Agreed. However, the alternatives are fundamentally more unjust.
The man loses control of the situation at the moment of ejaculation.
The woman loses control somewhere around the 3rd trimester, when “at will” abortions aren’t exactly easy to come by.
Once you lose control, man or woman, you have a financial responsibility, or must give the child up for adoption. While a woman can, theoretically, give up a child without the man’s consent, it pre-supposes that he doesn’t know about the child’s existence, and won’t notice that the child is gone. Believe me, if my wife took my son to a firehouse under a safe haven law, I’d be going to the cops about him being gone, I’d have him back by the end of the day, and she’d be paying my ass child support.
What does bug me about the pro-woman side of the argument is the whole “keep it in your pants” concept. That bullshit argument was used for decades against women “keep your legs together, honey” and was rightfully tossed in the dustbin. Don’t tell me it’s “fair” that a man’s decision to have sex is permanent and irrevocable, and the woman get’s a second chance to change the outcome. There may not be a better solution, but it’s not something to be labeled fair.
This is laughable (particularly the bolded portion). All things being equal between the father and mother, the opportunity to obtain custody is anything but. There is a prevailing presumption that a “child of tender years” belongs with the mother absent some circumstance in the mother’s life that would prevent her form being an even remotely responsible parent (e.g. severe drug problem, prosititution). The child-support laws I am familiar with are often unjustly oppresive. I think it would be interesting if there were some venue for a man to force a woman to absolve him of financial obligations (assuming he reciprocate by relenquishing any parental rights) in the event he could prove some sort of fraud in the inducement to have sex (e.g., she says she’s on the pill when she’s not; she says she would have abortion and then won’t).
You think a man should be allowed to get a doctor to hold down a woman and force her to have an abortion?
Abortion laws don’t apply only to women, they apply to anyone who has a baby growing in their tummy. Any man who has a baby growing in his tummy has exactly the same rights as a woman who has a baby growing in her tummy.
If you think it’s unfair that a man can’t order a woman to have or not have an abortion, well, women can’t order men to have or not have an abortion either. Gender has nothing to do with it.
Anyone who is sure they don’t want kids can be surgically sterilized. A vasectomy is less invasive than an abortion. Take responsibility for your sperm. If you don’t want your sperm to swim up the old fallopian tube there are literally dozens of ways to prevent that from happening, and only one of those methods is abstinence.
I’ve thought about this side (during the last debate here). The responsibility for child support is a responsibility to the child. As such, it doesn’t matter if the father is tricked, as the child did nto do the tricking. However, I would imagine it would be at least legally conceivable to sue the mother of the child. The damages in the law suit would be the ongoing cost of child support. So you would still be on the hook for child support, but theoretically you could receive that money from the mother, before paying it back to her.
Bullshit. Abortion is itself getting around the laws of nature. By the laws of nature, her “choice” ends at sex, too. We’ve decided that the laws of civilization trump the laws of nature in her case, but not his.
No. Where on earth did you get that from? Abortion for Men, as described in the OP, is a legal construct - a severance of paternal rights and responsibilities done before the fetus is born. Currently, the only way to do that is to get some other person to assume those rights, as in an adoption.
I buy the “nature” argument only so far as I think that a man who doesn’t want to be a parent should only be able to severe *his *rights and responsibilities, not to force the woman into abortion or adoption. Nor, if she decides she doesn’t want to be a parent, should he be able to force her to carry the pregnancy to term. There’s the unavoidable law of nature - she gets to say no, even if he says yes. Currently, if she says yes, he doesn’t get a vote. I think if she says yes, he should still get to say no - for himself. My whole point is that the choice of whether or not to become a parent shouldn’t be forced on anyone, and that we no longer need to tie sex to parenthood for *either *gender.
The woman should make it clear, prior to sex, whether or not she would get an abortion in the event of an unplanned preganancy. If she says she will but won’t, she should absolve the father of financial obligations.
