Abortion for Men!

The BBQ Pit
101

You should have stopped at “And I don’t think. . .”

The words “rip apart the fabric of society” are yours, and yours alone. A few posters, including myself, have pointed out to you over and over and over. . . :::sigh::: that someone will have to support those children that the men turn their backs on if the mother is unable to do it herself. Do you understand who that someone will be? You and me and all the other tax payers. I would rather those dollars be spend on the education system instead of taking the responsibility of some guy who walked away from the results of careless sex.

Do you know the costs of raising a child?

Oh yeah, never mind.

My mistake.

Uhhh, nooooooooo. I have yet to see proof.

If your arguments weren’t so full of contradictions, they might (Keyword: Might) be credible, kinda, sorta, but not really.

Would you like me to explain the contradictions in your statement “I believe in a woman’s right to choose, absolutely. No one, be it the state or the father, should be able to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body” compared to your Norplant comments?

How about this statement “Isn’t that what our system of laws is all about? Creating more fairness, justice, balance? Protecting everyone’s rights as much as possible?” in comparison to your line of thinking that if a mother isn’t financially able to support her child alone she should give it up.

Why don’t we send the trucks into low income neighborhoods and gather up all the children whose parents don’t deserve them because they are not in a specific income bracket? Why don’t we post guards at the hospitals to rip the babies from the arms of low income parents?

What part of the previous posts did you miss that specifically stated that the majority of child support is based on income of both parents?

It sure appears that way.

In other words, my assumption was correct. All of your posts have been jokes.

>^,^<
KITTEN

He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius

102

Thor:

My kinda guy. I was getting all impressed with Jodih’s extremely well-done arguments (still am, nicely done, Jodih!) but I still found myself resisting. Then you pointed out why! Indeed! Why is it automatically assumed the state will take over?

I must confess, though, it’s very trying having the heart of a liberal and the brain of a Libertarian. Sigh…
Hey Diane:

Partay!!

Stoidela

103

Like I said, do you know the cost of raising a child in a one income household?

If the father doesn’t contribute, who else is going to pick up the slack? You?

God I just love a thought-provoking, intelligent debate.

>^,^<
KITTEN

He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius

104

Okay, I haven’t received what I consider a decent response to my last post, though at least one of the forces arrayed on the other side (Stodeila) has apparently read it. So I am going to ask a specific question, for Stodeila and for Thor, to which I’d appreciate a specific answer. (You may notice it’s the same question I’ve asked before.) Here we go:

Mother gets pregnant. Mother decides to keep child, but Mother is not financially able to support child on her own. Mother is, however, in every other way qualified to raise the child. Father is known, is financially solvent, and could contribute to the support of the child, but notified Mother before the child was born that he wanted to disavow any responsibility for it. What should happen then? Choose one option (or tell me which option I’ve missed):

A. Baby is forcibly removed from Mother and placed for adoption.

B. Baby is forcibly removed from Mother and raised by the government (which will probably place it for adoption as well).

C. Baby is raised by Mother, with the financial assistance of the government (and, by extension, the taxpayers) through various government programs.

D. Baby is raised by Mother with the resentful and reluctant financial assistance of Father.

I don’t what to make this a tenth-grade essay, but please explain which option you think is best, and why. Muchas gracias.

And Stodeila, thanks for the compliment. :slight_smile:

105

THOR – I see you DID read my post (I somehow missed yours) and responded with what I consider a truly wretched suggestion – take away the government support (welfare) and take away the father’s support. Well, that would certainly show the mother a thing or two, I guess, but what about the child? The mother can’t afford to feed her baby. You say – no help from the father or the government. Are you honestly saying that the child should be left to starve? Please, please tell me I have misunderstood you.

The overriding concern in this situation must be the best interests of the only truly innocent party (innocent in every sense of the word) – the baby. The baby MUST be supported. I started my hypothetical from this assumption because it never crossed my mind that simply allowing a child to be raised in abject poverty – to the extent, possibly, of starving to death – would seriously be considered an option by anyone. Are you seriously saying that is a better idea than requiring the father or the government to provide support? If you are, I can only thank my lucky stars that the decision isn’t yours, and I would respectfully suggest you might spend a little less time thinking about fairness and a little more thinking about simple humanity. If this seems insulting then I apologize, but I am truly appalled by your suggestion.

106

jodih - I don’t think Thor is suggesting a baby be raised in poverty. Rather, if I am reading corretly, he is suggesting that the child be taken from the mother who can not afford to raise it on her own and placed for adoption.

to me, this suggestion is a frightening one. And I don’t see how a person who claims they are for less government interference (Libertairians (sp?) ) can advocate the governemnt stepping in a taking children from mothers who can’t afford to raise them on their own.

