Child Support and the "male abortion"

[QueenAl]

Blackknight:

The man’s body does not produce a child. The woman’s body does, and therefore it is her choice and her responsibility. A “child” is not conceived - a zygote or fetus or whatever the precise term for a fertilized egg is. This is, legally and ethically speaking, not a child. The woman then has a choice over whether it becomes a child. Since it is her choice, it is her responsibility to care for a child if she chooses to have it.

The man has taken the step (sex with ejaculation) that, if it fertilizes an egg, will create a child unless certain steps are taken to prevent that from happening. The foetus is not like Schroedinger’s cat, simultaneously dead and alive until an observer looks in and tips the scales. It is already in the early stages of life. The man whose sperm helped create the foetus has also helped create a child, it’s just a matter of time.

(From a later post:)

It is not his child. (Except in the biological sense. Not in the “entitlement / responsibility” sense.)

(Of course, they also have no parental rights unless the woman allows them to have them, or if there was some sort of contract beforehand.)

Actually, fathers do have rights. If a woman denies the father access, and he wants to see his child, then he can take her to court and sue for access. If the mother dies, then the father has the right to bring up the child. Fathers have plenty of rights (and I’m glad they do).

The biological part of fatherhood is, well, the whole basis of fatherhood, heterosexual reproduction and human society, and not to be lightly disregarded.

Where on earth did I give the impression that abortion is easy?

The whole idea that women are fortunate to have the ‘option’ of abortion implies that this is an easy option. Certain comments such as Mr2001’s ‘Don’t you think many women would change their minds about continuing the pregnancy if they knew “dad” wouldn’t subsidize their desire to have a child, i.e., they only want a child because someone else will pay for it?’, tell me that this person believes that pure financial considerations would be enough for pretty much all women to ‘choose’ abortion. Furthermore, the suggestion that men cannot choose what to do, but these lucky women can, suggests that women have at least one ‘good’ option. And the term in the thread title is ‘male abortion,’ as if opting out of paying child support is equivalent to permanently ending a life that is growing inside you.*

Many women (not limited to strongly religious women) are unable mentally to deal with having an abortion - so they don’t have much choice either. And yes, these women do then have to bear responsibility for the child, and so does the father.

It’s not an easy decision for any woman. Be thankful that, as man, it’s not a decision you will ever have to make.

*biologically and legally, no, it is not life, at least in the early stages, but it has the feel of that to the pregnant woman, even one who has decided to abort the foetus, and it has effects [on the woman] of aborting a living human being.

[QueenAl]

The smilie in my last post is just a stupid coding error.

Btw, LordAshtar, nice to be agreeing with you on a subject this time. (That was an intentional smilie).

[BlackKnight]

Originally posted by pldennison *
**
Actually, you’re trying to discuss irresponsibility, to wit, refusing to support children generated as a result of your sexual activity.*

Why do you insist on making this issue personal? This has absolutely nothing to do with my sexual activity. (It’s always easy to believe that someone you’re debating holds their opinion only for their personal gain and not because they’ve actually thought about it and have simply become convinced that it’s the correct view. Please don’t fall into that trap.)

[BlackKnight]

Originally posted by sturmhauke *
**
I can just as easily argue that half the child’s DNA comes from the father, therefore the father bears half the responsibility.*

Responsibility comes from choice. A man may choose to give a woman his sperm, but then the ball is in her court. No, she does not consciously choose to have one of her eggs fertilized, but she does have the conscious choice of what to do if such a thing occurs. Since it is her body, it is her choice. Since it is her choice, it is her responsibility.

Again, imagine if a man has an STD. A woman is aware of this, but the two consent to sex anyway. She catches the disease. Is the man responsible for her catching the disease? Should he pay part of her medical bills?

If DNA alone gives responsibility, it should also give rights. And yet a man does not have rights to a fetus or zygote or what have you even if it contains half his DNA. Moreover, I do not believe that even “normal” (i.e., not me; those without such extreme views) people would say that a man even has responsibility to a fetus that has his DNA.