No, I see them as largely unneccesary and a holdover construct from the Days of Yore when it took two people to run a home. Now that women can work, daycare is abundant, and our take home salaries far outstrip our grandparents’, even adjusted for inflation, I don’t think there’s a reason why every child needs two adults to support it. Sure, we might have to scale back our standards of living, but I think nearly everyone should be doing that, not just single parents.
To be clear. I think the choice should default to the woman absent a man being able to prove the fraud I spoke of earlier. He doesn’t bother to ask? His problem. She lies? His decision whether to participate in the course she decides upon.
The financial responsibility is to the CHILD not the mother. The child did not say anything about getting an abortion, or being on the pill. The mother did. Now, if you think you have a case against the mother, go ahead and sue her. But it does not absolve you of your responsibility to the child.
We don’t. No one can force you to be a parent, whatever gender you are. Society can, however, force you to participate in the financial cost of a new member of society that you were a part of creating.
Don’t want to be a parent, no one will make you. But what you cannot walk away from is your part in creating a person who will need financial support.
If it is the mother’s deception or failure to honor an agreement that results in the birth of the child , then I think it perfectly fair to shift all responsibility to her (she chose to lie about contraception and/or she chose not terminate an unplanned pregancy despite an earlier agreement to do so, she bears the cost of raising the child IF the father so choses) . Your solution sounds like one from someone wtih only the vauguest notions of the realities of our legal systems - the father unable to pay child support or afford an attorney to assist with a modification waits in his jail cell for a judgment that will only be discharged by mom’s bankruptcy.
I knew this would come up, and it is completely irrelevant. If child custody laws are unfair, we should change them. It’s a totally separate debate.
As for people lying, people trick each other in sex all the time. Should the woman also be able to sue if the guy says “Of course I’ll take care of you, baby?” Do we really want our courts to be taking on a mix of Loveline and Judge Judy?
Remember, the point is not punishing or rewarding anyone. The point is making sure a child is supported. The point is not what two people did. The point is that a new person now exists, someone has to pay for them, and it makes the most sense to pin that responsiblity on the people who made that person.
This is a stupid idea in general, but how could it possibly be enforced or proven in a court of law? Do we really need to clutter up already heavily overworked family courts with an endless parade of scumbags trying to weasel out of paying child support with made-up stories about promised abortions?
What about if the guy says he wants a baby and promises to take care of it, then, after the woman gets pregnant, decides to claim that she had promised him she’d get an abortion? Who wins in court? How do you decide who’s telling the truth.
Not that I would support your idea anyway. If a guy is using a promise of abortion as his sole means of birth control, he’s a moron, not a victim. Not only should the state take his money and give it to his child, the state should punch him in the face while it takes it.
You are completely ignoring the rights of the child here. It isn’t the child’s fault that the mother lies. The child has a right to support from both parents. The father has the right to recover that expenditure were it the result of fraud.
Actually, I have a pretty good grasp of the realities of our legal systems. Ask my boss. And it sucks if the mother does not have the money. But if she doesn’t, all you are doing is transfering the cost onto the child, the completely 100% innocent party in the entire equation. By having the father responsible to the child to pay support (as is the law under our system) and the mother responsible to the father for the consequences of fraudulent action (as is the law under our system) you ensure that the party that had NO say in the conception and birth, the child, is most adequately protected.
I’d say it happens often enough not to be ignored. But that’s not the point. I merely offered it in response what I perceived to be a righteous cluck, sclolding us for forgetting the real reason for child support.
Perhaps you already have, but if not, review your state’s child support and custody laws, maybe talk to a practitioner about the realities of getting a modification in the event of job loss and the penalties for failing to pay even when it is impossible to do so. These issues are thorny enough when there a two loving parents who hate each other. Is it so wrong to seek a remedy for the duped man who finds himself a reluctant father?
Abortion for Men, as described in the OP, is a legal construct - a severance of paternal rights and responsibilities done before the fetus is born. Currently, the only way to do that is to get some other person to assume those rights, as in an adoption.