107

Okay, thank you, yepitsme, but if you’re right and I’m wrong in the interpretation of his post, then we’re back to the question of why the father’s right to financial freedom should be elevated above the mother’s right to parent her own biological child (assuming that the only thing preventing her is financial constrains and she is otherwise a fit mother). I haven’t received a decent answer to that question, either. Instead, Thor keeps raising the “bad” mothers his wife sees in the course of her job, who seem to be unfit for reasons other than mere financial difficulties. As I said above, the fact that some mothers are not fit to parent is irrelevant to the question of whether a father’s financial responsibilities should be removed.

108

Jodih:

You’ve managed to frame it in such a way that I find myself a bit stumped. It is indeed a hard question, and the answer isn’t easy.

And I’m not ready to give one. I just wanted to acknowledge that you’ve given me pause.

Stoidela

109

I have been reading this thread with great interest, especially the part about giving the child up for adoption and not having welfare.
i realize that the taxpayers pay for welfare and it really isn’t fair. but you know, not all people who go on welfare go on for the money. When I was pregnant, we could afford a baby based on our combined incomes. When he left, I suddenly couldn’t afford it on my own. So should I have given Greg up for adoption? No way! Welfare is supposed to be there to help people get back on their feet, which is what I used it for (I was on it for under a year). There are so many people abusing the system that it has a bad name.
I’m grateful it was there for me. It helped me while I went back to school and made enough money to raise my child.
I, for one, will gladly help support that program. As a poster said (I can’t remember who), it’s not THAT much that you contribute. Don’t misunderstand…I understand that taxpayers shouldn’t pay for the irresponsiblities of others. i agree with that. But I’ll be damned if the government would have taken Greg from me based on circumstances beyond my control!

MaryAnn
Sometimes life is so great you just gotta muss up your hair and quack like a duck!

110

MaryAnn - I too will gladly support the welfare program when it is used by it’s recipients to better themselves to a point that they are self-supportive. Those who abuse the system is another topic altogether.

My objections were directed toward the increased number of women who would come onto the welfare rolls if men were not made responsible to support their own kids.

The idea that a father would have the choice to shirk his duties in supporting his child - THAT HE CREATED - but we, as tax payers, would have that right taken away, pisses me off.

>^,^<
KITTEN

He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius

111

Oh the difficulties of human communication! I obviously was not clear. A few points

  1. I am not using the anecdotal evidence of my wife’s experiences as the sole support for these arguments. Anecdotal evidence is crap.

  2. I am not, and would never suggest that the state take away anyones baby or otherwise interfere in a family except in cases where the childs rights are being abused. I meant that if there were no welfare and no money from the father, the mother ON HER OWN, would make the choice of whether to raise the child or give it up for adoption.

  3. I would never give the poor less rights than the wealthy. “we the people” means all of us. The mothers my wife sees are unfit for many more reasons than their poverty. But I admit that a 13 year old, crack addict, gang member, prostitute who has 3 STD’s and a 1st grade education with no family support DOES have a right to have a child and keep it. I will not argue against it.

  4. I did concede to Melin’s point that the Child should get the most consideration. We have generally been ignoring the child. I will admit that the child should get the support from the father. Our question was flawed. It is not about the rights of the parents, but the rights of the child by proxy through the mother.

Now, Jodih Wrote:we’re back to the question of why the father’s right to financial freedom should be elevated above the mother’s right to parent her own biological child (assuming that the only thing preventing her is financial constrains and she is otherwise a fit mother). I haven’t received a decent answer to that question, either

The father’s right to financial freedom has nothing to do with the mothers tright to to parent her child. You can give the father his freedom, and in his absence mother can still have and raise the child, albeit in abject poverty. The question is mis-phrased. I would phrase it:

  1. Should a reluctant father be financial bound by the mother’s decision to bear and raise his child, or does the mother have the right to bind him legally by having said child against his wishes?

The follow up question is:
2) does the child’s right to the assets of the parents supercede the rights of the father?

And remeber that there are two ways to answer: philosophically and in the real world. Real world answer: dad will pay or we will. That is just the way it is in a quasi socialist state.

Now, my philisophical answer to 1 is NO. It is mom’s choice, let her face the consequences of her choice.

to number two. Baby wins. Parents, you should be ashamed of yourselves, now live up to your responsibility to this new life.

And either way, no welfare.

112

Thor, I’m with you on your second point, but I still disagree with you on your first. I maintain that the choice doesn’t come AFTER the pregnancy is conceived, but before. If he doesn’t want to risk fathering a child that he legally, morally and ethically ought to support, then he has no business having sex.

-Melin

I’m a woman phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That’s me
(Maya Angelou)

113

Melin, On general moral grounds, I agree with you on this. My general rule is that people should not take an action if unwilling to suffer the consequences. I don’t care if you want to run blindfolded down teh highway, Juggle rattle snakes and tattoo “fuck you” on your forehead. But dont’ com[lain when you get maimed, poisoned or fired. So part of me really wants to agree with you on this.

