If a man requests, but woman won't have abortion, should he be freed of obligation?

Great Debates
261

Yes.

She should. (Until both she and the father give the baby up for adoption and have successfully done so. And if he wants the baby, and she doesn’t - she needs to pay child support)

Because the baby, once it’s a living, breathing thing has a right to be supported. And the baby’s interests outweigh the other interests here.

Or to the other question

Yes. Of course. This seems blindingly obvious to me. I would be financially accountable for the child that I caused to be. Again, Baby. Needs Support. I gave birth to it. I should support it. :smack:

262

I throw in my 2 coins here:

I am actually of 2 minds:

1.) I think that ethically the man does have a responsibility for the child. Thus he (ideally) should choose (emphasis on choose) to provide at least financial support for that child.

2.) Nonetheless I do agree with another poster that if women assert that they alone have the responsibility for determining if a child is aborted or not, then final legal responsibility must rest with them. On the other hand, if either a.) abortion were made illegal or b.) men got a vote in whether abortion occurred or not (meaning that theoretically a woman could indeed turn over a baby to the father and sever her own financial obligations) than yes, men should be required to either (in example a) provide financial support under any condition or (in example b) provide assistance that was appropriate given his involvement in deciding to continue the pregnancy.

Then again who ever said the law was meant to be applied fairly.

:eek:

263

I’d like to re-iterate my point from page 5.

264

What law says you have to give permission to have something taken from you? How does that define wrongness?

In any legal issue someone can have money or even their freedom taken from them with out their permission but because of their actions.

265

Robert.

The child is also yours. Like it or not, you’re 50% involved in its conception and therefore, as Minty has pointed out, 50% responsible for its existance. Ergo, yours.

Therefore, your money is being taken to support your child. Everything is still yours, and has not been taken from you.

266

I’d actually respectfully disagree with you Robert (though I do understand your points). Unfortunately I think many of the things we do (pay taxes, work for a living) are to some extent forced. I think it can be argued (and pardon me if I missed it in an earlier post)…that in many of those circumstances we get benefits (good roads…except in New England…a paycheck). But I do think there are times when we must be forced (again, ideally we would choose to on our own) to pay restitution, make amends for things which we are responsible for, even though we get no benefit ourselves. To make an analogy…(and I am going to make one anyway even though you were trying to FORCE me not to…just teasing…) if I smack my car into someone’s fence, and it is my fault (careless driving)…I will be forced to pay restitution whether there is any gain for me or now. Or to make a more direct analogy, if my budy says to me (come punch me in the stomach, I betcha can’t ruprture my spleen)…even though he is a consenting (though stupid) partner in this behavioral sequence…if he dies I will still be guilty of manslaughter and forced to pay the appropriate penalty.

Interested in your response…

267

If I run my car into your fence, then I am destroying your fence without permission. I was wrong first.

I am involved 50% in the production of a fertilized egg. But, once that egg has been implanted and started to gestate, I no longer have any right to it or responsibility over it. Therefore, I should have no legal obligation to whatever that egg turns out to be, unless I wish it.

In, just because something is legal, that does not make it moral or right. (And I hate the grammar of that sentance.) I consider the fact that I must pay taxes wrong. I consider it a wrong that improves my quality of life overall, but I still consider it wrong.

268

as I said…just because someone gives you permission to be part of something, does not absolve you of responsibility for the consequences. Hence my example of your buddy inviting you to punch him in the stomach to see if you can rupture his spleen. You’ll still be held accountable for the consequences even if he was a willing participant.

269

So you are involved in creating the fertalized egg but have no responsibility for what it becomes? That you have no rights over it while inside the femal I grant you. I might even agree somewhat with your frustration over this. But what principle are you using to suggest that you have no responsibility for it? I think I could agree that if the zygote became a mass murderer you don’t have responsibility for that. I agree that if it became a bus you don’t have a responsibility for that. But only because you have a reasonable expectation that these things will not happen. I can’t help but wonder at how you can suggest that you have NOTHING to do with the zygote becoming a child?

If you drop a glass and it breaks on the floor do you blame gravity?

DrLizardo; do you still think I am mischaracterizing his arguments?

