Got curious about something... (regards abortion and father`s duties)

[Koldo]

Yes, having to pay child support is one possible consequence of your own choices. Having a girlfriend who decides to abort your child is another possible consequence. If these consequences don't appeal to you, it would be best for you to be extremely careful not to cause any unplanned pregnancies.

Oh please...

 

[Koldo]

:biglaugh:
Then you should be receiving an academy award for your performance in this thread!

I am glad you are having fun.

Thats right.
It is the womans body that is required to take the fetus to term.
How you can twist that to mean that the fetus is the womans body, I have no idea.

so much for clinging to truth, eh?

Where did you support that statement?

So you are unable to point out where you have allegedly already explained it?
Wow.

I am able to do it, certainly.
But you will benefit much more reading all my posts.
Take my advice and do it.

i take it you are content with your merry-go-round?

Are you?

 

[McBell]

It binds the woman to support the child.

I understand that you think meely repeating something enough will make it true, but the truth is, in the real world, it does not work that way.

Why should her?
If the sex binds the responsibility to support a child for a man, why should the woman be able to throw away this responsibility by the means of an abortion?

you claim to cling to truth but throw truth out the window the first time it becomes inconvenient...
if the woman gets an abortion then BOTH the man and woman are opted out of supporting the child.
If the woman decides to take the pregnancy to term, then BOTH the man and woman have the responsibility to support the child.

so, where is the double standard again?

 

[McBell]

Nope, the are arguing the MAN agreed. The woman is totally off the hook.

:biglaugh:
yes, because pregnancy is the woman being totally off the hook...
:biglaugh:

 

[Me Myself]

I understand that you think meely repeating something enough will make it true, but the truth is, in the real world, it does not work that way.


you claim to cling to truth but throw truth out the window the first time it becomes inconvenient...
if the woman gets an abortion then BOTH the man and woman are opted out of supporting the child.
If the woman decides to take the pregnancy to term, then BOTH the man and woman have the responsibility to support the child.

so, where is the double standard again?

The woman is choosing for both.

The man is not choosing for both.

Proper standards would be each choose for itself. or Both must support the child.

 

[Me Myself]

:biglaugh:
yes, because pregnancy is the woman being totally off the hook...
:biglaugh:

As much as she chooses to be.

 

[McBell]

The woman is choosing for both.

The man is not choosing for both.

Proper standards would be each choose for itself. or Both must support the child.

the woman is the one who has to deal the pregnancy if chooses that route.
The woman is the one who has to deal with the abortion if she chooses that route.

What exactly is the man doing during those two periods?
Oh yeah, whining about how his paying child support is a much bigger responsibility than actually raising a child...

 

[Alex_G]

My opinion regarding parental duty and financial support, namely enforceable support, is that it’s not a clear cut subject, both practically and in a moral sense.

When two people have sexual relations, there is scope for it to be for pleasure alone, with no procreative intention what so ever. This would be strongly implied by the implementation/agreement of contraception by both people. Any pregnancy that might thereafter occur would be accidental, an incidental outcome of the interaction as opposed to a principle one. I think the motive behind sex by both parties is an important factor to consider when discussing what each person actually agreed to, and therefore what can be reasonably expected of them, or enforced upon them regarding something like child support.

Of course there's a small risk, known to people, but as a rule contraception is incredibly effective, and i think its defendable for someone to engage in protected sex whilst not being prepared to agree to protracted upbringing and support of a child. Or rather that such an agreement can't be inferred from the mere participation in said protected sex. Perhaps if success rates were as low as 40%, one could expect greater responsibility in its engagement.

I think that to engage in protected sex with someone for casual/pleasure reasons, it’s not unreasonable to assume that both parties therefor imply an express opposition to getting pregnant. Should it then occur, through accident or due to malfunction, i think it’s reasonable for one person to assume the same opposition to pregnancy exists, and that it would be rectified early on, provided that there were no personal, cultural or circumstantial reasons to assume otherwise, and that these were reasonably foreseeable. For the female to decide to subsequently keep the child, that’s pretty much changing the terms, which should factor in to the rights and responsibilities of the male.

In the context of legally recognised gender equality i think it can be argued with some strength that men should have the same human right to relinquish all future parental rights and financial responsibility at an early stage, leaving the female with the same choices regarding her own future and body as she did before. I at least dont see it as an easy conclusion that the male partner should automatically be forced to support something he might never have agreed to, and to be so easily the target of loaded language and insults like 'manning up' and 'dead-beat' should such a status quo be challenged. It doesnt strike me as perfectly fair, and something worth the attention of genuine and thoughful review.

Being an issue best examined case by case, i can see plenty of situations where men who really should be there supporting try and get out of it, and shame on them, but i also see poor sods getting forced to pay 20 odd years of support (which is damn significant), for very unfair reasons. Obviously a system will have certain minor failures, which is to be expected, but a blanket rule to enforce male partners to financially support whatever seems like a pretty large sacrifice on the part of male rights.

On the flip side of things however, from the perspective of the child to-be, i can understand a strong argument that appeals to the human rights of the child to have a certain quality of life, and the common responsibility of that falling to the parents, and being enforceable to protect the child’s wellbeing.
.

 

[Me Myself]

What exactly is the man doing during those two periods?
Oh yeah, whining about how his paying child support is a much bigger responsibility than actually raising a child...

He didnt choose that responsibility the woman did.

So double standards.

 

[McBell]

He didnt choose that responsibility the woman did.

So double standards.