But we, as humans, who live in a society, and who presumably have morals, care about the welfare of that child.

I do as well. But I also care about what I see as the rights of the father.

**Regardless of how you justify your position with biology, it boils down to “I can have more women than Wilt Chamberlain, Rameses II, and Don Juan put together, but if they all get pregnant, well that ain’t my problem.” **

Right. The only reason I believe as I do is completely self-serving and solely for my own benefit. It’s completely inconceivable that I could hold a view contrary to your own unless I have some ulterior motive for holding that view. You’ve found me out.

[Nightime]

Jodi:

We make people pay for the babies they create. It’s that simple and it’s that fair. I am not surprised to find that someone who wants to argue it is not fair must, in order to do so, argue that men have no hand in creating babies at all. But I continue to maintain the silliness of that position is self-evident.

I think you are wrong in assuming that anyone here is just trying to have the fun without the responsibilities. There is a purely intellectual basis for their argument, which stands or falls on its own. In this case, it falls.

The argument, as far as I can tell, is something like this: A man has sex with a woman, and the result is a fertilized egg. So if a fertilized egg could demand money, the father would have to pay. But it cannot, because it has no legal rights. Now, the woman can decide to abort this part of her body, or she can decide to let this part of her body develop until eventually it is legally a person. If she chooses the latter, why should the man be forced to pay for something that was entirely her choice? Of course the pregnancy could not have happened without the man, but it also could not have happened if the man’s parents hadn’t had him, and so on. Isn’t it really only the person who actually chose to let their body part develop into a child that is responsible?

This argument is basically saying that it is not fair to say both:
a) A fetus is just part of the woman’s body and has no rights.
b) If a woman chooses to let her body part develop into a child, a man is responsible for that child.

Now, why does this argument fail?

1. Men are not completely devoid of rights when it comes to developing children. It is just that women have more rights. This is due to biology.

2. I do not believe a fetus is simply part of the woman’s body. It is alive, it is just not a person yet. As such, it’s right to live is not considered as important as the right of a woman to abort it. On its own, however, I am sure it would have rights (if it could survive).

To really make the argument fail, we would need to have more fairness in determining who gets a child after it is born if the parents do not agree. It is biology, not unfairness, that gives the woman more power during the pregnancy, but once the child is born and both parties have equal responsibility, they should also be given equal rights.

[BlackKnight]

*Originally posted by Jodi *
BLACKKNIGHT –
Kindly explain how, in the act of having sex: (a) a man uses a body not his own; (b) he does so not by choice; and (c) the child resulting from such sexual congress is not his child.

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. This seems strangely phrased. Therefore, if my response misses what you were getting at, please tell me so.

Assume a situation of two adults having consensual sex. Both “use” each others’ bodies for pleasure. Both have made a conscious choice to do this. So far, I think we’re in agreement.

Now lets say, as a result of their sex, the woman becomes pregnant. That is to say, due to an act that both parties willingly undertook, something they both knew was a possibility has occurred. I think we’re also in agreement up to this point.

Right now, there is no child. This is reflected in law, and I think many people (though certainly not all) would agree that this is the case. The woman is pregnant, but there is no child. Now, the woman has the option of either aborting the pregnancy, or not. Since there is no child, it is her body alone that is under consideration. Since it is her body alone, it is her decision alone. Nobody can force her to abort the fetus, or force her to not abort it.

There may be some disagreement here, but the controversial step is, I think, the next one:

Since it is her decision alone, it is her responsibility alone. She makes the decision about whether a child will be produced. Therefore, she should be responsible for the consequences of that decision.

A man does not have any role in the production of a child. He does have a role in the production of a zygote / fetus / whatever you want to call it. This is not a child. It is the woman that has the sole role in the production of a child.

I know that you almost certainly do not agree with this line of reasoning, but is the reasoning itself at least clear? Is there anything I should clarify or elaborate on?

