Precisely. The true test to see if someone in arguing in good faith about “male abortion” is to ask them whether they support a pre-coital contract relinquishing men from parental responsibilities if the women they intend to sleep with sign on the bottom line.
Strangely, this option is never the one that touted as a solution. Only the option that allows men to opt out of fatherhood after the horse is out of the barn.
Don’t we have orphanages? Foster care? But it sounds like you’re saying both parents. You misunderstand, I don’t think they should be able to do that. And neither can one parent do that without the other’s consent. My plan is to basically avoid the following situations:
*Parents both agree one would not/could not be a fit parent, and one parent would like to take full responsibility. The courts would be unable to go after the non-parental parent because he or she has given up full custody to the other
*Men who become a defacto parent to a woman’s child from another father would not be forced to continuing paying for that child once the man and the woman break up. Even if they were married, if it is not his biological child, once he’s no longer with the mother, he should have no responsibility towards the kid.
*Prevents people from changing their mind at a future date when they have voluntarily not asked for child support to asking for it due to some circumstance, like if the guardian parent made some bad choices with money, or whatever. The non-guardian parent should not be punished for it if they both agreed at one point to terminate parental rights
Understand that in all cases, parental rights were terminated for one parent after an agreement by both parents. This isn’t a matter of the man saying goodbye and never looking back. The woman has to agree.
Did I say that? What drove reproduction in primitive times was the biological urge for sex, there is no biological urge to procreate. The urge or desire to procreate is a psychosocial construct.
Involuntary and unconscious biology, not the desire/urge to reproduce since most non-human creatures are incapable of higher reasoning. Do you think non-human creatures copulate because they want babies or because of unconscious/involuntary biology?
How have you misunderstood the biological imperative with your background? Every species which reproduces sexually does so in order to propagate the species. The feel-good side benefits of sex are secondary to procreation, full stop. Every single sexual act with a potentially fertile partner of child-bearing age should be regarded as any loaded gun.
Ideally one should have recreational sex with a trusted partner and a prior contingency plan, but people are fallible creatures. The only way to guarantee a child-free experience is to take measures to prevent it yourself; no one else to blame. And don’t tell me that it is impossible to ensure worry free sex, because I, my spouse, and my ex have each been enjoying recreational sex since we were teenagers with only one (my fault) avoidable pregnancy and one deliberate, well-planned pregnancy.
What I find curious is that so often in threads we’re told that men seek out younger women (sometimes teens) because millions of years of biology tells them they need to mate with the fittest specimen. It’s not their fault they’re attracted to (often) girls half their age, it’s biology! Now those same instincts are gone for procreation?
I’m not accusing you personally of saying this about younger women/fittest, but many men here have floated that and you’re not the only person I’ve seen declare that reproduction isn’t a biological urge anymore. It just seems these things people cite are convenient to believe or not believe according to the need.*
I say this as someone who doesn’t like kids and if I found out I was pregnant I’d find myself an abortion clinic on the quick so it’s not me wanting to increase the population. This world is already overpopulated.
*Like in so many threads we’re told how stranger rape is rare enough not to really worry about but we’ve got at least one guy here worried about spermjacking as if this is common. Depends on who is doing the worrying I guess.
I don’t understand how you can argue the biological imperative as a justification for child support, seriously. You are refusing to view sex outside of biology - I am not talking about the feel good hormones released during and after sex (or after birth). I just don’t find the ‘biological imperative’ argument all that compelling in modern and enlightened societies existing outside the paleolithic era.
I don’t believe in intelligent design, evolution is not driven by reason or purpose, but by natural selection, mutation and adaption over time. Most species do not have reason, they are driven by involuntary biological processes. Humans, as a species do have reason ,and while we certainly have involuntary biological processes and urges, I do not find compelling evidence of any biological urge to procreate – while certainly reproduction driven by sexual urge contributed to the propagation of the species (as I conceded the biological purpose of sex already upthread), but so did rape and men spreading their seed far and wide with no recourse.
