You’re simply stating the current legal reality. What is wrong with catsix’s position, logically or ethically? Don’t ignore what she said. If I understand this position, it is that having sex does not, by itself, assign an iron-clad financial obligation to raise a child. If it did, then a woman would not be free to choose abortion to avoid this financial obligation.
Bifurcating the “right to end a pregnancy” from “the obligation to care for a child already born” does not change the fact that a woman can end a pregnancy she was a party to starting solely to avoid the financial obligation of raising that child. Men and women should have the same right to choose to avoid this obligation, is the position I’m hearing. To echo your earlier comment, the man would be taking responsibility by paying half the cost of the abortion; it would not be his fault if the mother decided to overrule and have the child, albeit without his financial assistence. Without repeating current law, explain what is wrong or inconsistent about this position. This thread is filled with “well, that’s just the way it is, I should think this is obvious, get over it” arguments, which are not arguments at all.
And for those who hold the position that as a practical matter, we must hold the biological father responsible despite his wishes that the pregnancy be terminated, consider this: How would this differ from a law that made randomly chosen men (or women) financially responsible for the babies of currently pregnant women, in instances where those mothers have the need?
Certainly the randomly selected man has no say in whether or not the pregnancy is terminated, just as the biological father does not (in contrast to the mother). But let’s consider the children, okay? Sure, there will be people unhappy about this, but from a practical perspective we don’t really have a lot of choices. We should just get over it and deal with it.
No. The absolute top priority must be the woman’s right to control her body, and if she doesn’t want to be an incubator for a fetus, no one else can force her into it.
In the reverse situation, though (she wants the baby and he doesn’t), I do believe he should be able to terminate his parental rights and obligations, at which point the woman might reevaluate her decision in light of the fact that she’ll have to take full responsibility for a child that only she wants.
“He shouldn’t have had sex if he didn’t want a baby!” Well, no. You could say the same thing about the woman if you wanted to keep pointing fingers; although it would mean forcing her to support the child physically for 9 months (at which point she could give it up for adoption), forcing the man to support it financially for 18 years isn’t much better. The fact that she has the final decision in whether a child is ever born means she has more responsibility for the outcome of that decision.
“It’s his fault for not wearing a condom!” Sorry, but no form of contraception is perfect. You could take every precaution and still end up pregnant (or impregnating someone). Even a 99.9% effective birth control method will leave one out of every thousand couples pregnant, and if the law can’t handle their situation, what good is it?
Two things. You’re missing the woman’s decision not to abort, and you’re missing the third option: let the woman bear the costs of her decision, not the man or society.
We seem to be in agreement that shared DNA does not create an obligation. However, here’s the argument: assume that female A undergoes partheogenesis, and becomes pregnant without any input from you. Her child will by default share enormous amounts of genetic code with you, by virtue of you both being people. Now, assume that she had sex with someone genetically similar to you, who promptly skipped town. This child may share as much DNA with you as your own child. Are you legally obligated to support it?
And if you can’t point to an action that indicates consent to support a child (and you can’t while massively interfering with a woman’s right to choose), then this is not a particularly ethically strong argument. The fact that society decides to do something does not make it right.
The financial costs of being forced to raise a child you don’t want and can’t afford are also clear.
By walking out the door, you know that I could well beat you over the head, steal a genetic sample from you, mix it up in a fertilized egg, implant it, and later present you with your child, which you would need to support for 18 years. You have taken an action that can result in pregnancy. Your risk, your responsibility.
Except that’s obviously crap. Taking an action that may result in a certain outcome only makes you responsible for the outcome if no one else’s choices are involved. If you walk around outside and I decide to beat you over the head, that was my decision. If a man and a woman have sex and she decided to keep the child, that was her decision.
For the man, the obligation begins as soon as he decides to have sex, for the woman, it begins when she has the baby. So what if the binding dcision occurs at different times. The fact is that the man’s body is not involved, so his choice is made at an earlier point that the woman’s.