270

Avalongod: Legally accountable. And if I were to state intentions of killing the president, then I would be held legally accountable. Morally, however, I see nothing wrong with punching a consenting friend or stating impulses to kill the president.

271

In which case, my wife would cut off my dick. :slight_smile:

272

Sure, the only problem is that morals are subjective, that is why we have legal standards. Since the woman you impregnanted might see nothing morally wrong with suing you for child support, then I guess (by your own argument) then she absolutely should do so!

:wink:

273

Sorry, you’re right you did. This is going a bit to fast for me. :cool:
OK, so I take it then that you agree that some responsibility for the child is incombent on the father. That this responsibility is not altered by the fact that the female carries the child not the male, and that most of the things that could happen to interrupt the pregnancy also do not lessen these responsibilities.
<as always please tell me if I am not paraphrasing you correctly>

If we accept that the father has obligations to a child dispite all of the other things which could happen to interrupt a pregnancy, then the fact that a woman has the choice to abort cannot by itself remove those responsibilities. The male has just as much power over most of the other things which might interrupt the pregnancy. While I might tend to agree with robert that need alone does not impose obligation, if you are the one who creates that need you certainly take on some obligation. This is true wether you meant to create the need or if you simply changed your mind later. The fact of a 2nd part in creating the need reduces your responsibility somewhat. But it certainly should not eliminate it altogether.

As has been pointed out before there may be some variations if for instance the woman promised to abort any pregnancy or some other fraud was committed (think of a vasectomy doctor who simply lied and did not reallty perform the snip).

274

Pervert: You’re paraphrasing me pretty correctly. A few pages back when we all had a moment of moderation, I even admitted I could accept a scenario where the father retains some responsibility in any circumstance, given the idea that this responsibility is severely mitigated by certain circumstances.

In short, to make sure it’s clear, I’m saying I could live with, if not love, a situation where the father indicating he’d prefer abortion during an appropriate time frame would significantly reduce, even if not eliminate, his ongoing obligation to the child’s (dare I say it…) support.

However, in order for this to be accepted, it would basically require that those with the alternate view (you spooge, you lose, for instance) admit that the mother’s 9 month period of 100% control over the developing situation does require some consideration if she decides to bring the pregnancy to term… I’m not entirely sure that will be agreeable to some of the other folks here.

Afterthought:

uckfayupay – I thought the nom de plume was rather clever at first… But upon reflection it appears it’s not so much clever as merely accurate… RobertL’s comment was clearly intended as a salute to those in this thread, which sentiment I share (even for you minty green… babe)

275

Folks, a summing up as I’ll probably give this thread a rest for a while:

In Conceivable: I wish you always happy humping. May your birth control never fail you.

Pervert: You’ve given grief to pretty much everyone here, on all sides. I respect that.

RobertLiguori: Dude… You and I see eye to eye. That should probably scare you.

Minty Green: Thanks for always being interesting. Babe is the highest form of flattery, believe me.

You With The Face: Probably more caustic exchanges between you and I than anyone else here. Thanks for not letting it descend to name-calling and mudslinging.

Yosemitebabe: Again, we definitely have to agree to disagree, but I appreciate the continuing civility

Lightnin: You were here and gone again so quickly – wish we’d heard more from you.

Adios, at least for a couple days.

Emilio

276

Jeez, no wonder people are abandoning New York in droves. :stuck_out_tongue:

277

So many messages since last night!

Certainly not, they did a wonderful job of explaining where zygotes come from. But when we watched the video of a baby being born, the father wasn’t even present in the room, let alone directly involved in giving birth!

OK, sounds good. But add another person to the scenario and it changes.

Let’s say I put on a parachute and jump out of the plane, same as before. But this time, another guy jumps out of the plane behind me, pulls out a knife, and cuts off my chute. Splat!

Now who’s to blame? Yes, I accepted a risk when I jumped out of the plane, but the other guy is still responsible for his actions. Like someone walking down a dark alley at night hoping not to get mugged, I’m aware of the risk, but when another person turns that risk into reality, the other person is accountable for the consequences.

Frankly, I don’t think it should matter. Someone who has a moral objection to being photographed can’t get a driver’s license.

You want to talk about coercion? Someone who has a moral objection to financially supporting our government still has to pay taxes, or we throw him in jail. That kind of coercion eats child-support debates for breakfast.