I feel like I’ve gone through Alice’s mirror here, where people make arguments by saying things that make no sense.

Tell me about it.

And you do not get to decide that it is “'not his child in the ‘entitlement/responsibility’ sense.” That is your own amazing opinion, comfortably divorced from reality.

Er, if it’s my opinion why don’t I get to decide it?

Really? You think there’s a lot of guys out there who want to avoid reproduction but who are having sex for reasons other than fun? What reasons would those be?

What does this have to do with the current discussion? I’m merely arguing that males have no moral responsibility to provide for their offspring. I am not arguing about the nature of those men, or about their feelings about this responsibility, or why they have sex or why they might not want to provide for children.

Your position is that men should not have such responsibilities, but of course you’ve failed entirely to explain why not, so you merely assert – totally without foundation – that they do not.

You may not like my reasoning, but it is there. It is laid bare above. In previous posts, I have provided reasoning. Again, you may not like it, but to claim it is not there is simply false.

Sure. Since you asked: I think the idea that men should be able to avoid responsibility for their own children just because they (the men) don’t want them (the children) is massively stupid – so stupid that its stupidity doesn’t really need pointing up.

Well, ok. You’re entitled to that opinion. That’s hardly an argument against my position though. I mean, imagine what GD would be reduced to - “I think X”. “X is massively stupid and there’s really no need to point out why.”

In a nutshell: A man creates the child; the man is responsible for it, just as a woman is respnsible for the child she creates as well.

How does a man create a child? Surely that would have made headlines!

We make people pay for the babies they create. It’s that simple and it’s that fair.

I entirely agree. I merely disagree on who makes the baby.

BTW, thank you for taking the time to get involved in this debate, especially since you find it so obvious that I am wrong. I make no claim, and never have, that I am always correct. If I am wrong, I hope you can show me where.

[BlackKnight]

*Originally posted by QueenAl *
Blackknight:
The man has taken the step (sex with ejaculation) that, if it fertilizes an egg, will create a child unless certain steps are taken to prevent that from happening. … The man whose sperm helped create the foetus has also helped create a child, it’s just a matter of time.

I disagree. It is more than a matter of time. It is also a matter of a choice by the woman.

Actually, fathers do have rights. If a woman denies the father access, and he wants to see his child, then he can take her to court and sue for access. If the mother dies, then the father has the right to bring up the child. Fathers have plenty of rights (and I’m glad they do).

It is true that fathers have legal rights in this regard. What I’m saying is that they don’t really have those rights and that the law is flawed.

The whole idea that women are fortunate to have the ‘option’ of abortion implies that this is an easy option. Certain comments such as Mr2001’s ‘Don’t you think many women would change their minds about continuing the pregnancy if they knew “dad” wouldn’t subsidize their desire to have a child, i.e., they only want a child because someone else will pay for it?’, tell me that this person believes that pure financial considerations would be enough for pretty much all women to ‘choose’ abortion.

I am not the same person as Mr2001.

[BlackKnight]

Nightime, I will respond more fully a bit later, but right now I want to say thank you for not assuming the worst about me. Also, your characterization of my argument seems remarkably accurate at first reading. I’ll have to give it a closer look before I reply more fully, but I think you’ve understood it completely.

[Ms2001]

*Originally posted by QueenAl *
Certain comments such as Mr2001’s ‘Don’t you think many women would change their minds about continuing the pregnancy if they knew “dad” wouldn’t subsidize their desire to have a child, i.e., they only want a child because someone else will pay for it?’, tell me that this person believes that pure financial considerations would be enough for pretty much all women to ‘choose’ abortion.

What gives you that impression? I didn’t say “all women” or even “most women”, I said “many women”. It’s right there in your quote.

I’m proposing that pregnant women can be divided into these groups:

1. Women who do not want to have a child.
2. Women who want to have a child, even if they will be unable to provide for the child and/or themselves.
3. Women who want to have a child, but only if they will be able to provide for the child and themselves.

