Why are men expected to take care of their children?

[Koldo]

These ones:

- adult mandatory vaccination (presuming that you mean vaccination as a condition of employment or to do some voluntary thing)

To travel. Public health is being held in higher regard than bodily autonomy on these cases.

- mandatory mask use

Ditto for this one.

- legal drinking age
- drug prohibition
- prescription drugs (FYI: I'm not even sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that the fact we need prescriptions for some drugs is an infringement of our bodily autonomy?)

Yes, I do. Whenever the State prohibits me from doing whatever I want with my own body, it is an attack on my bodily autonomy. This includes the usage of any and all substances.

No; like I said, the parent is the steward of the child's rights. The child has the right to bodily autonomy - a doctor can't unilaterally give a child a vaccine - but the right is exercised by the parent until the child is old enough to exercise the right themselves.

The right to bodily autonomy can not be exercised by anyone else. To affirm otherwise is to state a self-contradictory claim. What actually happens is that this right is being relativized by the State to make it so the other rights can be preserved.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So, if a choice entails placing a burden upon your shoulders, as long as I am placing a bigger burden upon mine, I get to make this choice unilaterally?

No. Why on earth would you think this logic applies to all circumstances rather than just these specific ones?

Do you truly think like that? Imagine, for example, a world where the law mandates the father taking full responsibility over raising children and imposes absolutely no responsibility on mothers. Would on this world, as per your perspecetive, the father have the right to make the unilateral decision to abort the fetus?

Again, no. I've been very specific about this. Importing the logic on to another world that doesn't exist is a deliberate avoidance of the specificity. I'm not imposing a universal standard - I'm acknowledging an existing standard and explaining it.

 

[Koldo]

No. Why on earth would you think this logic applies to all circumstances rather than just these specific ones?


Again, no. I've been very specific about this. Importing the logic on to another world that doesn't exist is a deliberate avoidance of the specificity. I'm not imposing a universal standard - I'm acknowledging an existing standard and explaining it.

Because if your rationale can not be applied universally then you must explain what about this specificity makes it proper or accept that it is faulty.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Because if your rationale can not be applied universally

No rationale can be. I'm not applying a universal standard. I'm simply explaining an existing standard that applies to this one specific situation.

then you must explain what about this specificity makes it proper or accept that it is faulty.

The fact that it's obviously a very specific situation. What about applying a specific standard to a specific situation makes it faulty? Your logic is basically "Well, if these circumstances were different, why would you apply the same standard?" when it's obvious to anyone paying attention that the circumstances being different changes the standard.

It's like saying why would you use water to put out a fire in a hallway if you wouldn't use water to put out an oil fire, and saying that therefore the standard that you shouldn't pour water on an oil fire is "faulty". I mean, isn't it obvious?

 

[Koldo]

No rationale can be. I'm not applying a universal standard. I'm simply explaining an existing standard that applies to this one specific situation.

I doubt that is even a legal standard anywhere in the world. What is your source?

The fact that it's obviously a very specific situation. What about applying a specific standard to a specific situation makes it faulty? Your logic is basically "Well, if these circumstances were different, why would you apply the same standard?" when it's obvious to anyone paying attention that the circumstances being different changes the standard.

It's like saying why would you use water to put out a fire in a hallway if you wouldn't use water to put out an oil fire, and saying that therefore the standard that you shouldn't pour water on an oil fire is "faulty". I mean, isn't it obvious?

But what circumstance makes or breaks the standard? There is an explanation as to why a fire can be put out with water and yet another as to why one shouldn't try to put out an oil fire with water.

You are saying that abortion is an alternative to women alone due to X. This X of yours is applicable to multiple other situations, but you are saying it is not proper to apply it elsewhere. So, what about this scenario in particular makes this X of yours applicable if it is not applicable anywhere else?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I doubt that is even a legal standard anywhere in the world. What is your source?

Where on earth did you read that I said it was a legal standard?

But what circumstance makes or breaks the standard?

Lots of circumstances. The standard is not as simple as "the person who takes the majority of the consequences makes all the decisions". No standard should be so childishly simplistic.

There is an explanation as to why a fire can be put out with water and yet another as to why one shouldn't try to put out an oil fire with water.

And there is an explanation as to why men are often expected to, at the vert least, pay child support. I gave that explanation. What you are asking is akin to asking why not use water on an oil fire if water works in SOME cases, and therefore concluding that the "water standard" is faulty. You're not engaging with actual logic.

You are saying that abortion is an alternative to women alone due to X. This X of yours is applicable to multiple other situations, but you are saying it is not proper to apply it elsewhere.

No, I didn't. I simply explained WHY it is how it is in this specific circumstances. You're clearly not understanding the point. This thread is asking WHY there is a double standard, and I explained it. I'm making no moral determinations or claims of universal applicability, just explaining why it is generally considered okay that the double standard exists given these specific set of circumstances.

So, what about this scenario in particular makes this X of yours applicable if it is not applicable anywhere else?

The "X" in your question seems to be "Bodily autonomy", which obviously only applies to women in this scenario because they're the ones actually giving birth, which I thought was extremely obvious. This is like saying that any standard that says "amputation should be an option to any person who has limb" is a faulty standard because it is only applicable to people with limbs. You seem confused about what my explanation was actually explaining.

Not everything can be boiled down to childishly simple bullet points. No one thing makes any one standard applicable in one scenario and not another. This is why my posts go into a fair amount of nuanced explanation.

 

[Koldo]

Where on earth did you read that I said it was a legal standard?


Lots of circumstances. The standard is not as simple as "the person who takes the majority of the consequences makes all the decisions". No standard should be so childishly simplistic.


And there is an explanation as to why men are often expected to, at the vert least, pay child support. I gave that explanation. What you are asking is akin to asking why not use water on an oil fire if water works in SOME cases, and therefore concluding that the "water standard" is faulty. You're not engaging with actual logic.


No, I didn't. I simply explained WHY it is how it is in this specific circumstances. You're clearly not understanding the point. This thread is asking WHY there is a double standard, and I explained it. I'm making no moral determinations or claims of universal applicability, just explaining why it is generally considered okay that the double standard exists given these specific set of circumstances.


The "X" in your question seems to be "Bodily autonomy", which obviously only applies to women in this scenario because they're the ones actually giving birth, which I thought was extremely obvious. This is like saying that any standard that says "amputation should be an option to any person who has limb" is a faulty standard because it is only applicable to people with limbs. You seem confused about what my explanation was actually explaining.

Not everything can be boiled down to childishly simple bullet points. No one thing makes any one standard applicable in one scenario and not another. This is why my posts go into a fair amount of nuanced explanation.

You have not made any mention of bodily autonomy in your former post. Your previous posts make use of a rationale that you wouldn't apply elsewhere thus leading to a double standard, unless you could justify why the use of a different standard was necessary.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Why do women get to choose if they can take care of their child or not but men do not get this choice? When a woman is pregnant in a country/state that allows abortion she has the option to keep the baby to term or to abort the baby. Lets say a woman decides she cannot support her baby financially and decides to have an abortion. This is thought of by many as her decision and should be respected. If the woman decides to have the baby the father is expected to support that baby financially or he is generally considered a deadbeat if he does not. Why shouldn't the father get to choose whether he wants or can support the child? What if he cannot financially take care of the child and does not want that burden? Why the double standard?

Good mothers and good fathers take care of their kids. I don't see any double standard.

Abortion is a different topic, unrelated to taking care of kids. It sounds to me like you really want the topic to be about why can't men be part of the decision to abort or not. The reason is, because men do not share the inconveniences and risks of pregnancy.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Why do women get to choose if they can take care of their child or not but men do not get this choice? When a woman is pregnant in a country/state that allows abortion she has the option to keep the baby to term or to abort the baby. Lets say a woman decides she cannot support her baby financially and decides to have an abortion. This is thought of by many as her decision and should be respected. If the woman decides to have the baby the father is expected to support that baby financially or he is generally considered a deadbeat if he does not. Why shouldn't the father get to choose whether he wants or can support the child? What if he cannot financially take care of the child and does not want that burden? Why the double standard?

Do you have an alternative idea that is different than the current system? If men weren't expected to pay child support then literally ALL of the physical, mental, emotional, and financial responsibility of taking care of the child would be on the mother and the father would have ZERO actual enforceable responsibility. Does that actually sound fair to you?

 

[flowerpower]

Why do women get to choose if they can take care of their child or not but men do not get this choice? When a woman is pregnant in a country/state that allows abortion she has the option to keep the baby to term or to abort the baby. Lets say a woman decides she cannot support her baby financially and decides to have an abortion. This is thought of by many as her decision and should be respected. If the woman decides to have the baby the father is expected to support that baby financially or he is generally considered a deadbeat if he does not. Why shouldn't the father get to choose whether he wants or can support the child? What if he cannot financially take care of the child and does not want that burden? Why the double standard?

I'll preface this by saying that I am radically pro-choice.

I think a fair tradeoff is that abortion should be legal in every circumstance regardless of how the man who inseminated the woman feels about it - the woman's choice comes first; however, every man should be well within their rights to abandon any child that they are responsible for creating.

