If the pregnant man lives under a bridge, does he have the same rights as a rich, pregnant man? 
Men should have the right to ‘abort’ responsibility for an unborn child, Swedish political group say
False analogy, though. RickJay was responding to Magiver’s claim that
For a man to have the same “right” as a woman to “control as to whether they will bear the child” can apply only to men who are pregnant. No man (or woman) gets to decide whether somebody else’s pregnancy will be terminated.
The right to terminate a pregnancy is separate from the responsibility to support one’s child when and if a child is born. Once a child is born, the mother is just as much on the hook for its support as the father is.
yes but that’s not the discussion. The right to terminate responsibility through abortion only exists with the woman.
Because it’s happening to her body. It would be like giving someone else the power to decide whether or not a woman can have surgery (as long as we’re talking about someone who’s competant enough to make the decision for herself)
Pregnancy happens to a woman’s body, thus she has control over it. It may not be fair, but nature isn’t fair.
My issue here is the law ought to be savvy enough to see the reality and render judgement accordingly.
I am not well informed on the case but my understanding is none of the facts are in doubt. That he was a sperm donor and never meant to be a part of the child’s life seems uncontested. As such the court should consider that instead of nailing him for not dotting all the “I’s” and crossing all the “T’s” in a complex and (potentially) expensive process.
Where are they selling this miraculously unbreakable condoms that are 100% effective? Where I live there are too many scumbag women dodging their responsibilities to choose a partner that actually wants a child before letting their eggs be fertilized.
The point is it wasn’t a commitment the man agreed to. It was one he was drafted into. That’s a lot different than agreeing to raise a kid.
In many cultures especially the middle class culture dominate throughout North America and Europe for the last century deciding to have sex without being married was considered to be agreeing to the terms of no commitment.
Plenty of people believe that in lieu of a marriage license “Oh, by the way just letting you know you are on you own after this,” is the default state. Only someone with severe romantic delusions would assume sex means anything more than a physical act.
No, it means definitions of family can be different in other cultures.
The discussion is of legal control and whether men should have the same right to terminate their responsibility. In other words, if women have the right to terminate their responsibility (either through abortion or adoption) shouldn’t men have the same legal option.
If I start a boulder rolling down a hill should I be able to avoid responsibility because there is someone else capable of stopping it? If that person chooses not to stop it I’m off the hook because they could have? Did that person agree to stop it on my behalf?
If two people come to an agreement before a pregnancy occurs I think I could accept that as a legal construct, I wouldn’t really support it as my concern isn’t the parents it’s the child. I don’t want to be on the hook as a taxpayer for their decisions.
Once pregnancy has occurred I don’t think the man should be allowed to duck responsibility should a child be born.
Lets rephrase that. Once Pregnancy has occurred I don’t think the woman should be able to duck out of her responsibility to bear the child. Does that sound right to you?
You can’t have it both ways. There is no legal argument to be made allowing a woman a decision over her eggs while denying the same for men and their sperm.
If you could have rephrased my statement by just changing pronouns you’d have a valid argument, but you had to rewrite more than that. I also agree ‘Once pregnancy has occurred I don’t think the woman should be allowed to duck responsibility should a child be born.’
Women do have a right as to what happens with their body so they have the option aborting. Biology does not grant men similar circumstance.
I can have it both ways. Note it’s how the law currently works. You are the one arguing unconvincingly to change it.
I don’t think anyone should be forced to become a parent against their will. That’s a major, life-changing commitment, even if it’s just about paying money. Why can’t we assume that anyone participating in a one-night stand or a weekend fling has no interest in raising a child (assuming they actually take all precautions possible such as the woman is on some kind of birth control, the man either has a vasectomy or wears a condom, and if the condom breaks they reach for Plan B immediately) and let men off the hook? If the guy can’t even be bothered to wear a condom, well, we can assume he wants to have a child and should be on the hook for child support if the woman decides to not abort. Couples in an actual relationship should discuss the issue in detail fairly early on in the relationship. If you can’t come to an agreement about what to do if an accidental pregnancy happens, that’s a sign you should break up immediately.
Can’t we? This is law, not physics - an apparent contradiction is not inherently a problem.
Obviously the law differs at the moment. That goes without saying.
You can’t have the argument both ways. If a woman can choose her level of responsibility it should extend to men.
Men do have exactly the same legal options as women for terminating their responsibility to a child.
Some people seem to think that women have more say than men when it comes to putting a child up for adoption, but that is not the case. Consent of both parents is required to put a child up for adoption.
Women have the legal option of choosing to terminate a pregnancy, because for biological reasons women are the ones who can get pregnant. But a woman who terminates her pregnancy is not “terminating her responsibility” as a parent, because she’s not a parent at that point, legally speaking.
Men have no parental responsibilities during pregnancy, legally speaking, because they don’t have a child at that point. Once a pregnancy results in a child, men and women have the same parental responsibilities and the same legal options for renouncing them.
And in fact, no such legal disparity exists. Any decision that a woman can legally make about her own ova can also be made by a man about his own sperm.
A pregnancy is different from both of those situations. Pregnancy is the development of the combination of sperm and egg, within a woman’s body, into a baby over the course of nine months. Since that process happens entirely within a woman’s own body, intimately affecting her physiology, health and life, the decision whether to terminate that process (prior to fetal viability) rests with the woman, not with the man whose sperm did the fertilizing.
Likewise, if medical science progresses to the point where it’s possible for a man to incubate an egg fertilized by his own sperm within his own body, the decision whether to terminate such a pregnancy will rest solely with the man.
Should women be allowed to give birth anomalously so they can avoid responsibility in the same way many men do? It’s not unheard for a child to be born without knowing the fathers identity.
I completely agree with all of this, and I think it’s very unjust and unethical for a woman to try to make a man provide financial support for a child she knows he never wanted.
However, the question here is how and why the law should step in when personal ethics in a relationship break down (or when unforeseen catastrophe results in unexpected need). The law is tasked with deciding who should contribute to the support of a child when the parent(s) who want the child can’t provide sufficient support.
At present, the best solution the law has come up with is to assign that burden to any existing parent(s) who don’t want the child, on the grounds that they’re more responsible for the child than any unrelated party is.