From your reaction, it seems to me that you believe there is no group #3. Is that true?

If we can agree that there are at least some women in group #3, it should be clear that some of those women would only be able to provide for a child if the father pays child support, and therefore they will only want to have the child if it’s subsidized by the father. If the father is permitted to “opt out”, there will be no child to support and no burden on society.

[yosemite]

How does a man create a child? Surely that would have made headlines!

So, tell me. When was the last time that a woman had a child without a man contributing a vital component? Without him and his handy-dandy sperm, there would be NO child. The last time a woman had a child without a man being involved in the process was about 2,000 years ago. And some people are not so sure about that one!

And, I don’t care how many times you spin and spin and hem and haw around the issue, it’s still obvious to most of us. Some of you seem to think that men can have all the fun with none of the responsibility. (Unless, of course, you think that sex is a horrible chore and no fun at all.) Don’t want kids, but still want to screw? Apparently some of you think that if you just say (over and over) that you shouldn’t be responsible, that should be enough. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Just wave that magic wand, and all your responsibilities and obligations go out the window. A completely consequence-free life, is that what you are looking for? Not in this universe.

Don’t want the responsibility? Don’t screw. You really do have a lot of power over the situation, so don’t try to act as if you are a helpless, hapless victim. You make a choice. You are in control of what your body does—you have that power. Screw, have fun, and face the possibility of consequences. Or don’t screw, and don’t worry about facing consequences. You didn’t help create a situation where the consequences could happen, so you’re off the hook. It is completely your choice, and your decision.

Why is it that some of you won’t address the obvious choice that all men have. They don’t have to put it in. They don’t have to. And if they do, they do so knowing that there are built-in consequences. Don’t like 'em? Don’t screw. But you can’t have it both ways. Having sex-for-fun-without-consequences is not some God-given right. Sorry about that. Bummer, huh?

[sturmhauke]

BlackKnight:

Again, imagine if a man has an STD. A woman is aware of this, but the two consent to sex anyway. She catches the disease. Is the man responsible for her catching the disease? Should he pay part of her medical bills?

They’re both responsible, and he should pay.

[response to my statement about having lots of women] Right. The only reason I believe as I do is completely self-serving and solely for my own benefit. It’s completely inconceivable that I could hold a view contrary to your own unless I have some ulterior motive for holding that view. You’ve found me out.

I meant “you” in the generic sense. However, my statement is valid if one assumes that your position is correct. My statement is the logical child of your position, as it were.

[Procacious]

If men want to ejaculate without fear of raising children, either a) masturbate, b) visit hookers, or c) only put your penis into people you intend to have children with. Or have a vasectomy. If you’re that terrified of getting “roped in” (:rolleyes to paying to raise children that you created, then take full responsbility for all birth control. It’s really that simple.

This quote shows the exact problem with the current system. Women are able to have sex under whatever circumstances they wish without the threat of having to raise a child for the next 18 years (they do have the threat of getting pregnant, but they get a chance to back out). Men that want to avoid the threat of having to raise a child must not have sex (birth control reduces the chances, but if the birth control fails, the man has no chance to back out). The system is biased against men.

Nature is not biased against men, only our laws are. Males of other species can avoid the role of fatherhood, but our laws prevent such action for human males. Since the inequality is caused not by nature but by laws, it can and should be changed. Men should not have the right to force women to keep a child because men do not become pregnant (a natural law). But men should have the right to have sex without being forced to raise the child because nature is not what is forcing them to raise it. Our unbalanced laws are.

