Again, biology does not dictate when a man chooses to become legally responsible for a child he never wanted. Biology only dictates that a woman carries the risks after conception. That’s it. The most common restriction on abortion is that the woman’s husband consent. Those women are not biologically different. The law is different. And biology does not dictate whether a woman has a second choice. The law and, to a lesser extent, modern medicine allows that.
If the law stated that a man had a right to force a woman to abort his child if he did not want it, then the argument that a woman “should know better” would be just a s valid in your eyes?
My comment on the cavalier nature of the discussion was not directed at those who argue that a woman needs to be able to make her choices without coercion. It’s directed at those who think that “Well, if she has a baby it’s her problem. She could have aborted.”
And it seems that quite a number of the people saying that are actually anti-abortion rights, which makes their arguments strike me as remarkably dishonest.
Put this policy in place and men will have no incentive for practicing safe sex beyond the fear of STDs. Men can screw as many women as they want, using as little precaution as they want, and be able to walk away from the consequences just by signing some papers.
Does this make ethical sense to you?
DtC may be phrasing it in an extra blunt fashion, but there’s nothing vengeful about recognizing basic biology. Men are at an inherent disadvantage when it comes to arresting pregnancy and subsequent parenthood. This is mainly because of the physiological differences between men and women when it comes to pregnancy. It doesn’t have anything to do with law.
The way that you’ve proposed we go about making things more fair doesn’t seem all that fair to me. All choices are not equal. A man signing a waiver is not equal in magnitidue to a woman having an abortion. One choice involves a few flicks of the wrist and possibly some attorney fees. The other choices involves a surgical procedure that incurs risk to physical health (which may also include reduced fertility) and possibly mental and emotional health. You can’t really equate those two things. A women could conceivably die from an abortion. No one has ever died from signing their name.
All of this discussion also presupposes that a women will know she is pregnant well in time to decide whether or not to abort. That’s commonly not the case. But let’s say we put your policy in place. Won’t that simply dissuade women from coming out with the news until the pregnancy is too far along to abort legally?
Good points. As for the last, I imagine the law would have to include something about ‘timely notice.’ Like I said, the details are beyond my ability to sketch out for every instance, but I don’t think it’s beyond the law to resolve.
As, for the former, you make the same mistake **Shodan ** makes- you assume carrying to terms as some sort of no-cost, health neutral option. I don’t believe that this is the case.
As for the ethics of this- I simply want to increase the choice involved at every stage here.
- wanna go out? yes/no
- wanna fuck? yes/no
- wanna use birth control? yes/no
- wanna have a baby? yes/no
- wanna have a child for the next 18 years of your life? yes/no
The woman has a choice at every step, the men are cut off after 3. **Dio ** and his supporters don’t seem to realize that, but for some court decisions, women would be cut off at 3 as well- and the arguments in favor of this are the same for both genders.
No, I am not implying that - I mentioned the risks and unpleasantness of pregnancy in the same post.
Not equitable to the woman or the child? I think I don’t understand you.
The “reasonable cut-off” is set by the biological fact that women carry children to term, and men don’t. Thus, access to a procedure that will interrupt pregnancy will be available to women and not to men.
I can’t tell - are we agreeing, or disagreeing?
It doesn’t establish the law, that’s correct. The biological factors (which are inherently “unfair”, no doubt about it) are what causes the law to be as it is. The extra, “biological” factor that women carry all the risks and associated costs of both abortion and pregnancy is taken into account in fixing the law.
Simply passing a law that men could renounce responsibility for a pregnancy they assisted in creating would leave these inherent, “biological” factors unaddressed. This would be, in my view, inequitable or “unfair” or whatever you want to call it.
Who was it that said that the SATs aren’t unfair, but life is unfair, and the SATs just reflect this? Same here, more or less. It’s unfair that women should bear the brunt of pregnancy and abortion. Thus, a law that allowed men to renounce the responsibility and thus avoid all the costs is “unfair”. They can inherently avoid the physical costs of pregnancy and/or abortion. Women can’t. The law as it currently stands reflects this.
Hey, it had to happen eventually.