Only if she chose to have an abortion. If she chooses not to, then he has fulfilled nothing.
It’s his fault she’s pregnant. It’s his child. and It’s her decision whether she’ll have it or not. His decision is made as soon as he voluntarily puts his sperm into her. Every adult male should know that intercourse has a chance of resulting in pregnancy- especially unprotected sex. Men have no right to expect that they will not have to be held responsible for their own sperm.
That’s the way it is because the inherent “unfairness” is built into the biology. Women are the ones who get pregnant. Their bodies are affected and men’s bodies are not. This is a point that should not even require explication.
Does the difference really need o be pointed out to you?
Ok, here it is. The random man on the street did not voluntarily implant his own sperm into a person he knew very well had a chance of becoming pregnant.
These guys are not victims and I’m actually kind of surprised that you would say that fathers have no responsibility to their children. I thought you were a family values guy.
If you leave someone stranded, one might say you have an obligation to get them back home. You can fulfill that obligation by giving them bus fare, even if they’d rather take a cab. One might also say the government has an obligation to feed citizens who are unable to provide food for themselves. It can do that by giving them enough food stamps to meet minimal standards of nutrition, even if they’d rather have surf 'n turf.
A man who pays for an abortion has provided one basic method to fulfill his obligation. He made that pregnancy, now he’s offering to unmake it. If she’d prefer to handle it another way, she can take the money from him and put it towards a more expensive option, paying the difference out of her own pocket.
“And every adult female should know the same thing. They have no right to expect they won’t have to be held responsible for their own eggs.”
That’s what I’d say if I had as little respect for a woman’s right to control her own body as some people seem to have for a man’s right not to sacrifice his lifestyle for someone else’s.
That’s fine if you’re only talking about abortion, but paying child support is not a biological process, and we don’t have to keep an unfair law just because it resembles a familiar biological process when you squint at it.
He’s provided nothing unless it’s the solution that the woman wants. He cannot escape his obligation that easily. If he doesn’t like it, he should have thought of that before he chose to ejaculate in her.
And they do. Getting an abortion is taking responsibility. Having the kid and forcing the father to pay his share of the chikld support is also taking responsibility. Once again, the guy chose to put his sperm inside her. He has no one to blame but himself.
If he doesn’t want to “sacrifice his lifestyle” (poor baby :rolleyes: ) he can wear a condom. As soon as he decides to have unprotected sex, he is deciding to take responsibilty for any potential pregnancy.
What’s unfair about making both parents equally responsible for the care of their children?
Actually, he has her to blame. Consent to sex does not equal consent to parenthood, as I’m sure you’d be the first to state if it were the woman’s rights who were up for discussion. If a woman chooses to be a single mother, then she should be a single mother, and not expect to have two incomes at her disposal to raise a kid she knows nobody else wants.
If she can’t afford that, well, too bad for her. Put the kid up for adoption, drop them off at a Baby Safe Haven or something like that. But what’s not right is legally forcing someone to pay for her choices.
This is exactly the same attitude that the ‘pro life’ movement throws at women. It paints those who seek abortions as immoral sluts and whores who couldn’t be bothered to use contraception. Such a viewpoint is unfair when applied to women, so why do you feel so justified in labeling a man who is faced with an unwanted pregnancy he wishes to terminate himself of as being an irresponsible slut/whore who didn’t use protection? Misandry is just as unbecoming as misogyny.
What’s so fair about allowing women to choose whether or not an unwanted, accidental pregnancy results in motherhood but not allowing men to choose whether or not it results in fatherhood?
Diogenes, you’re repeating yourself, but you’re not answering the question posed. Why must this be the case? Why is catsix’s position wrong?
Certainly he has. He has made a decision (that he wants no child and the consequent financial obligation) and has backed up that decision by paying for the abortion. If I offer to pay your tuition–based on a perceived duty–and you decide not to go to school, I have still fulfilled my obligation.
Interesting choice of words.