278

Did they explain the important “responsibility” the grandparents had in creating this new life, or explain how important the color of the car the parents owned was to the whole process, or anything else?

:rolleyes:

And I feel obligated to repeat once again: Birth control is not foolproof. Sometimes, people use two forms of birth control, and a baby still results.

Also, a man cannot assume that a woman will abort a child just for his convenience. Two things: Birth control fails (there is no 1000% “cut and dried” assurance that a sexual encounter will not still result in pregnancy, no matter how “careful” both parties are) and a man cannot sit back and assume that a woman will abort the child he and she helped create. He can’t do it. He can’t expect or assume this and figure that he ought to be “off the hook” because “she coulda if she wanted to”. That is the most STUPID, NAIVE, FOOLISH line of thought ever. It’s her body, and he can’t expect her to have a procedure on her body if she is unwilling to do so.

So, bottom line: If he has a brain in his head, he engages into the sexual act knowing that:
(1) The birth control may fail. Yeah, really. No matter how “careful” they are, it still can fail.
(2) She doesn’t have to abort the child. Newsflash: Artificially terminating a pregnancy is not a “default” position for every woman. It has health consequences, if nothing else. The assumption should always be that she won’t interrupt the natural process of her pregnancy. Many, many babies are born EACH YEAR because women chose to not interrupt the natural process of pregnancy! No, really! They actually carried the child to term! Amazing, isn’t it?

So, only a stupid doofus will engage in the sex act assuming that there will be no consequences to this activity in which he is engaging. Another newsflash: He is involving himself (most voluntarily) in an activity that holds certain risks, and (another really amazing fact) there is another person involved in this whole process, and he cannot dicate what she will do. She may actually be so daring as to actually let the life growing inside of her to continue to live. Shocking, isn’t it? But she really is allowed to do that. Because it’s her body. And once that life is outside of her body, it is a small creature that requires care. And, (shocking news once again) the two people who contributed their DNA to the creation of this child KNEW beforehand that they were doing something that very well could result in a new life being brought into the world. And, this new life customarily is supported (you know, fed, clothed, etc.). And, customarily, it becomes the resposibilty of the two whose DNA contributed to the child to provide this support. Because the taxpayers are sick and tired of supporting children that they had no part in creating, just so that some DNA contributors don’t have their precious wallet tampered with.

Because, you know, as a taxpayer, my wallet is precious to me. I’d rather spend my money on things that I contributed to (DNA, whatever) and not to something that I had no part in. That is the real definition of “theft”. Being responsible for the creation of a thing or situation, and expecting someone else, completely uninvolved in the situation to carry the burden of taking care of it.

279

Obviously. I sure haven’t proposed forcing her to have an abortion, and I can’t think of anyone who has.

What I am proposing is, in a situation where the potential father is unwilling to raise or support a child, to ask the potential mother to choose between having an abortion (or putting the child up for adoption) and raising the child on her own.

It’s like someone who’s vehemently opposed to having his picture taken. If he honestly, truly believes that the camera will steal his soul, no one will expect him to stand in line for a photo at the DMV. But that doesn’t mean he’ll get a driver’s license without a photo; it means he’s gonna take the bus to work.

Newsflash: yosemitebabe uncovers shocking new evidence that 9 months of pregnancy followed by childbirth has no health consequences. Stay tuned to her next post for details!

Sure, in general. If the woman has explicitly told him she won’t bear a child, though, I think the assumption becomes much more reasonable.

Yeah, people change their minds. But usually, when someone changes their mind about something that important with consequences for other people, we call it breach of contract.

By Jove, I think she’s got it!

It’s her choice. The choice is up to her. She decides whether or not a new life is brought into the world. Her choice.

Sigh.

The act of conception “very well could” lead to a new life. Similarly, walking down a dark alley “very well could” lead to a mugging. But the choice to carry the child to term does lead to a new life.

Forget custom. What’s so special about DNA?

Why shouldn’t it be the responsibility of the one person who made the final decision to bring a new life into this world, the one person with her finger on the trigger?

280

Should read:

I really don’t want to touch the issue of whether the result of conception is “a new life”. :wink: