The Right of the Man to Choose...

[Druidus]

This thread is not about abortions, but rather, about the societal concept that if a female becomes pregnant with a partner, that partner MUST stay with her to raise the child in order to remain honourable.

I disagree.

If they did not use a condom, the fault is as much the female's as the male's. If they did, well, accidents happen, it's no one's fault. Anyway, now she's pregnant, and both are in a panic. Let's say the male doesn't want a kid, and/or doesn't want to marry this soon. Why should he have to, lest he be looked on disfavourably by the community? If he puts forth the option of adoption, but she doesn't want to do that, why should he be bound by her choice? If she wants to keep the child but he doesn't, fine, that's her choice to keep the child. But his choice was to not keep the child, and therefore, he will move on. The point is, why should his life be ruined merely because of a choice she makes?

Just a thought...

 

[No*s]

There is already a thread on this that Darkdale started here.

 

[Druidus]

Ah, thank you then.

 

[No*s]

Np

 

[michel]

This thread is not about abortions, but rather, about the societal concept that if a female becomes pregnant with a partner, that partner MUST stay with her to raise the child in order to remain honourable.

I disagree.

If they did not use a condom, the fault is as much the female's as the male's. If they did, well, accidents happen, it's no one's fault. Anyway, now she's pregnant, and both are in a panic. Let's say the male doesn't want a kid, and/or doesn't want to marry this soon. Why should he have to, lest he be looked on disfavourably by the community? If he puts forth the option of adoption, but she doesn't want to do that, why should he be bound by her choice? If she wants to keep the child but he doesn't, fine, that's her choice to keep the child. But his choice was to not keep the child, and therefore, he will move on. The point is, why should his life be ruined merely because of a choice she makes?

Just a thought...

O.K, so I take it she consented to sex ? If so, then the responsability is equally shared.

I agree that he and she both have the right to what they want, but ought to realize that what they did was (even through sheer stupidity) to bring a child into the world.

They both have a duty towards that child (Just by having consentual sex, without protection). The child's needs are paramount in this case.

But his choice was to not keep the child, and therefore, he will move on. The point is, why should his life be ruined merely because of a choice she makes?

Now that is where your thinking is flawed(IMO); he made a choice by having concensual unprotected sex. The fact that his life "May be ruined" is 50% his own fault, and he should be made responsible for a life he has brought into the world.

If he didn't want any chance of being pinned down, he shouldn't have had unprotected sex (which as we all know is an absurdity by the fact of the spread of HIV).

 

[No*s]

Since it appears that this thread is going to take off here, I'll throw in my two cents. If someone makes a child, the woman doesn't have the right (IMO) to abort it to avoid the responsibility. Likewise, the man doesn't have a right to not pay for the survival of the child.

If a person takes out Mr. Happy to play, then he also has to be willing to accept the consequences. He's obviously old enough to understand responsibility and shouldn't be shielded from his own decisions.

 

[Druidus]

Now that is where your thinking is flawed(IMO); he made a choice by having concensual unprotected sex. The fact that his life "May be ruined" is 50% his own fault, and he should be made responsible for a life he has brought into the world.

Yes, but it was her choice, not his, to keep the child. He wants to put the child up for adoption, or abort the child. She doesn't. Just because she wants to keep the child doesn't mean he should be bound to this decision.

He's obviously old enough to understand responsibility and shouldn't be shielded from his own decisions.

His decision is to put the child up for adoption. She wants to keep the child. Why should he have to be bound by her decision to keep the child?

To put this another way, from the perspective of the child:

If, indeed, they stay together and raise the child, though the male does not wish to, there will be problems. First, the stresses of raising a child might make it hard to finish school for both of them. This means the child will be suspect, likely, to a low income. Secondly, there are likely to be tensions between the couple. Why should a child be brought up in such an atmosphere right from the beginning? Clearly, IMO, the best thing to do is place the child up for adoption.

Lets put it in still another view:

What if the female want to put the child up for adoption, or abort the child? The male has absolutely no say in this decision. Even if he wants to keep the child, he can't if she doesn't want to. She's not bound by his decision, why should he be bound by hers?

 

[michel]

Yes, but it was her choice, not his, to keep the child. He wants to put the child up for adoption, or abort the child. She doesn't. Just because she wants to keep the child doesn't mean he should be bound to this decision.


His decision is to put the child up for adoption. She wants to keep the child. Why should he have to be bound by her decision to keep the child?

To put this another way, from the perspective of the child:

If, indeed, they stay together and raise the child, though the male does not wish to, there will be problems. First, the stresses of raising a child might make it hard to finish school for both of them. This means the child will be suspect, likely, to a low income. Secondly, there are likely to be tensions between the couple. Why should a child be brought up in such an atmosphere right from the beginning? Clearly, IMO, the best thing to do is place the child up for adoption.

Lets put it in still another view:

What if the female want to put the child up for adoption, or abort the child? The male has absolutely no say in this decision. Even if he wants to keep the child, he can't if she doesn't want to. She's not bound by his decision, why should he be bound by hers?

Yes, but it was her choice, not his, to keep the child

You seem to be avoiding the most important fact of all; having sex without any form of protection = the chance of 'making' a baby. Once he has crossed that line, he becomes responsible whether he likes it or not.

If the man can't make sure that he doesn't end up in a position in which he wouldn't want to be, then it is entirely up to him to say "No thanks".

 

[No*s]

Yes, but it was her choice, not his, to keep the child. He wants to put the child up for adoption, or abort the child. She doesn't. Just because she wants to keep the child doesn't mean he should be bound to this decision.

You're right that it wasn't his decision, but it was both of their decision to do the deed. If I had my way, both parties would have to consent even to adoption, and both parties would have to support the child.

His decision is to put the child up for adoption. She wants to keep the child. Why should he have to be bound by her decision to keep the child?

To put this another way, from the perspective of the child:

If, indeed, they stay together and raise the child, though the male does not wish to, there will be problems. First, the stresses of raising a child might make it hard to finish school for both of them. This means the child will be suspect, likely, to a low income. Secondly, there are likely to be tensions between the couple. Why should a child be brought up in such an atmosphere right from the beginning? Clearly, IMO, the best thing to do is place the child up for adoption.

They don't have to be married for him to have to support the child. If they do not marry, then he should pay child support. There won't be nearly as much tension in the home.

If they stay together, then that creates another responsibility issue. They are adults, and they should act as such. If one of them goes psycho or abusive on the other, then they should be jailed and worked hard in punishment.

Lets put it in still another view:

What if the female want to put the child up for adoption, or abort the child? The male has absolutely no say in this decision. Even if he wants to keep the child, he can't if she doesn't want to. She's not bound by his decision, why should he be bound by hers?

This isn't going to sound fun, but I support inequality in the law rather than further move it away from responsibility. If I had my way, I'd bind them both together and eliminate the easy outs except for adoption altogether (this is one of those few places where I support a bigger government).

My theme in response, which applies to all the circumstances, is thus: People who have sex are old enough to understand responsibility. They are old enough to know that should they have sex, there are consequences. They are also old enough to know that you have to do things you don't like. Sometimes, you have to do it just for survival, such as needing to go to work to feed yourself. Othertimes they are the result of our actions. The adult is old enough to understand that if he hits a big man, then he's going to have to live with the consequence of a few broken bones.

In short, he's old enough to know that life will not center around him and that he has to live with that. If he makes a baby, then he has bound himself ethically to that baby. He may not like it, and he may chafe at not having even a word in the final say, but he knew that before he took it out. At that point, he just has to deal with it, because he isn't a kid any more.

 

[michel]

You're right that it wasn't his decision, but it was both of their decision to do the deed. If I had my way, both parties would have to consent even to adoption, and both parties would have to support the child.



They don't have to be married for him to have to support the child. If they do not marry, then he should pay child support. There won't be nearly as much tension in the home.

If they stay together, then that creates another responsibility issue. They are adults, and they should act as such. If one of them goes psycho or abusive on the other, then they should be jailed and worked hard in punishment.



This isn't going to sound fun, but I support inequality in the law rather than further move it away from responsibility. If I had my way, I'd bind them both together and eliminate the easy outs except for adoption altogether (this is one of those few places where I support a bigger government).

My theme in response, which applies to all the circumstances, is thus: People who have sex are old enough to understand responsibility. They are old enough to know that should they have sex, there are consequences. They are also old enough to know that you have to do things you don't like. Sometimes, you have to do it just for survival, such as needing to go to work to feed yourself. Othertimes they are the result of our actions. The adult is old enough to understand that if he hits a big man, then he's going to have to live with the consequence of a few broken bones.

In short, he's old enough to know that life will not center around him and that he has to live with that. If he makes a baby, then he has bound himself ethically to that baby. He may not like it, and he may chafe at not having even a word in the final say, but he knew that before he took it out. At that point, he just has to deal with it, because he isn't a kid any more.

Well, as you know, I agree with you; but............

They are old enough to know that should they have sex, there are consequences. They are also old enough to know that you have to do things you don't like.

The only point I would make is that the age of sexual maturity has been reducing over time; perhaps there is an onus on Society to teach sex and it's consequences at a younger age............

"Tommy, don't spit your dummy out again!" Says Mum, "By the way, having sex makes babies, so, unless you want babies don't have sex...............":biglaugh:

 

[No*s]

The only point I would make is that the age of sexual maturity has been reducing over time; perhaps there is an onus on Society to teach sex and it's consequences at a younger age............

"Tommy, don't spit your dummy out again!" Says Mum, "By the way, having sex makes babies, so, unless you want babies don't have sex...............":biglaugh:

Quite right. This isn't an era when we can afford Victorian stodginess. We're going to have to be direct.

 

[evearael]

People really need to start taking responsibility for their sexuality. If you choose to have sex, even protected sex, since we all know cases where it failed, you choose to accept the consequences whether they be a child or a slow agonzing death from AIDS. I do not believe in sex outside of marriage, or in the case of those cannot be married, or don't believe in it, a committed long term relationship. Needless to say, I don't believe in promiscuity. Sex, and all consequences, including whether to raise a child or put it up for adoption, should be discussed before engaging in it. I do not believe in abortion except for the life of the mother, ie self-defense, and perhaps in the case of rape, where the girl did not choose to have sex. And before anyone jumps on me, I am hesitant to allow abortion in cases of rape even though I've experienced it.

 

[pdoel]

I think our current laws on this subject are WAY messed up.

Right now, all decisions fall on the female, but it seems like most of the responsibility falls on the male.

If a couple gets pregnant and the woman doesn't want the baby but the man does, that's too bad for him. It's her body and her decision, there's nothing he can do to stop her from aborting the baby.

If he doesn't want the baby, and she does, too bad. There's nothing he can do to stop her from having the baby.

However, if he doesn't want the baby and she does, guess what. He's still responsible for paying child support until that child is an adult.

I don't think it should work both ways. If the woman wants 100% of the decision, then she should also be ready to accept 100% of the responsibility for raising the child in the event the father wants nothing to do with it.

 

[evearael]

I guess I'm just against abortion being a decision for either partner, with the handful of aforementioned exceptions... that would level the playing field as well.

 

[Sunstone]

I think our current laws on this subject are WAY messed up.

Right now, all decisions fall on the female, but it seems like most of the responsibility falls on the male.

If a couple gets pregnant and the woman doesn't want the baby but the man does, that's too bad for him. It's her body and her decision, there's nothing he can do to stop her from aborting the baby.

If he doesn't want the baby, and she does, too bad. There's nothing he can do to stop her from having the baby.

However, if he doesn't want the baby and she does, guess what. He's still responsible for paying child support until that child is an adult.

I don't think it should work both ways. If the woman wants 100% of the decision, then she should also be ready to accept 100% of the responsibility for raising the child in the event the father wants nothing to do with it.

Nature seems to have given the sexes slightly different roles in reproduction. Females, for instance, tend to invest 9 months in carrying the next generation within them, while males tend not to. I could go on, but these tendencies are actually easily observed by nearly anyone. Your position, on the other hand, would seem to treat the sexes as if they made exactly the same investment of effort and resources in reproduction. It might be noble to insist on equality in all rights, but is it wise to do so when nature itself creates significant differences between the sexes?

 

[mr.guy]

... but it seems like most of the responsibility falls on the male.

Damn shame that there are no parental rights that accompany that responsiblity...

 

[Maxist]

While I do agree that it is the fault of both partners, but you seem to advocate its being the females fault. True, the male should not be bound by her decision to keep the child, however, he does not have to marry. And at any rate, he should not simply leave, he should accept the child support payments, in order to help the child, it is as much his as it is hers.

 

[pdoel]

While I do agree that it is the fault of both partners, but you seem to advocate its being the females fault. True, the male should not be bound by her decision to keep the child, however, he does not have to marry. And at any rate, he should not simply leave, he should accept the child support payments, in order to help the child, it is as much his as it is hers.

Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple. There are many, many options out there to help out the children. If someone becomes pregnant and cannot care for the baby, there is always adoption. While I hate the idea of abortion, the woman still has that right. So if a soon to be mother is unable to care for her baby, and the father doesn't want it, why should he be forced into that decision with no say?

To me, it'd be like giving the father the sole decision on whether or not to have the baby. How would women feel if they became pregnant, and desperately wanted the baby, but the husband said no, and it was off to the abortion clinic against her will.

Even as it is now, if the man does want the baby, but the mother doesn't, even if he'll accept full custody and care for the child, if the woman doesn't want to have the baby, there's nothing he can do to protect it.

I just don't think it should work that way. It took two people to make this happen. So I don't feel the decision should be 100% on the mother.

 

[mr.guy]

So I don't feel the decision should be 100% on the mother.

Ok, women can't make decisions on their own, we get it. Alternatively, instead of guffawing about how women are now in control of all aspects of a man's future, why no discussion about a fathers right to emancipation?

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

Actually, as long as one partner has to pay child support while the other raises the kid (regardless of gender), I'm alright with this.

Fundamentally, it's an unequal situation (females can give birth, males can't), and there's not a whole lot you can do about that. I guess people want men to be able to abort a pregnancy too, but there are some difficulties there. The only solutions seem to be either to give the man control over the woman's body (and I have some trouble with that idea) or to let people not support another human being who needs to be supported. It doesn't seem fair to penalize a child for this. It's just that no matter what you do, things will be unfair, and somehow the option that involves taking care of a kid seems to be about the best one.

By the way, I'm pretty sure you need both parents' consent for adoption (if one parent has indicated an interest in the kid, the other can't get rid of him/her by themselves). Anyone have any actual information on the laws for adoption and child support? I can't find any good links myself, it would be nice to see what the laws say.