You keep saying this. Why must this be the decision-making point? Again, what is inconsistent or illogical with society saying both man and woman can decide whether or not to support a child while the woman is pregnant, since at that point a choice is available to remedy the situation?
Yes. This is a point not in dispute.
He is being held responsible. He can’t expect her to have an abortion and not pay for part of it. He must make this noble sacrifice as well.
The first sentence in this sequence is the only one that requires support. You have yet to provide it, IMO. A woman can abort or not, it’s up to her, right? That does not necessarily mean that a man must pay for the consequences of that decision. Please, don’t respond again by saying that he knew what the risk was when he had sex. The question posed does not relate to how the current law works. It has to do with how it should work.
Diogenes, I don’t need to point out my position on abortion to you, I’m sure. But this is an interesting “choice” issue, woontcha say? The syllogism I’ve asked you to address has a couple of components. If you allow the woman to have an abortion to avoid caring for an unwanted child, then you seem to accept that sex does not by itself create a financial obligation to care for a child. It’s that territory I’m exploring. Given that “fact,” then the man who did not implant his sperm is in no different position than the man who did; neither has an de facto obligation to commit to the financial duty that will exist after the pregnancy. If we force either to, it is as a practical matter, it seems to me, not because of anything else.
Explain why that is logically incorrect without invoking an argument of practicality (i.e., “somebody has to pay for the kid”).
And I am a family values guy, I suppose. I don’t believe there is a “right” to an abortion. Were that a given in this circumstance, there’d be no need to reconcile men and women’s parental duties. Unfortunately, that’s not the case.
Well, frankly, we already have that law. It’s called “pay your taxes.” But the other problem is this: society generally tries to hold people responsible for their actions. This is, for example, why we think it’s “fair” that if you cause a car accident, you have to pay for the damage you’ve done. And tort law also has a concept colloquially referred to as “the eggshell skull plaintiff.” What that means is that you take your plaintiff as you find him or her. If you tap someone on the head (battery) and that person happens to have an eggshell skull that caves in at your light little tap, it doesn’t matter that the damage you caused to that person by your little tap is greater than the damage (a little discomfort, maybe) your little tap would have caused to 99% of the population. We have chosen to hold your responsible for your actions, regardless of whether their consequences were likely.
You can liken this to pregnancy: a man and a woman have sex, risking pregnancy. The risk of preganancy may be greater or lesser, but it is (usually) present. We hold the man responsible for his actions, particularly where, as here, he knows before engaging in sex that the consequences include disease or 18 years of child support. He probably thinks it isn’t likely to happen (i.e., he thinks this plaintiff doesn’t have an eggshell skull), but if it happens, he knows he’s on the hook.
Given that background in answering your question, whether it if more fair to hold him responsible for his actions or to hold some random person responsible for his actions, your own notions of equity I think would dictate that we can’t hold random people responsible for this man’s child. Now, personally, I happen to think that’s the right result, from a public policy perspective.
Your proposition also does not take into effect the problem with giving a man a legal say in whether a pregnancy should terminate or not. Everyone has been tiptoeing around this issue, although the facts are already stated here in this thread: men and women are biologically different. That’s why men must make their decision about whether to bring a child into this world before women must make theirs. To paraphrase Diogenes’s colorful phrasing, a man makes his decision before he has sex. You may not like that, but because we as a society have moved away from notions of slavery that’s the way it is. Women carry the child, and it can have a significant impact on her health, as can an abortion. Is it “unfair” that a woman has more time to make a decision about pregnancy than a man? No. It just means that men and women are different.
We, as a society, still believe that in certain respects men and women should have different rights. There are jobs men can do that women can’t (mostly ones that have a disparate impact on the different reproductive systems). By contrast, we’ve also said that in most respects people of different races or ethnicities should have the same rights. Why? Because no matter your color, you’re still the same person, and a man is a man is a man. But gender is different, because of biology.