Now we need to worry about who convinced who. 
Regards,
Shodan
The obligations of that subsequent parenthood are defined by law, not biology.
Not sure what your point is here. A man who doesn’t sign a waiver isn’t facing the same risk as a woman giving birth either. The fact is women are the ones who get pregnant, and the law can’t change that, but that doesn’t mean we should make things any harder for men than they need to be.
Not if they’re required to give timely notice. In any case, even if they don’t know they’re pregnant until it’s too late to legally abort, they can still choose to give the child up for adoption when they realize they can’t afford it on their own.
It’s common for women to go three months into pregnancy and not know they are pregnant?
Really?
I need to see a cite on that.
How about not making things harder for women than they have to be?
Sounds good to me. Any ideas that don’t involve letting them have kids on someone else’s tab?
A point of clarification. If we disallow abortions, are men now responsible for any children they father or are we pushing the goal post to adoption as well? “You don’t want to give up the baby for adoption, well take of it yourself?” Yes?
In other words, is there a case in which an unwilling father can be held financial responsible for his offspring?
According to this:
19% of women enter into pre-natal care in the second trimester. The cause for delay is given as “unaware of pregnancy” for 37% of those women.
This is only one study, in only one state, and the women could be lying.
My calculations say that’s about 7%. I don’t know what people would consider “common,” but I’d say that qualifies.
My connection is incredibly slow or I’d look for more or better cites.
I think that many single moms go through with things with an inaccurate view of their partner’s commitment to the future child. If the guy you’re seeing isn’t going to be around, wouldn’t you want to know? And if he did walk out, wouldn’t you love to have a legal document strengthening your position re: child support?
I’m not a big fan of on again, off again parental relationships, and unfortunately, I’ve had to witness a lot of them. I think it does children more harm in the long run to have a father (in this case) that’s ambivalent, resentful, or hostile to their existence than no father at all. If mom wants to go it alone, more power to her- and I’m not advocating dismantling a social safety net- but better that all parties involved know that she will be going it alone as soon as possible.
Saying that a man should make a legal obligation to a child he may or may not want just by having sex addresses the biological “unfairness” is spurious, to say the least. Abortion laws address that. What it does address is the welfare of the child the woman chose to have by choosing to have sex, and then choosing to keep the baby.
“Life” is unfair. Biology puts the burden after conception on the woman. You cannot, in good faith, place an “unfair” burden on a man while attempting to abrogate the same burden on a woman.
A woman knows that life places an inherent risk to her if she has sex. A man knows that laws place an extraneous risk on him if he has sex. The woman’s risk is still more apparent because there is no such thing as “Implied Motherhood”. So who has the fundamental obligation to “know better”?
Seems to me you’re advocating letting men have kids on someone else’s tab. Or is it just when women do it that you dislike it?
Well, I would like to know that before I got pregnant by him.
You mean a legal document making it clear that he has no intention of paying child support? No, I don’t see how that is fair or advantageous to the mother or to the child.
I am afraid I don’t see how that is better. I can see the advantage of finding out your boyfriend is a deadbeat at some point where you can still have an abortion, but I thought we were discussing situations where the woman has definitely decided she doesn’t want an abortion.
As I understand it, the current state of the law (perhaps Bricker or another legal eagle will correct me if I am wrong) is that men are presumed to be responsible for the children they sire. And I don’t see a change in that presumption as being good for women or their children. The key point is thus, not when the mother finds out she isn’t getting child support, but offering men the option of not paying child support if their partners refuse to abort.
It is this “Get Out of Child Support Free” card that I am rejecting as unfair.
Not as far as I can tell. Abortion laws reflect, without substantially changing, the biological fact that women bear children and men don’t. Abortion may be easier in many instances than giving birth, but it still bears a non-zero risk of death or injury that the father does not have to bear.
I don’t see the burden of supporting children you helped to create as an unfair burden. If you would really rather avoid it. And it strikes me as unjust to expect a woman to undergo an invasive procedure against her will just to get you off the hook.
