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

[Ms2001]

*Originally posted by minty green *
Because they didn’t conceive the child. Simple, huh?

Simple, yet arbitrary. No more convincing than “because he didn’t bear the child”. I give it a 6.

Sorry, junior’s interests trump yours in every single instance, so long your participation in the act that led to conception was voluntary.

You assume that “junior” is born at all, and also that in the event that he is born, he must be subsidized by the father specifically.

It’s entirely possible that if some form of “opt out” were put into place, the number of unwanted children would drop significantly enough that we could raise the remaining ones at taxpayer expense and still come out ahead.

Huh? I did something with the knowledge that it could possibly lead to the death of Dick Cheney, and you ensured that outcome would in fact occur, and that negates my responsibility?

Absolutely. Anything you do can “possibly” lead to all sorts of things. If I decide to drive to the video store, I know that I could possibly be killed in a wreck - but if someone else ensures that outcome, he’s the one responsible for my untimely death.

Originally posted by you with the face
What is the natural consequence of pregnancy?

I assume you’re using “natural” to mean “without human intervention”.

Sometimes the natural consequence is childbirth, sometimes miscarriage. Often, it results in the death of the mother, the child, or both.

Right back at you - what’s the natural consequence of stepping on a rusty nail? If your friend steps on a nail, and you could take him to get a tetanus shot but you don’t, wouldn’t you consider that negligent?

Not only is abortion life-threatening but it can cause sterility and serious psychological effects.

From what I’ve read, abortion is on par with childbirth in terms of danger to the mother, so I’d appreciate a cite for that; be sure to include statistics for RU-486.

A woman faced with the prospect of an unwanted pregnancy may not want a child anymore than she wants to abort it; but because the man who helped get her pregnant doesn’t want a kid, she has to deal with it all, with no help.

What I’ve proposed in past threads has been that the man has to pay for an abortion, or for delivery and adoption in cases where abortion would be significantly more dangerous. The woman doesn’t have to use the money for that purpose, but the man isn’t obligated to pay any more.

Maybe the law in this particular case shouldn’t be all that conerned about men and women. Maybe it should be concerned about kids getting what they deserve.

Maybe those kids wouldn’t exist in the first place if Mommy didn’t expect someone else to pay for them.

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by Mothchunks *
**they had both agreed beforehand that should she become pregnant, she would have an abortion, but then she renegs on the deal and decides to have it anyway, then, YES, he should be free of obligation. **

Did the kid get any say about this “deal”? Did the taxpayers (if indeed they end up helping to support the kid) have any say in this “deal”?

[Sock_Munkey]

I must point out that in cases of unwanted pregnancy putting the kid up for adoption is usally the best thing for the child since it goes to parents who actively want a child and have prepared for it.

[yosemite]

Mr2001 wrote:

Simple, yet arbitrary.

:rolleyes:

So, in sex ed and biology classes, did they bring in the grandparents and great-grandparents (or the weather, or the type of car someone drives) into the lessons about how babies are made? It’s not at all arbitrary. It’s only “arbitrary” to you because your “scheme to avoid inconvenience” (as minty so aptly describes it) makes you highly motivated to see the act of egg and sperm meeting and creating a child to be “arbitrary”.

[Harmonix]

My modest proposal:
Parenthood becomes affirmative. If you want to become a parent, you fill out a form stating that you undertake the responsibility for raising the child. Dads don’t fill out the form, the fact that Dad is a biological parent don’t mean nothing via rights and responsiblities. And after the birth, Dad requires Mom’s permission (Or other way around, if Mom doesn’t want to be a Mom but changes her mind).

Right along my lines of thinking.

Disregarding the implied meaning of contraceptive measures, If a man explicitly states his disintrest prior to sex in having a child. Shouldn’t the woman understand that she is risking pregnancy, with full knowledge of the male party’s intent, for sex? Obviously I am not a laywer, but in such a scencario hasn’t the woman essentially entered into a contractual understanding of the consequences? Why then should the male party be held financially responsible?

It’s like buying things. When you purchase an item from a store you knowingly accept whatever their return policy may be. If they have a restocking fee you can not complain unless there is some breech in the contract on their end.

[Debaser]

*Originally posted by you with the face *
And here’s a newsflash:Plenty of men already opt-out of their parental responsibilities. How will legalizing “opting-out” be any benefit to children? They stand to lose the most from all of this, not their mothers.

It will benefit society in general to not have women giving birth to children that they don’t have the means to pay for.

It won’t be of any benefit to the specific children, it won’t be any harm either. They won’t be born.

Think of it this way: When you skydive, it would be foolish not to consider death as a potential outcome. Right? It would be tragic if you died, but it would hardly be unfair, not unless someone forced you at gun-point to jump out of the plane.

So, after you get done skydiving, am I entitled to shoot you? You obviously don’t care about you life, because you skydived right?

Just because a man in unfortunate enough to have sex with a woman who wishes to bring an unwanted child into the world doesn’t mean he should be similarly punished.

by Debaser:

No, but pregnancy is the direct consequence of sex. If you don’t want to deal with that consequence, then don’t have sex. That can be said to both the ladies and the gents.

This would be true if abortions and morning after pills weren’t available. Fortunately, they are.

[you_with_the_face]

I assume you’re using “natural” to mean “without human intervention”.

Sometimes the natural consequence is childbirth, sometimes miscarriage. Often, it results in the death of the mother, the child, or both.

So there are several “natural consequences” to pregnancy, okay. As long as you realize that childbirth is one of them.

Right back at you - what’s the natural consequence of stepping on a rusty nail? If your friend steps on a nail, and you could take him to get a tetanus shot but you don’t, wouldn’t you consider that negligent?