Sexual urge =/= Procreative urge
I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
THIS! This is why I find much of the ‘biological imperative’ argument bullshit in modern society. Most often it is just an argument to excuse sexist/misogynist bad male behavior and convince women their purpose on the planet is to be breeders. Human behavior and desires have a biological component (or more specifically, neurological) but a lot of the times people rationalize socially learned behavior as innate. No, I have no urge to procreate, I don’t like children and the thought of pregnancy and child birth makes me ill (for me, not other women).
And just to clarify, I work in clinical research (which requires a strong background in human biology, pathophysiology, microbiology, etc, but I am no biologist), a significant part of my work requires critical examination of the social determinants of health (the root of most disease states in the modern world) and comparative research on medical procedures in order to formulate ‘best practices’ in clinical healthcare.
I agree with this 100%. Excellent post.
I’m using the biological imperative as a reminder that mixing of gametes can result in procreation, and that intentions are worthless once a zygote is formed. It makes no difference if a man intended to have sex for fun; once sperm have met the egg and a potential third party is created the rules change and should favor the unwitting child.
This is a common misunderstanding, but no less incorrect for all that. The “biological imperative” does not speak of an urge felt to have babies by individuals in a population. It is merely an action which at least some members of the population must perform if the population is to exist as such for any length of time exceeding that of the individual’s lifespan. In and of itself, it speaks nothing of the nature of the motivations of the individuals who reproduce.
Think of a small child to whom you have given a novelty toothbrush shaped like a police car. He enjoys using it because when he brushes his teeth, it flashes lights and makes a sound like a siren. When he can’t find his special brush, he won’t do anything but rinse. The driving force behind his using the toothbrush every morning and night is not concern for his dental health, but simply his desire to see the brush light up. It still works!
Offer the $500 for an abortion, and tell her she is on her own. If she has moral qualms about that, it is her responsibility and hers alone, to deal with any associated expenses of choosing to have the child.
Actually the TLDR I got from the author was “We believe in the liberal approach to sex education and child rearing - of which I am here to plug and promote” “…oh and because of this, our wonderful country has a low pregnancy rate amongst teens…” "..this of course means that [insert real reasons] our country’s inhabitants are financially stable and women are capable of taking care of themselves. In the event men are needed, the government plays daddy.’
So now that we’re off the rails talking about ‘free abortion,’ what was the actual answer?
What happened with that one (your fault) avoidable pregnancy? Did you exercise your female prerogative and choose whether or not to keep the baby?
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that you may have spent a good while thinking about whether or not you wanted to invest the next eighteen years of your life into raising a child. I’m guessing that you even considered having an abortion.
And in all of that stressful time of your life, did you ever even once ask the man involved whether or not he wanted to invest the next eighteen years of HIS life into raising that child? Was it even a concern of yours?
Again, I’m a pro-choice male. But if I have no say in another individual’s choice I should not be forced to pay for it.
We were in a long-term committed relationship, and we made the decision to terminate the pregnancy together. He had a vasectomy the following week because he didn’t want to be put in a position to make that decision again. I elected to remain fertile and had one more planned pregnancy later on. See how he took full responsibility for his reproductive heatlh? See how I did the same? He continues to be happy and child-free in a relationship, and I have a child with a husband who also wanted children. Any more personal questions? I don’t mind sharing the details of how these three adults took charge of their reproductive potential.
Problem is, except in the case of rape and unless the courts decide that your partner proves willing and able to provide for a child and agrees to allow you to relinquish your rights, the responsibility for a life you helped create lies with the both of you. And I can no more force you to have a vasectomy than you can force me to have an abortion just because you didn’t intend to raise a child. Call unintended pregnancy negligence if you must; compare it to an accidental shooting with your loaded and unsecured gun. The owner of the gun is responsible for accidents regardless of intent.