It’s not like the woman voluntarily initiated adoption proceedings without my knowledge and against my will, and sent the bill for child support to me. That only happens when women have to go on public relief because their deadbeat boyfriends walked away from the children they fathered.
Then they want to complain that it is “unfair”? Not from where I sit.
Regards,
Shodan
That can easily be done by expecting women not to attempt to raise kids they can’t afford. If they choose to be a single mother, then they should be singularly in support of that child. You wouldn’t expect someone else to open up a wallet and help them feed a dog just because those two people once took a trip to the animal shelter together, would you?
That would only be true if the kid was living with him and someone else was dishing out a substantial portion of their income to finance his choice.
What we’re talking about is a termination of all the things associated with fatherhood: he would have absolutely no rights to that child. That is, after the kid is born, the person(s) who by choice assume(s) full responsiblity for the raising of that child has to bear the financial burden of that child.
How is it not fair to say to a woman ‘If you choose to raise this child by yourself, that means by yourself, without extra unearned income directly from someone else’s pocket.’?
Situations where she’s decided that she wants to raise the kid by herself, as a single mother, without daddy around, as long as she can count on someone else giving her half the money for the kid’s upbringing. ‘I want to do this by myself, but only if you shovel out money for it.’
Yet another moral judgment that most poeple in this thread would find absolutely appalling if it was made regarding women. By the way, did you know that a much larger percentage of non-custodial mothers default totally or partially on child support than fathers?
No one should be forced to be a parent without his or her own consent. That’s what would be fair.
It would be fair if the decison were truely unilateral. Forcing a woman to undergo an abortion, against her will, in order to be able to avoid a consequence that a man can avoid simply by saying so is unfair. Unfair based on biology, but unfair nonetheless.
Colorfully expressed, but basically accurate. Although I think you are implying that the mother is rejecting all involvement by the father except financial, which may or may not be true.
Well, if it is any comfort to you, I would condemn a mother who abandoned her children at least as strongly as I would a father. And, if your allegations about maternal deadbeats is true, then they are also reprehensible people who ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Beyond that, it is just a tu quoque. Are you suggesting that the rate of deadbeat mothers should cause us to overlook deadbeat fathers?
That’s rape. Being able to walk away from a child you helped create is not the same thing.
The point has been made in this thread that many abandoned mothers have to resort to public relief because they do not receive the child support the courts have determined they should. Isn’t this a case of me, the taxpayer, being forced to support a child I had no role in creating?
And I didn’t even get laid out of the deal.
Regards,
Shodan
I started reading through this thread and the first two things that come to mind is whether this is a legal or a political question. As abortion has movements rooted in both, I supposed this question pertains to both.
It’s the idea about what is fair. Fair in regards to what - money? Fair in regards to parenting? If you think the mechanism to solve that problem relies as a technical solution, I’d put you to how infertility has created moral dilemas of the same magnitude. An infertile couple has six embroyos frozen, she bears one to full term, they get divorced. The ex-husband wants the other embryos destroyed. She wants to keep them because they are her children. He doesn’t want to fund all of them.
My point is that this discussion appears to be more about control than it is about parenting. A couple gets pregnant. They assume that is a risk when they have sex and despite precautions, get pregnant. She doesn’t want to carry a child for 9 months, bear it and raise it. It is the burden of carrying, bearing and raising a child - when you can find how that job is ever fair and technology won’t fix parenting. Argue all that you want to the burden of childcare rests 90 percent on the mother. Saying that men are screwed by the choice for women to have an abortion seems to fail in my opinion, b/c with it is not just having a baby - it’s, she’ll be my wife and have the baby as well. Those decisions are not altered by technology and forcing her to have a baby that they didn’t plan for is demanding it is done against her will.
The question asks about a father’s rights being excluded from abortion. Abortion by legal definition is not defining the rights of the unborn or the father as it is designed to protect a woman’s choices for her own body.
I think this argument is better defined when you are addressing rights of the unborn. The rights of a father are limited, because biologically abortion is not something that is willed against or for their bodies.