He chose that possibility when he engaged in sex.
so still no double standard.

 

[Alceste]

You did suggest that having sex indicates men agree to take responsibility and support a child if the woman gets pregnant as a result. Didn't you?

No. Nothing to do with "agreeing" to anything. I listed his options for birth control and pointed out that if he chooses not to avail himself of these options, pregnancy is a possible outcome, and a consequence of his decisions. This is the rationale society uses to deem it fitting that IF a child is born, he take his fair share of the burden of raising it.

And I pointed out that the woman is in exactly the same situation, with the only difference being that she still has a few birth control options remaining to her after having sex. That's just a statement of fact. Like the man, if she chooses not to make use of these options, she is held responsible for raising the child.

 

[Me Myself]

My opinion regarding parental duty and financial support, namely enforceable support, is that it’s not a clear cut subject, both practically and in a moral sense.

When two people have sexual relations, there is scope for it to be for pleasure alone, with no procreative intention what so ever. This would be strongly implied by the implementation/agreement of contraception by both people. Any pregnancy that might thereafter occur would be accidental, an incidental outcome of the interaction as opposed to a principle one. I think the motive behind sex by both parties is an important factor to consider when discussing what each person actually agreed to, and therefore what can be reasonably expected of them, or enforced upon them regarding something like child support.

Of course there's a small risk, known to people, but as a rule contraception is incredibly effective, and i think its defendable for someone to engage in protected sex whilst not being prepared to agree to protracted upbringing and support of a child. Or rather that such an agreement can't be inferred from the mere participation in said protected sex. Perhaps if success rates were as low as 40%, one could expect greater responsibility in its engagement.

I think that to engage in protected sex with someone for casual/pleasure reasons, it’s not unreasonable to assume that both parties therefor imply an express opposition to getting pregnant. Should it then occur, through accident or due to malfunction, i think it’s reasonable for one person to assume the same opposition to pregnancy exists, and that it would be rectified early on, provided that there were no personal, cultural or circumstantial reasons to assume otherwise, and that these were reasonably foreseeable. For the female to decide to subsequently keep the child, that’s pretty much changing the terms, which should factor in to the rights and responsibilities of the male.

In the context of legally recognised gender equality i think it can be argued with some strength that men should have the same human right to relinquish all future parental rights and financial responsibility at an early stage, leaving the female with the same choices regarding her own future and body as she did before. I at least dont see it as an easy conclusion that the male partner should automatically be forced to support something he might never have agreed to, and to be so easily the target of loaded language and insults like 'manning up' and 'dead-beat' should such a status quo be challenged. It doesnt strike me as perfectly fair, and something worth the attention of genuine and thoughful review.

Being an issue best examined case by case, i can see plenty of situations where men who really should be there supporting try and get out of it, and shame on them, but i also see poor sods getting forced to pay 20 odd years of support (which is damn significant), for very unfair reasons. Obviously a system will have certain minor failures, which is to be expected, but a blanket rule to enforce male partners to financially support whatever seems like a pretty large sacrifice on the part of male rights.

On the flip side of things however, from the perspective of the child to-be, i can understand a strong argument that appeals to the human rights of the child to have a certain quality of life, and the common responsibility of that falling to the parents, and being enforceable to protect the child’s wellbeing.
.

Fair points all around.

I gave emphasis to what we have witnessed in this very thread, being also very well reflected in reality outside the forum.

 

[Alceste]

Nope, the are arguing the MAN agreed. The woman is totally off the hook.

You may realize by this point that neither of those other people you quoted are me. Nice try, though!

 

[Me Myself]

He chose that possibility when he engaged in sex.
so still no double standard.

No, not in that part.

The double standard is in the part I quoted. The sex part both had a choice, I am not talking about rape here.

 

[Alceste]

Oh please...

Please what? Do you think it's unreasonable for me to suggest that if you are uncomfortable with ALL the consequences of impregnating a woman by accident, you should do everything in your power to avoid it?

 

[Me Myself]

You may realize by this point that neither of those other people you quoted are me. Nice try, though!

You said nobody

 

[Alceste]

The woman is choosing for both.

The man is not choosing for both.

Proper standards would be each choose for itself. or Both must support the child.

The man can just as easily "choose for both" by wearing a damn condom. What's wrong with you guys? Jeez. It's not rocket science.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Fair points all around.

I gave emphasis to what we have witnessed in this very thread, being also very well reflected in reality outside the forum.

And I have stated repeatedly that a man can go through legal proceedings to relinquish his obligations to a child he has fathered.

But I also think he has an obligation to at the very least help find other sources of support for the child if the mother decides to give birth. To simply walk away after the child is born isn't the best option.

Go through the process of extraditing yourself, name off the certificate, no parental rights to see the child, no support payments, and no right to decide what is best for the child. The best and most ideal obligation, however, is to help the mother find an alternative source of support if she is unable to independently provide the necessary resources.

 

[Me Myself]

The man can just as easily "choose for both" by wearing a damn condom. What's wrong with you guys? Jeez. It's not rocket science.

and the woman by wearing her femidom.

The thing is that conception already having had happened suddenly the woman has more legal rights than the man over whether or not BOTH will be parents.

This makes no sense.

 

[Me Myself]

And I have stated repeatedly that a man can go through legal proceedings to relinquish his obligations to a child he has fathered.

Really? o.o I must have missed that post.

So you say the first answer to the OP was incorrect and the father can indeed let go of his parental rights and does not have any economical responsibility towards the child?