Besides the ethical and moral responsibility to care for a life you helped create, you can’t possibly expect taxpayers to care for your child. There are risks inherent in having sex; makes no difference if you are a thoughtful, cautious adult or foolhardy teenager. If you create a child either by error or due to willful negligence, you are responsible for the financial support and/or care of that child. Of course you can attempt to bribe, bully, or coerce your partner to have an abortion, but you cannot force another to undergo a medical procedure because you made a foolish decision to put sperm in her.
If you want to be certain that you’ll never be responsible for raising an unwanted child, the onus is on you to prevent that from happening. It’s not anyone’s fault that only females can get pregnant; but it is entirely your fault if you fail to recognize that putting sperm within the vicinity of an egg can result in the creation of a child. This isn’t a matter of what is “fair” to you, it is a matter of providing for a child who would not exist if you had prevented your sperm from reaching an egg.
Talk about having him whipped.
I feel like you’re stating the obvious - anyone whom does understand this is a moron, and you needn’t bother reminding people, not worth your time.
Troppus, is biology important in determining who should take care of the child?
In your situation, why isn’t the biological father supporting the child? Why is your husband?
Biology is the primary determining factor in responsibility unless there is a legal agreement to relinquish rights and/or allow a willing parent to adopt a child.
You mean in my personal situation? My long term partner and I terminated a pregnancy and he sought a vasectomy because he never wanted children and because he realized that oral contraceptives aren’t foolproof, barrier methods can fail for multiple reasons, and he never wanted to be put in the position to make that decision again. I *did *want children, so we broke up and I married a man who also wanted children, so we deliberately created one.
For those of you disputing responsibility, would you be as nonplussed if you were held responsible for the discharge of an unsecured weapon in your home that led to the injury of another? Why do you feel that you can simply walk away from a product of your willing creation?
Your clarification changes my perception of your story greatly. From your previous post it sounded like you had your partner get a vasectomy then had a child from another man while still with the partner with the vasectomy.
Instead of likening it to an accidental discharge, I liken it more to a shooting range where someone walks in front of the shooters then complains when they were shot. I don’t want them to get shot and of course I would get medical attention for them, but they had all the power in the situation to avoid it and failed to, so the shooter shouldn’t be charged with attempted murder.
Well, to address the question posed in the thread title, the fair solution — interpreting “fair” as “equitable to both sexual partners” — would be for men to be able to opt out of responsibility for the consequences of pregnancy either by ingesting a high dosage of estrogens and/or progestins within hours of intercourse, or else by paying for and undergoing an invasive procedure in the few months thereafter. I’m not about to float this proposition, so I’ll wait until somebody cares to before offering an opinion on its merits.
Morally speaking, I agree with the principle offered by Molesworth 2 that one person isn’t responsible for the outcomes of another’s choice…but I don’t agree it follows that a woman’s right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy abrogates a man’s responsibility. The reason for this is that choice, for purposes of moral responsibility, is an action — mere inaction doesn’t constitute a choice made.
As an absurd example, while I could quite easily stand up right now and throw my keyboard out the window, the fact that I don’t do so doesn’t mean I’ve made a choice not to do it; it’s just the de facto consequence of me doing nothing at all, and confers no particular culpability on me. As a less absurd example, if I introduce you to a disabled homeless man and inform you that for a monthly amount you could afford, you could feed and clothe him, you aren’t responsible for his death from exposure should you choose not to pay. And finally, as a topically relevant example, if a woman is pregnant and does not elect to undergo abortion, the moral ramifications* are the same as if the option had never existed in the first place.
If conception required an action on the woman’s part separate from the sex act itself, then the “it’s her choice” argument would hold. But the bottom line in my view is that women, like anyone else, aren’t responsible for the choices they don’t make — only the ones they do.
*What exactly those ramifications ARE is another topic, but this post is long enough as it is.
An unborn child can make no such decision to enter the firing range. We’re back to “child support isn’t punishment; it’s intended to care for a child you were a willing party to create”
The choice was made prior to inserting sperm into a fertile woman. How do you justify absolving yourself of the obvious potential consequences of that choice?