If that makes any sense - my point is that legally it is addressing abortion as a medical decision for a woman. The moment men are trumping that decision as the right of the father - then where do you draw the line - when conception begins or by intent? If a father had testicular cancer and decided he didn’t want to bank his sperm and his wife aruged that she wouldn’t be able to bear his children?
You’re talking about an unplanned pregnancy. No matter how this argument evolves - I don’t see men’s behavior changing.
To the same person that saying his decisions stop at number 3. That is really telling, because I’ve argued that they are all but willing to go to number 3 and after that it’s her decision to burden herself with. My point is that I don’t see abortion altering men’s behavior w/ regard to risk of pregnancy and sexual relations.
The question was posed as though you were in a long term relationship. I have a harder time accepting that long term relationships have not already discussed what they would do to plan for that scenario if it happened.
The argument that technology makes it fair - is laughable. Technology gives us more moral dilemas with each iteration. If technology doesn’t than policy does. Consider that doctors and pharmacists are siting religious reasons to withold prescribing birth control as prescribed abortion for potential embryos. The decision about who is bearing it to term needs to be a decision a mother makes.
How many people are going to make a decision that I have to bear a child to term and raise it as any more or less fair than a man that has to provide monetary is a losing argument, especially w/ regard to what is perceived “fair.” Parenting will never be fair. That aside no matter how I try to empathize with a man that wants his unborn child to live - that he could have escaped something that the mother may not want to be a parent is difficult to get my arms around. If he’s insistent that she have it anyway knowing she doesn’t want to be a parent, then I think he’s controlling an outcome - is own and has nothing to do with her rights or opinions on the subject, let alone his baby’s rights as well. You manipulate a reluctant mother to have a baby, it affects the child, a mother will not be as good to a child knowing she regrets this responsibililty, as compared to a mother that wants a baby.
Yes I know - men get roped in to being a father before they want to be, but the question is about imposing pregnant women to carry their babies to term and the question afterward is always - then what? are you going to help provide or raise it if she doesn’t want that responsibility?
Does the same father that wants this child - prepare to raise it himself. I don’t think that was in the O.P.
Nobody is forcing anyone to have an abortion. The only thing people are arguing is that a man should not be held responsible for a woman’s unilateral decision. Just as a man could hypothetically sign over his rights, a woman would be able to do the same. I don’t see how this is unfair. If a woman decides not to have an abortion, and the father decides he doesn’t want to be responsible for the kid, the woman can also make the same choice. The baby would be put up for adoption, and a suitable family could be found.
Under the system others are advocating, both parents would be able to “walk a way from a child they helped create”. Now, only a woman has that choice. She can have an abortion, and, in many cases, give away or put the child up for adoption w/o the father’s approval. In many of those cases, the father may not even know about the child. How is that fair?
I think I’m actually on your side on this issue, I just don’t think putting forth weak arguments is particularly productive. It seems clear to me most people feel the way you do because the system, as it exists now, is the least burdensome and abhorrent to society. It’s fine to make laws based on these feelings, but it’s wrong to pretend they are fair to all parties involved.
Well, if you’d been paying attention, you’d have maybe noticed Diogenes the Cynic (who, by the way, needs your help the way I need to go on a 10,000-calorie diet) arguing that women don’t get two choices to men’s one, which was one point I was arguing against.
There’s another; a man HAS the post-conception choice to bug out and take no responsibility for the life he helped conceive. It’s iniquitous, but there it is: men are physically capable of walking away from a pregnancy they didn’t want. I do not speak here of rights and wrongs. I never in all my life intended to run out on a pregnant girlfriend (fortunately my resolve was never tested, so I get to file this under but-for-the-grace-of-God and not look-at-me-I’m-wonderful) and I intend to teach my sons the same… out of self-interest if nothing else. We don’t, however, merely say “Oh well, the man’s got a choice the woman hasn’t. That’s just tough, that’s biology”; instead we set about doing something about the situation. The question therefore of what to do about a woman’s post-conception choice is perhaps not something we ought to wave away by saying “Oh well, the woman’s got a choice the man hasn’t. That’s just tough, that’s biology”.
But mostly, yeah, I was arguing against this quaint position that 1 + 1 <> 2. 'K?