But then I am a man. If I get drunk sleep with a stranges and she calls me three weeks later calling me dad, I feel different. SHe can take several steps to avoid being a mom if she wants to. But I can’t do anything. I am completely powerless. She decides my fate for the next 18 years. That is not exactly fair. But I have aired my views on that already.

114

Melin, On general moral grounds, I agree with you on this. My general rule is that people should not take an action if unwilling to suffer the consequences. I don’t care if you want to run blindfolded down teh highway, Juggle rattle snakes and tattoo “fuck you” on your forehead. But dont’ com[lain when you get maimed, poisoned or fired. So part of me really wants to agree with you on this.

But then I am a man. If I get drunk, sleep with a stranger and she calls me three weeks later calling me dad, I feel different. SHe can take several steps to avoid being a mom if she wants to. But I can’t do anything. I am completely powerless. She decides my fate for the next 18 years. That is not exactly fair. But I have aired my views on that already.

115

That’s a perfect reason not to get drunk and sleep with complete strangers, especially if you are not going to adequately protect yourself.

116

An idea just popped into my head. I know it probably has flaws and perhaps it contradicts something else I’ve said - haven’t really thought through all the pros and cons yet.

anyway, I was thinking that it would be different if we give guys a chance to bow out of fatherhood before pregnancy occurrs. This would mean that both the man and the woman would have to sign a contract that the man relinquishes all rights and responsibilities to fatherhood should a pregnancy occur.

This would not bother me at all (at least not yet - maybe someone can point out all the flaws in this idea). It gives the man a fair chance to say he does not want to be a father, and it gives the woman a fair chance to know that beforesleeping with him. This way both parties know going into the relationship where the other one stands. If the woman chooses to haves sex with the man, then she knows exactly what risk she is taking. If she gets pregnant, it is completely her responsibility.
What do you think?
yah, I know - it’d be so hard to do on those drunken one-night stands. bleh

117

I saw a great cartoon where a man and woman are about ready to jump is bed and the guy has a contract tattooed on his back stating that he is not liable for a whole list of things.

But I like your idea. Seems that there are one or two guys out there who are full of promises until the EPT shows up positive. This might give 'em pause. Or the woman could wear a warning label that says “sexual intercourse could lead to pregnancy and the garnishment of your wages at 25% of gross income for 18 years”

No need to worry about trying to stay celibate.

118

Thor, the other problem I have, and which has been nagging at the back of my head throughout my participation in this thread, is that I have to take issue with the assumptions that are here.

Everyone who keeps saying that the woman is the one with the “choice” about whether to abort or keep the baby is operating on the assumption that abortion is a valid choice for every person. That’s just not acceptable, and it violates the whole “choice” concept. There are those among us who really do believe, sincerely, that abortion is wrong. I don’t want to debate whether it is or is not right now; I would simply like an acknowledgement that there are people who feel that way. And not everyone who feels they could never have an abortion has a personal prohibition on sleeping with someone they are not married to.

Thus, for a woman who cannot, consistent with her own moral beliefs, have an abortion, there really is no choice about whether or not to have the baby. The “options” that you give her are, in her mind “kill my baby, give my baby (whom I love already) away to strangers, or let my baby starve, or livei n poverty, (by not requiring the man to contribute to the support of HIS child).”

Adopting out isn’t an easy decision either, you know. Most of the women I know who’ve done it, and those stories I’ve read about others, say it is the hardest decision that they’ve ever made in their life, and that they wish they hadn’t had to do it. And nowadays that doesn’t necessarily end it, anyway. Twenty years later there could well be someone knocking on your door saying “Mom?”

-Melin

I’m a woman phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That’s me
(Maya Angelou)

119

Thor;
I am absolutely appauled that you think “I was drunk” is a good enough excuse to relieve you of your obligations.

I’ve said this before on this post but maybe I wasn’t clear as no one seems to be getting it. Many people have said this situation is unfair because the woman can ‘force’ the man into fatherhood. It is not unfair because the man can do exactly the same thing. If the woman doesn’t want the baby and the man does, he can raise it and ‘force’ her into motherhood (e.g. paying support).

I would still, however, argue that unless she held a gun to his head and made him have sex with her, he chose his own path to fatherhood (as did she to motherhood). Everybody knows the risks before they engage in intercourse. If you are not ready to accept the possible consequenses, then don’t have sex. And please don’t whine at me as though I were asking you to give up breathing.

“I think it would be a great idea” Mohandas Ghandi’s answer when asked what he thought of Western civilization

120

How you figger?

I never said that a man should get off the hook because he was drunk. you mis-read.

Quote: “It is not unfair because the man can do exactly the same thing. If the woman doesn’t want the baby and the man does, he can raise it and ‘force’ her into motherhood (e.g. paying support).”

Now that is just silly. How can the father force the woman into motherhood? I am assuming that he would chain her in the attic for nine months? (assuming that she even tells him.)

But what about the situation when the man desperately wants the child and the woman decides to abort? Should the man then get reparations?

Any way you cut it, the woman controls the pregnancy.