The problem is, people always look at the situation from the point of view of irresponsible males. They say, “This person had sex with whomever he wished and made no effort to avoid pregnancy and now he has a kid and wants to avoid paying for it. Screw him, make him pay.” That is all well and good, but what about the responsible men. What about the men like me that are never able to get very far in a relationship because they refuse to have sex. I know that I have no rights other than abstinence and I cannot afford to risk that something goes wrong and I become a father. I don’t fear dying a virgin, I fear dying a father. This completely unbalanced set of laws allows women to pursue all facets of a relationship without the threat of motherhood, but does not allow me to pursue the sexual facets of relationships without the threat of fatherhood. And since most women do not understand when I inform them that I do not wish to risk becoming a father, this results in a very lonely life. Even if I got a women to sign a contract before sex saying that I would have no responsibility for an child that may come out of the encounter, I doubt I could enforce it (and most women would never sign such a thing anyway). I can (and do) always ask what she would do if she got pregnant, but I can’t afford the risk she would change her mind once she became pregnant. The system we have absolutely screws responsible men without good cause to do so. But since we responsible men are so rare (and are generally looked at as total freaks) our rights are apparently unimportant.

[pldennison]

If you don’t ever want to be a father, have the fucking vasectomy. Then you can have all the sex you would ever want to have without anything but the most microscopic risk that a pregnancy would result. Problem solved.

Is this really a difficult thing to figure out?

Males of other species can avoid the role of fatherhood, but our laws prevent such action for human males.

Aren’t we supposed to be “better” or “more advanced” than other species? Some nonhuman female species eat their young, too. Do you propose we look to nonhuman species for examples to develop our laws?

[pldennison]

BlackKnight, the reason that your argument is wrong is that it first tries to fit a bright-line political definition onto a non-bright – in fact, a non-existent – biological one, and from there to derive a moral standard.

Taking the second part first, what is political, or legal, is not always what is moral. Our nation’s anti-drug laws, or the anti-sodomy laws in many Southern states, should be sufficient to demonstrate that. The fact that one can rationalize a moral standard under which men have no responsibility to support their offpsring does not mean it is, in fact, moral, because it’s working backwards. Refusing to provide support to the fruit of one’s loins causes unnecessary suffering in a being – the child – capable of feeling it. Causing unnecessary suffering is immoral.

As to the first part, it’s backfitting a legal definition for political purposes. The fertilized zygote, or the fetus, is human; of that, there can be no doubt. There is absolutely no chance that, given human sperm and a human ovum, the woman will at some point be gestating a stoat, or a lemur, or a cricket, or a bald eagle. Should she abort, or spontaneously miscarry, a postmortem would reveal it to be human.

Development is a continuum, not a series of hard-and-fast steps. There is no difference, biologically, between the organism one minute before birth and one minute after; everyone but the most hardheadedly irrational pro-choicers admits that. And there is nothing that the mother does, biologically, that changes the organism from “not-child” to “child.” It’s nothing more than a political definition, and attempting to derive a moral standard from a political definition is almost inevitable doomed to failure.

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by pldennison *
**
As to the first part, it’s backfitting a legal definition for political purposes. The fertilized zygote, or the fetus, is human; of that, there can be no doubt… **

Don’t particulary have a dog in this fight yet, but…

[hijack]
Based upon numerous threads in GD…it would appear that many pro choice folks have plenty of doubts about that. It appears that QueenAl (and perhaps others) doesn’t even think a fertilized zygote is alive.
[/hijack]

[In_Conceivable]

*Originally posted by Procacious *
**What about the men like me that are never able to get very far in a relationship because they refuse to have sex. I know that I have no rights other than abstinence and I cannot afford to risk that something goes wrong and I become a father. I don’t fear dying a virgin, I fear dying a father. This completely unbalanced set of laws allows women to pursue all facets of a relationship without the threat of motherhood, but does not allow me to pursue the sexual facets of relationships without the threat of fatherhood. And since most women do not understand when I inform them that I do not wish to risk becoming a father, this results in a very lonely life. Even if I got a women to sign a contract before sex saying that I would have no responsibility for an child that may come out of the encounter, I doubt I could enforce it (and most women would never sign such a thing anyway). I can (and do) always ask what she would do if she got pregnant, but I can’t afford the risk she would change her mind once she became pregnant. The system we have absolutely screws responsible men without good cause to do so. But since we responsible men are so rare (and are generally looked at as total freaks) our rights are apparently unimportant. **

Cry me a river. You can be a responsible man. If you never want children there is a simple operation to fix that. I suppose you think it is easier for a women to get an abortion then for you get a vasectomy?

