stupid".

When I was young and angry, I looked at anything that would change my life in the same way. This is why kids aren't treated as full adults - and expecting people to actually acknowledge these ideas compounds it. Oh, that's my child? Fuck him, I hate his mother lol!

[Plekhanov]

Yay, so now men can be arbitrarily enslaved to a woman that was impregnated by the man?

How exactly do you figure that being required to economically support a child who wouldn't exist if not for your voluntary actions is the same as being 'enslaved'?

Its interesting how everyone is so very willing to state that a woman has 100% decision making power over whether a fetus is allowed to develop into a living breathing person, or to abort it at will. And the man has absolutely no say in it just because the woman has to give birth to it?

Around 500,000 women die every year due to pregnancy & childbirth many more endure severe health problems, if you'd ever been pregnant or loved anyone who was pregnant you wouldn't be so contemptuously dismissive of just how big a deal being pregnant is.

Thats a pretty fucking sad state of affairs. What if a couple become pregenant and the man wants to keep the child, even offers to take custody of it and willing to support it for the first 18 years of life, and the woman still wants to abort it. The woman gets that right even though she willingly engaged in sexual activity knowing it could result in a pregnancy? Thats pretty fucking arbritrary when its not just the woman's life being put at risk to give birth, but also the life of the man's offspring that can be dismissed as easily as a woman saying "I don't want to take the risk."

So let me get this straight a few paragraphs up you whined about men being 'arbitrarily enslaved' simply by having money taken from their bank account to support their offspring and yet now you say that men should be able to veto abortions and seize control of the lives and bodies of pregnant woman:?

Just how far do you want men's control over pregnant women to go? Should we be able to force feed them healthy foods? Forcibly restrain them from eating junkfood, drinking & smoking, going on roller coasters, having unprotected sex, playing rugby...?

The only person proposing anything approaching slavery here is you, with your desire that pregnant women should be slaves both to tiny bundles of cells within them and the man who contributed dna to those cells. How can you possibly justify this?

Its amazing to think that the woman, and the woman alone gets to decide if a life is allowed to enter the world, where is the mother's responsibility for raising and supporting the kid? It shouldn't take effect after the kid is born, it should be well in place of both the parents minds if they are going to accept the responsibility of procreation or not.

Why, because you say so?

[Flagg]

I'd wager that the majority of the people who have made a "yes" vote in this thread are within 1 or 2 years of 17. I actually felt that way when I was about that age. Once again proving that the most important definition of being under the age of 18 is "fucking stupid".

When I was young and angry, I looked at anything that would change my life in the same way. This is why kids aren't treated as full adults - and expecting people to actually acknowledge these ideas compounds it. Oh, that's my child? Fuck him, I hate his mother lol!

Well, for me it was more along the lines of "Well she can opt out of it, why shouldn't he be able to?" And I also felt that a father should have some say in wether a woman should be able to abort the fetus if he was willing to raise the kid. It's just a really naive sense of "being fair".
But as I've gotten older and learned to look at things the way they are rather than how I think they should be, I've recognized that you have to take such realities as biology and the fact that a baby is a human being as opposed to a piece of property into account.

[Plekhanov]

Enslaved? So helping your child to have a decent life is "slavery", moron? I thought slavery is when people are, or are treated like, inanimate property.

Such as for example taking the control of pregnant women's lives and bodies away from them by giving fathers the right to veto abortions perhaps?

A policy which b00tleg in a jaw dropping display of hypocrisy went on the advocated just 2 paragraphs later.

[Howedar]

Well, for me it was more along the lines of "Well she can opt out of it, why shouldn't he be able to?" And I also felt that a father should have some say in wether a woman should be able to abort the fetus if he was willing to raise the kid. It's just a really naive sense of "being fair".
But as I've gotten older and learned to look at things the way they are rather than how I think they should be, I've recognized that you have to take such realities as biology and the fact that a baby is a human being as opposed to a piece of property into account.

Oh, there absolutely is a chance for the man to opt out, and it would be fucked up and every kind of wrong if the man didn't have such a chance!

The man's chance ends when he sticks his dick in the hole. The timescales for the opt-out are different for men and women, but the choice is most certainly there for both of them.

[Darth Wong]

It's almost pointless to argue with a person like this "b00tleg" idiot because he doesn't even present an argument at all, other than whining about "fairness" (as if he honestly doesn't know that the woman has to spend nine months making a baby while a man's contribution lasts about 5 minutes, and they both get a sizable proportion of that time to change their minds).

Nobody could honestly be so stupid as to honestly not understand why a woman gets a longer time than a man to change her mind, unless sex education is really lacking in his neck of the woods. It's just an argument of convenience, designed to cover up his self-centred fear of responsibility. Just look at the words he uses: "enslaved". As if a man (as opposed to a selfish boy) would think it's "enslavement" to do the right thing and help raise a child he helped bring into this world.

If I fathered a child by accident, I would not only accept being part of the child's life, I would demand it.

[b00tleg]

wow, idiot, retard, moron......personal attacks win you no points boys and girls.

So let me get this straight, the man is fucked if he dosen't want the child and the woman decides to keep it?
And the man is fucked if he wants to keep the child, even going so far as to take full custody, support the child on his own and give the woman immunity to any form of child support within the first 18 years of the child's life?