Might be a tricky principle to apply once the kid is born though.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then he should have kept his **** in his pants

To play advocate of the devil here....
You could also say to the woman that she should have kept her legs closed...

 

[ChristineM]

To play advocate of the devil here....
You could also say to the woman that she should have kept her legs closed...

I did, later in the thread, post #17

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think it's an interesting subject to ponder about.

In a world where abortion is fully legal for whatever reason in say, the first 2 months of pregnancy, I indeed do feel like there is an imbalance between man and woman if the choice to abort rests solely on the woman.

If "I can't afford a child" or even just "don't want to pay for a child" is a good enough reason for a woman to get an abortion, then during the same period I feel like it should be a good enough reason for the man to "abort" his fatherhood for the same reason in the same period.
The woman could still choose to not abort, while the man is freed from his responsability (and thereby also any rights of fatherhood - it's as if he became an anonymous sperm donor).

Then there's also the idea of being "tricked" by women.

Let's imagine a woman in her late 20's who desperately wants a child but doesn't want a husband.
She meets a man, has sex with him and lies about being on the pill. She gets pregnant and then demands alimony.
It's a scenario that seems far fetched, but occurs more then you would think.

In fact I remember reading an article about a trend in the UK some time ago where women would even "steal" the sperm from their one night stand from the condom he was wearing.

Now, I don't think it should be 100% free choice all the time, but I certainly can imagine plenty of scenario's where I feel like the system isn't exactly fair.

 

[crossfire]

I think it's an interesting subject to ponder about.

In a world where abortion is fully legal for whatever reason in say, the first 2 months of pregnancy, I indeed do feel like there is an imbalance between man and woman if the choice to abort rests solely on the woman.

If "I can't afford a child" or even just "don't want to pay for a child" is a good enough reason for a woman to get an abortion, then during the same period I feel like it should be a good enough reason for the man to "abort" his fatherhood for the same reason in the same period.
The woman could still choose to not abort, while the man is freed from his responsability (and thereby also any rights of fatherhood - it's as if he became an anonymous sperm donor).

Then there's also the idea of being "tricked" by women.

Let's imagine a woman in her late 20's who desperately wants a child but doesn't want a husband.
She meets a man, has sex with him and lies about being on the pill. She gets pregnant and then demands alimony.
It's a scenario that seems far fetched, but occurs more then you would think.

In fact I remember reading an article about a trend in the UK some time ago where women would even "steal" the sperm from their one night stand from the condom he was wearing.

Now, I don't think it should be 100% free choice all the time, but I certainly can imagine plenty of scenario's where I feel like the system isn't exactly fair.

And the birth rate there is continuing to trend downward?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And the birth rate there is continuing to trend downward?

Let's hope so.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why the double standard?

There is no double standard. The dad doesn't have to sign tue birth certificate and he cN sign away his parental rights.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And the birth rate there is continuing to trend downward?

What does that have to do with it?

 

[crossfire]

What does that have to do with it?

If the birth rate keeps trending downward, all these hypothetical young women who desperately want a child are not very successful in getting pregnant.

 

[Koldo]

If the birth rate keeps trending downward, all these hypothetical young women who desperately want a child are not very successful in getting pregnant.

Can you elaborate on why you are bringing this up?

 

[PureX]

Ani DiFranco with her daughter, Petah. "You don't get to play God, man, I do"

I was done at 16
Showin up for class
I was out there
In the ring
Learnin how to kick some ***
I was done at 16
Using my momma's key
It was all on me
Yes it was all on me
Weren't no free rides
Weren't no IOU's
I pulled my weight
I paid my dues
And I showed up
To enlist
On the first day of recruits
How bout you?
How bout you

I'm my brother's keeper
Every chance I can
I pay my taxes
Like any working man
And I feel I've earned
My right to choose
You don't get to play God, man
I do
You don't get to play God, man
I do
You get to run the world
In your special way
You get much more
Much more than your say
Government, religion
It's all just patriarchy
I must insist
You leave this one thing to me

Just one thing that a man needs
To be truly free
This is the modern world
And that one thing is money
But there are two things
That a woman needs
Control over her own body
Yes I pay the price
On top of everything
Each month a bill
Each month a reckoning
And each seed that dies
I cry and I bleed
So you can't tell me
No you can't tell me
I am a soldier
It's my blood that flows

I'd give my life
So that this tree can grow
You don't know creation
Like I know
So you can't tell me
No you can't tell me
I'm my brother's keeper
Every chance I can
I pay my taxes
Like any workin man
And I feel I've earned
My right to choose
You don't get to play God
I do
You don't get to play God
I do
You don't get to play God
I do