That’s the problem, I think. Those who are arguing that men should be able to walk away after impregnating a woman if she won’t terminate the pregnancy at his request need to explain why he should be permitted to dictate what she will or won’t do with her body, why she must accept the consequences to her health at his request. The answer I’ve seen is, if she doesn’t accede to his demand, he gets a walk and doesn’t need to support the child he didn’t want.
But that punishes his child, not the woman. Again, keeping this in the abstract, the child support payments go to raise the child, who is the innocent in this whole thing. Assume that the man walks; who pays to raise the child? Either the mother does it on her own, or society has to pay. How does society pay? Taxes, redistributed through social programs.
What if we offered insurance? Men could take out a “fatherhood” insurance policy. If a woman is proven to be pregnant with his child, the insurance policy pays his child support payments.
You’re asking what happens if a woman gets pregnant, has sex with someone else, but claims I’m responsible for the pregnancy? Frankly, I think I’d have a pretty-iron clad defense that I didn’t cause the pregnancy, but leaving that aside, I still don’t get the question. If you can explain it to the scientifically less-able (I couldn’t find “partheogenesis” in the dictionary so I kind of don’t get the whole example) it would be appreciated.
Agreed, but in this case society has it right. I understand people are uncomfortable. It feels as if we’re all on “The Price Is Right,” but men have to choose among Door Number 1, Door Number 2, and Door Number 3 before they know what’s back there, but women get to peek behind the door before choosing. I get that this feels inequitable. But then that comes back to a discussion of why we permit women to peek behind the door before choosing. The answer is “Mother Nature.” I need you to engage on that point: why is it fair to treat men and women differently in other areas of life, when biology makes a difference, but unfair to treat them differently in this regard?
There are lots of instances where you are responsible for other people’s choices if you create the situation (or assist in its creation) that requires that person to make a choice. Again, from a public policy perspective, I think that’s fair.
Can you people really not grasp the implications of these “rights” you’d like to bestow on men? Is it really that hard to figure out how abusive to not only the woman, but also the child, these supposed improvements could potentially be? Seriously, is it worth arguing against a position that is so obtuse? You’ve been given all the information you need to realise that while it’s certainly a “major pisser” for a man to have to support an unwanted child, he had a perfectly good opportunity before-hand to never be in that position. To allow him to absolve himself of that potential responsibility afterward because he doesn’t feel like it is inviting domestic disaster, and enough good information has been provided to you to make that painfully obvious. What are you really arguing about? I’m sorry, but I find it difficult to believe you’re debating in completely good faith here. Is this just some sort of machismo-soaked devil’s advocacy driven by ill-conceived “male solidarity”?
With all due respect, we keep running around the same track here. I understand what the law currently commands, and I likewise understand how a reasonably bright person might consider that in making decisions about when and with whom they have sex.
What I posit it that it is not fair to hold anyone responsible for the child’s financial welfare when there is a legal remedy that could prevent the need–i.e., abortion. If the woman chooses not to terminate the pregnancy against the man’s wishes, so be it. But it is then her financial responsibility–her choice yet again. The man who impregnates her is no different from the randomly selected man in one relevant aspect: neither may potentially want to bear the responsibility, there’s a remedy available, and we have already established (it seems to me) that there is not a de facto obligation associated with having sex. Otherwise a woman could not choose to have an abortion in order to avoid this financial duty, when clearly she can.
Again, a practical argument. My law that demands the same of a randomly chosen person accomplishes the same thing.
I am not tiptoeing around this! I am simply not accepting your “fact”–i.e., there’s no other possible scenario that is logical and ethically supportable.
No, no, no, there is nothing preventing us as a society from saying the decision point lies elsewhere! The question is where that decision point ought to be. The argument that says a man must decide before having sex assumes that the woman has the right to demand this duty despite the man’s subsequent wishes. Why must that be so? What is immoral about saying either can recommend abortion and have no further obligation?
No, please read again. Even if she ultimately decides what to do with “her” body, that does not necessarily lead to the fact that the man MUST live with that decision.