Good to know that men have nearly no say at all in the life they help to create.

[Stark]

wow, idiot, retard, moron......personal attacks win you no points boys and girls.

Nice waste of text there, nobody cares about your schoolyard pandering here.

So let me get this straight, the man is fucked if he dosen't want the child and the woman decides to keep it?

He made his deposit. He can't force a woman to have an abortion because it might inconvienience him. This is why adults think about this shit BEFOREHAND.

It's not 'the child'. It's YOUR child.

And the man is fucked if he wants to keep the child, even going so far as to take full custody, support the child on his own and give the woman immunity to any form of child support within the first 18 years of the child's life?

Does he also give immunity to the health risks and irreversible physical damage caused by pregnancy and childbirth? If he demands the woman have his child despite her wishes and she dies, does he accept full responsibility?

Read that last sentence again. Let's force women to have abortions or carry children to term!

Good to know that men have nearly no say at all in the life they help to create.

Sadly, men are only involved in the pregancy shindig very briefly at the start. Your statement should really be 'men have no right to dictate what is done with the body of a woman he happened to fuck'. Her rights trump yours, buddy, deal with it.

Or just keep your semen to yourself.

[Ghost Rider]

wow, idiot, retard, moron......personal attacks win you no points boys and girls.

Wow, and idiot who doesn't grasp that people calling him a moron because his points are stupid is not calling him a moron without reason.

So let me get this straight, the man is fucked if he dosen't want the child and the woman decides to keep it?

Yes, because he should be mature enough when fucking to accept responsibility. I know others tried to drill it into your virgin head, but it does bear repeating.

And the man is fucked if he wants to keep the child, even going so far as to take full custody, support the child on his own and give the woman immunity to any form of child support within the first 18 years of the child's life?

Did he carry the baby to term? If he didn't there's a period of time the baby and him had no fucking connection whatsoever.

Good to know that men have nearly no say at all in the life they help to create.

They do when they are about to fuck a woman. After depositing their semen, they accept the responsibilites of fucking.

Sorry, it's not all just for fun.

[Darth Wong]

wow, idiot, retard, moron......personal attacks win you no points boys and girls.

Nor do they necessarily lose you points, moron. Now answer the actual points made. I notice you totally ignored the substance of every rebuttal in favour of pointing out that they contained insults. What do you think this is, grade school? You can dismiss arguments by simply complaining that they used bad language?

[Morilore]

So let me get this straight, the man is fucked if he dosen't want the child and the woman decides to keep it?

Yes.

And the man is fucked if he wants to keep the child, even going so far as to take full custody, support the child on his own and give the woman immunity to any form of child support within the first 18 years of the child's life?

Yes.

Good to know that men have nearly no say at all in the life they help to create.

Next time, you should probably make an argument instead of simply sarcastically repeating the opposing position in an incredulous tone.

[b00tleg]

So let me get this straight, the man is fucked if he dosen't want the child and the woman decides to keep it?

Yes.

And the man is fucked if he wants to keep the child, even going so far as to take full custody, support the child on his own and give the woman immunity to any form of child support within the first 18 years of the child's life?

Yes.

Good to know that men have nearly no say at all in the life they help to create.

Next time, you should probably make an argument instead of simply sarcastically repeating the opposing position in an incredulous tone.

Then I concede to all points previously mentioned.

[Norade]

This is a way out there hypothetical, but assuming that a way to transfer an embryo relatively safely (like minor cosmetic or dental surgury in risk to both mother and fetus) to a surrogate host was found would it be okay to force a woman to undergo the procedure if the man wanted the child and had a willing womb lined up? Also, though I think I know the answer, should she be forced to pay child support in this case.

[AdmiralKanos]

This is a way out there hypothetical, but assuming that a way to transfer an embryo relatively safely (like minor cosmetic or dental surgury in risk to both mother and fetus) to a surrogate host was found would it be okay to force a woman to undergo the procedure if the man wanted the child and had a willing womb lined up? Also, though I think I know the answer, should she be forced to pay child support in this case.

Since when can you force anyone to undergo any elective surgical procedure against their will?

[Alyrium Denryle]

This is a way out there hypothetical, but assuming that a way to transfer an embryo relatively safely (like minor cosmetic or dental surgury in risk to both mother and fetus) to a surrogate host was found would it be okay to force a woman to undergo the procedure if the man wanted the child and had a willing womb lined up? Also, though I think I know the answer, should she be forced to pay child support in this case.

Forcing anyone to undergoe any procedure against their will is basically equivalent to enslaving that individual. It is morally repugnant.

[Plekhanov]

This is a way out there hypothetical, but assuming that a way to transfer an embryo relatively safely (like minor cosmetic or dental surgury in risk to both mother and fetus) to a surrogate host was found would it be okay to force a woman to undergo the procedure if the man wanted the child and had a willing womb lined up? Also, though I think I know the answer, should she be forced to pay child support in this case.

If the mother wanted to abort and the procedure for transferring the embryo could be performed instead with no greater inconvenience, unpleasantness or risk to the mother and the father makes a binding commitment to care for the child should the transferral work then I can see no reason why the feotus should be aborted instead of transferred or why the mother shouldn't be required to pay child support, just as absent mothers are already required to do.