Bad analogy. Let’s try out my sky diving scenario. What’s the natural consequence of jumping out of a plane? Sure, you can strap on a parachute, or even two. It would be negligent not to do so. But it would also be stupid to believe that the parachute eliminates all risk and all accountability. If you jump out of that plane and end up dying because of some unfortunate fluke, you’re the only one to blame for it. *Because you willingly took on the risk *.

From what I’ve read, abortion is on par with childbirth in terms of danger to the mother, so I’d appreciate a cite for that; be sure to include statistics for RU-486.

Let’s assume abortion and childbirth are equally dangerous to the mother. Should it matter if the mother morally objects to abortion? We are not talking about a decision that is akin to picking out shoes. To kill or not to kill a fetus is an ethical and moral dilemma for many people. Coercing someone to actively participate in something they morally disagree with seems wrong to me. That may just be me, though.

What I’ve proposed in past threads has been that the man has to pay for an abortion, or for delivery and adoption in cases where abortion would be significantly more dangerous. The woman doesn’t have to use the money for that purpose, but the man isn’t obligated to pay any more.

This doesn’t seem too bad, actually. It is sad that the father’s way of getting out of this is by paying a few hundred dollars and then running away, though.

Maybe those kids wouldn’t exist in the first place if Mommy didn’t expect someone else to pay for them.

Interesting. Mommy got pregnant through immaculate conception. Whaddayaknow.

[Debaser]

Oops, that last quote was not me, it was of course you with the face.

[you_with_the_face]

by Harmonix

[quote]
Disregarding the implied meaning of contraceptive measures, If a man explicitly states his disintrest prior to sex in having a child.Shouldn’t the woman understand that she is risking pregnancy, with full knowledge of the male party’s intent, for sex?

[quote]

If I’m suicidal and I ask you to hit me with your car, you are still liable for my death, even if you didn’t intend to murder me.

[Debaser]

by Mr 2001
Indeed. Pregnancy is a direct consequence, but childbirth is not. Only one person has any control at all over whether childbirth will occur, so that person should be responsible for the consequences of childbirth.

It’s entirely possible that if some form of “opt out” were put into place, the number of unwanted children would drop significantly enough that we could raise the remaining ones at taxpayer expense and still come out ahead.

Exactly.

Childbirth is not set in stone once a pregnancy is detected. A woman should not have a child if she doesn’t have the means to support it.

The net effect of this would be to improve the lives of children in this country because there would be less unwanted ones. This plan would be in the best interests of children. (But, not zygotes).

[minty_green]

A woman should not have a child if she doesn’t have the means to support it.

And thus is revealed the underlying desire to control women’s bodies.

[you_with_the_face]

It’s entirely possible that if some form of “opt out” were put into place, the number of unwanted children would drop significantly enough that we could raise the remaining ones at taxpayer expense and still come out ahead.

Only by a miracle. Millions of men already “opt out”; you think legalizing this choice will actually decrease the number of deadbeat dads? Through what counter-intuitive mechanism would that occur?

[Debaser]

What underlying desire?

By forcing unwanting fathers to pay for unwanted children, you are encouraging women to have children then they cannot support. I want to end this practice.

That’s it. No forced abortions, no abortion made illegal. Women can do whatever they want with their bodies. But, because they get to make this decision, they must live with the consequences.

[Debaser]

*Originally posted by you with the face *
**Only by a miracle. Millions of men already “opt out”; you think legalizing this choice will actually decrease the number of deadbeat dads? Through what counter-intuitive mechanism would that occur? **

It’s not counter intuitive.

Sure, more men would opt out. But, the women would know this ahead of time and more of them would choose to not continue the pregnancy. Thus the “number of unwanted children would drop significantly”.

Seems intuitive to me.

[minty_green]

There you go again, talking about mommies and daddies. The reason you pay child support is because of babies. You know, the third party you brought into existence by your actions? No amount of rationalizing and appeals to equity between men and women can make the fact of a child go away.

But hey, whatever, knock yourself out complaining about it. This is one of those instances where I’m happy enough just to have the law on my side and to know there’s not a damn thing you can do to make it change. Legal compulsion is a beautiful thing sometimes.

[you_with_the_face]

It’s not counter intuitive.

Sure, more men would opt out. But, the women would know this ahead of time and more of them would choose to not continue the pregnancy. Thus the “number of unwanted children would drop significantly”.

Riiiiiight. Women are well-aware that there is–even in today’s litigious society–no guarantee that they’ll ever see one red penny of Daddy’s money. And yet unwanted pregnancies are rather abundant. This fact tells me that the “opting out” option has little deterrence potential as it is, and there’s no reason to expect that making it legal will somehow make it make more deterring.

[pervert]

*Originally posted by Debaser *
**
Childbirth is not set in stone once a pregnancy is detected. A woman should not have a child if she doesn’t have the means to support it.

**

Can you tell me why this position is any more reasonable than this:

Childbirth is not set in stone when a man is offered sex. A man should not impregnate a woman if he doesn’t have the means to support it.

I still don’t understand how the female’s ability to terminate the pregnancy obviates the male’s responsibility toward the child. If a man has sex with a sick woman can he argue that he thought it was much more likely she was going to miscarry than go full term?

[robertliguori]

And thus is revealed the underlying desire to control women’s bodies.

Make you a deal, minty. Take your hands off my wallet and I’ll take mine off your body. Fair?

[minty_green]

It’s not my hand. It’s the hand of the child you created. Tough luck, that.

[In_Conceivable]

It isn’t the women with her hands on the man’s wallet. It is the child.