My decision not to donate 40% of my earnings to a local orphanage is not in the best interest of those children. Can society command me to do so? What if I don’t want to? Again, if your argument boils down to a practical one–i.e., somebody’s gotta pay for this kid–then there are all kinds of things that fit that mold. But my sexual act didn’t result in the financial obligation associated with those orphans! Right. And neither must the sexual act in question necessarily lead to a financial obligation; it only will if the woman decides to override the male’s wishes (and certainly the law currently permits this). If she exercises this choice, then she assumes the responsibility. After all, it’s not as if she can’t have an abortion.
Nonsense! If your argument rests upon the burden this will place on the woman and child, then we can use taxes to provide the support.
Yes, and he could kill himself while she’s pregnant, too. The fact that there were decision points that could have prevented the “duty” does not mean that because he didn’t exercise them, he must assume the responsibility.
Then I’d suggest you either try a little harder or just stay out of the debate.
In all honesty, the suggestion that not having a good appreciation of the implications beforehand ought to absolve one of their responsibility if they just prefer to shirk it is beyond my ability to accept. I cannot see how that is in any way a defensible position.
Thus far, the consensus of the opposition seems to be something like “A woman shouldn’t have the full right to choose; but under those circumstances, the man shoulnd’t have an equal liability for the consequences.” I see nothing just about this. It’s simply reserving the right to compel one to act with their body against their wishes, or back out if you don’t get what you want. It’s abhorrent. Hence my incredulity. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Let me help you out here. Your response is what we refer to as a “straw man.” One can concede categorically that a man can fully appreciate the consequences of his actions and still recommend that those consequences change. In fact, that’s what is in argument here. Not that someone ignorant of the implications of his acts should be absolved of any duty as a result of that ignorance. So, you may have trouble finding people to defend the position you’ve constructed for them.
Straw man redux. Please explain where you perceive the consensus argument–in the context of this thread–that a woman shouldn’t have the right to choose an abortion.
Gosh, I’m so ashamed now. Oh wait, I would be if I actually took the position you have assigned me. Strike three, sparky! Want to try again?
The point of ejaculation is the point of no return for the guy. That’s why his decision- and the responsibility for his decision- attach at that moment. That is the moment at which he is relinquishing his sperm to authority of another person. The woman has more leeway because it’s her body. She has the right to make decisions about her body that the man does not have the right to make about her body. Her ultimate decision does not have to be made at the point of ejaculation because she has autonomy over her own uterus.
Diogenes, you continue to beg the question. Why must ejaculation be considered the point of no return? And you understand that this argument does not command the woman to do something she doesn’t want to with her body, correct? That’s what I’m asking you to respond to. What is immoral or illogical about a circumstance where the woman gets to ultimately decide whether or not to have an abortion, but also assumes the financial consequences of her decision when she “overrules” the male? If your argument ultimately resides on a practical foundation–somebody’s gotta pay for Timmy’s shoes–then would an alternative (e.g., some form of welfare) not accomplish the same thing?
Do you need a biology lesson? I don’t understand what you’re asking.
My answer is not that “somebody” has to pay for Timmy’s shoes, but that daddy has to take responsibility for his own sperm. The reason that the woman can make a decision after the ejaculation is because she still has physical control of the pregnancy while the man, of course, does not. When I talk about “points of no return,” I’m talking about the physical mechanics of the pregnancy. The man has no control over that once the sperm leaves his body. The woman does. It’s not a point of no return for her. She can terminate. I’m not talking about legal or moral control of the pregnancy, I’m talking about physcal control. The decisions can be made at different points because the biological involvement is different.
I think it’s rather excruciatingly obvious that if the father can threaten to withdraw financial support, she is in a position of being compelled to have an abortion. In other words, she can blackmailed into doing something with her body she may not want to do. If the woman is of modest means, that’s no small danger. It’s a completely unacceptable arrangement. Raising taxes as a solution to spread the consequences of this blackmail out a little is beyond absurd.
Nice try with the straw-man canard. If the logic of your idea leads one inevitably to abhorrence, it’s not a straw man. It’s just abhorrent.