Until Roe vs. Wade and birth control pills women were the ones who bore most of the risk in the case of an unplanned pregnancy. The risks for men have not increased. New options have reduced the risk for women but not without side effects.

Perhaps women can “pursue all facets of a relationship without the threat of motherhood”. But, to avoid the “treat of motherhood” is not an easy thing for a women either physically or mentally. Birthcontrol pills, depo shots, IDUs, etc all have physical sided effects. Abortion is physically invasive and carries some dangers. Abortion and adoption also leave mental scars on many women for the rest of their lives.

How “fair” is it to allow men to walk away completely scott free while a women is subjected to physical damage and mental harm? As I see it the only “fair” solution is outlaw abortion again. Somehow I doubt you will like that idea.

[yosemite]

Whether or not some people think that a zygote or fretus is alive, or human or not, the fact still remains that the jury is officially out on this one. Obviously there is much heated debate, and most cannot agree on this issue.

Therefore, a man who does not believe the zygote is alive cannot force his opinions and morality on a woman who does believe that the zygote or fetus is alive, and human. For him to expect her to abort is like him asking her to kill something that is alive inside her. And that’s not a call he should be able to make. Unfair? Too bad—but that’s biology for you.

Procacious, I’ll just echo what others have said here. I don’t understand why you think it’s “unfair” because men can’t have consequence-free sex. Bo hoo hoo. How unfair life is, sometimes you don’t get a free ride. Well what a shocker that is.

Women have never enjoyed consequence-free sex, no matter how you spin it. You are not some put-upon victim in this whole thing, just because you might have to be (gasp!) expected to (shudder!) support your own offspring. I suppose you think it’s more “fair” to have the taxpayers pay for unwilling fathers’ offspring? Because that’s often what happens, as we all know. And how someone can be an “unwilling” father when he “willingly” puts his penis into a vagina is beyond me.

Just have the damned vasectomy already! Your problem is easily solved.

[Jodi]

NIGHTIME –

I think you are wrong in assuming that anyone here is just trying to have the fun without the responsibilities. There is a purely intellectual basis for their argument, which stands or falls on its own. In this case, it falls.

First, it’s a stretch to call the arguments being made here “intellectual,” devolving as they do to a total abdication of repsonsibility for men in any aspect of child-rearing (which is the natural extension of the argument, “a woman decides to have a child, the woman is 100% responsible for it”). Given that it fails entirely to take into account the costs or benefits to the women, the children, or society as a whole, it is quite possibly the least intellectual argument I’ve ever seen. Second, it is exactly an attempt to have the fun without the responsibility – unless there’s a vast body of men out there having non-reproductive sex for reasons other than fun (and I think we can agree there is not) and as long as men such as BLACKKNIGHT and his ilk attempt to disavow male responsibility (which they very clearly are attempting to argue should be done). Whatever rationalization may be thought up to defend it, “all the fun but none the responsibility” is the exact arrangement being sought.

This argument is basically saying that it is not fair to say both:
a) A fetus is just part of the woman’s body and has no rights.
b) If a woman chooses to let her body part develop into a child, a man is responsible for that child.

Yes, thank you, I understand the argument. What it fails entirely to take into account is the myriad of social and economic reasons to hold men responsible for their own children – something that, contrary to some assertions made here, has traditionally been done in all human societies since we dropped out of the trees. Children need fathers, not just to buy them shoes but to provide the male parenting and male example that makes both boys and girls, but especially boys, into well-rounded and better-adjusted adults. But if we can’t make the men do that – actually be fathers – we can at least make 'em buy the shoes.

In other words, and contrary to the narrow vision so clearly displayed here, the interests of the men are not the only interests at stake: Also at stake are the interests of society (which should not have to pay for children it clearly had no part in bringing into existence) and children (who should not have to suffer for their very existence, when they had no choice in the matter). These concerns trump a man’s contemptible, if understandable, desire to be free from the long-term financial consequences of his own children.

Your pro-life argument I will not address, except to say I don’t agree with it and don’t find it particularly persuasive.

We would need to have more fairness in determining who gets a child after it is born if the parents do not agree. It is biology, not unfairness, that gives the woman more power during the pregnancy, but once the child is born and both parties have equal responsibility, they should also be given equal rights.

And they are. The question here is not how a father can make sure he has rights equal to the mother’s – no no! These guys don’t care about that: They want to argue that a man should be able to walk away from the child he helped to create, just because he didn’t want it. As should be clear, I find such an idea beneath contempt. The child exists. The fact that the mother decided the child would do so does not change the fact that the child exists and needs a father, financially and otherwise. The fact that the mother could have prevented that existence does not change the fact that the child exists. To punish a child for the implied sin of its mother in deciding to have it is IMO so reprehensible on so many levels that I’m continually surprised to find otherwise reasonable-sounding people arguing in favor of it.

BLACKKNIGHT –

Since it is her decision alone, it is her responsibility alone. She makes the decision about whether a child will be produced. Therefore, she should be responsible for the consequences of that decision.

As noted above, there are myriad social and economic reasons why this is not the case and should not be the case, ranging from the economic desire of society as a whole not to be burdened with children it clearly had no role in producing, to the moral imperative that a person who parents a child ought to be responsible for the child he or she parents and should not even want to abandon that child to the vagaries of fate. This is one of the (numerous) things that pisses me off about this entire argument: it paints men as such worthless assholes, which of course the vast majority are not. To “intellectually” argue for the abandonment of children . . . it’s outrageous. And that is what your argument boils down to, as you well know: If the father is not financially responsible, then he’s not responsible in any way. But I wonder if you’ve thought of the flipside of that argument: If a mother bears 100% responsibility for all children she bears, do you know what rights fathers have? None. Zero. I wonder how that would sit with the vast majority of fathers out there, who don’t need anyone to explain to them why they should love and parent their children.

I’m merely arguing that males have no moral responsibility to provide for their offspring.

Yes, I know. And I’m flabbergasted by it: “males have no moral responsibility to provide for their offspring.” There it is, in all its distasteful glory. You simple dismiss all the clear biological, social, and economic imperatives that dictate that men – not males, men – do have extensive moral responsibilities toward their children – not “offspring,” children – because a woman may have chosen not to flip a switch to end the existence of a child. And --once again, with feeling – this is a child that exists and needs support, financial and otherwise, regardless of the circumstances of its conception or development, because men sure as hell are being asked to pay for hypothetical, non-existent children.

Well, ok. You’re entitled to that opinion. That’s hardly an argument against my position though. I mean, imagine what GD would be reduced to - “I think X”. “X is massively stupid and there’s really no need to point out why.”

Of course it is. Some positions are so incredibly stupid and morally bankrupt that they do not deserve any response except to point out they are incredibly stupid and morally bankrupt. To dignify idiocy with more (as I admit I have done here) is to grant it a stature it does not deserve.

BTW, thank you for taking the time to get involved in this debate, especially since you find it so obvious that I am wrong. I make no claim, and never have, that I am always correct. If I am wrong, I hope you can show me where.

I say this in perfect seriousness: I find your position alarming, distasteful, immoral, stupid, and totally unworthy of respect. Please do not bother with the niceties as I cannot in this instance respond in kind without giving your argument credence it very clearly does not deserve.

[BlackKnight]

*Originally posted by yosemitebabe *
So, tell me. When was the last time that a woman had a child without a man contributing a vital component? Without him and his handy-dandy sperm, there would be NO child.

This has been covered. Did you read Nightime’s post?

If the man’s parents had never had children, then there would be NO child. If their parents had never had children, there would be NO child. If there hadn’t been a concert that night they would never have met and there would be NO child. I guess we’d better hold the grandparents, the greatgrandparents, and the band responsible.

Obviously, this is absurd. Equally absurd is holding the man responsible. If a woman makes a choice to have a child, that woman should be responsible for the results of that choice.

And, I don’t care how many times you spin and spin and hem and haw around the issue, it’s still obvious to most of us.

I don’t much care what’s obvious to most of us. I’d rather know what is the case, regardless of whether it is “obvious”. If you disagree with me, that’s fine, but please don’t tell me I’m wrong just because it’s “obvious” and expect me to believe you. It’s not obvious to me that I am wrong.

Some of you seem to think that men can have all the fun with none of the responsibility. (Unless, of course, you think that sex is a horrible chore and no fun at all.) Don’t want kids, but still want to screw? Apparently some of you think that if you just say (over and over) that you shouldn’t be responsible, that should be enough.

This is exactly the same accusation that has already been leveled and has already been addressed. I urge you to read this thread. One more accusation such as this adds nothing of value.

A completely consequence-free life, is that what you are looking for? Not in this universe.

Has anyone said anything at all about a completely consequence-free life? This sounds like a strawman to me.

Don’t want the responsibility? Don’t screw. You really do have a lot of power over the situation, so don’t try to act as if you are a helpless, hapless victim.

Why would I try to act like that? Are you implying that I have? If so, please back up that assertion.

You make a choice. You are in control of what your body does—you have that power. … It is completely your choice, and your decision.

Would you please consider addressing my argument and the points that I’ve made? If you read them, I think you’ll find that your words here do not in any way invalidate my conclusion.

**Don’t like 'em? Don’t screw. But you can’t have it both ways. Having sex-for-fun-without-consequences is not some God-given right. Sorry about that. Bummer, huh? **

Being snide does not advance the debate, especially since there’s nothing original in your snideness.

I’m not here because I enjoy being called immoral. I’m not here to justify some actions that I have taken or plan on taking. I’m obviously not making any friends in this thread. Why am I here? Because I feel that this issue is not being thought about critically enough and many people are just giving their reflexive emotive responses to it instead of thinking about it. I’m trying to remedy that at least somewhat.

Is it so hard to believe that I have thought about this and believe myself to be correct? Is it so hard to believe that I’m not just trying to rationalize what I deep down know to be an immoral act? Is it so hard to believe that I am trying to do something productive here, one way or the other? If I’m right, I’d like others to see my line of thought and possibly become persuaded. If I am wrong, I would like to be shown where and why and how.

Nightime seems to disagree with me, and yet doesn’t assume that I’m some kind of immoral asshat. Indeed, he/she seems quite able to address the core argument and doesn’t try to psychoanalyze me to determine suspected ulterior motives. Please follow this example.

[In_Conceivable]

*Originally posted by BlackKnight *
**If the man’s parents had never had children, then there would be NO child. If their parents had never had children, there would be NO child. If there hadn’t been a concert that night they would never have met and there would be NO child. I guess we’d better hold the grandparents, the greatgrandparents, and the band responsible.

Obviously, this is absurd. Equally absurd is holding the man responsible. If a woman makes a choice to have a child, that woman should be responsible for the results of that choice.

**

Talk about strawmen. We aren’t talking holding one adult responsible for the actions of another. (Unless your grandfather impregnated your girlfriend.) We are talking about holding an adult male responsible for his own actions. If his actions produce a baby then he is responsible for that baby. I fail to see how a man hasn’t had a chance to make a choice (most likely several) when making a baby.

Abortion is not about a women’s right to avoid motherhood. It is about a women’s right to privacy over her own body. A women can’t abort a child after it is born. Why is it “fair” to allow a man to?

Please answer this question. If abortion were illegal or not possible would you still only hold the women responsible for a child?