Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby BlackSails » Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:40 am UTC

The problem I see with this is.

Man wants to keep the baby, woman wants to keep the baby: Great, everyone is happy.
Man wants to not keep the baby, woman wants to not keep the baby: Great, everyone is happy
Man wants to keep the baby, woman does not want to keep the baby: The man's decision doesnt matter, baby gets aborted
Man doesnt want to keep the baby, woman does want to keep the baby: The man's decision doesnt matter, he is forced to pay child support

Now whose fault is it that there is a baby to begin with? Its both their faults. But who gets sole authority to make the decision on how to treat their mistake? The woman.

Now there isnt any real way around this, other than having pre-sex contracts. Its not like voting rights - you cant change biology.

In short, the situation sucks, blame god. (Or Darwin, whatever)

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby setzer777 » Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:14 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:So yes, a woman has bodily autonomy insofar as she can choose to abort a fetus if it's an option. A man has bodily autonomy insofar as he can choose to not have sex with fertile women. Biologically, we aren't egg layers or external fertilizers, so your attempts to break responsibility into anything other then 50/50 is a wasted thought exercise.


Hm, just morally speaking (I don't think it would make sense legally), couldn't you argue that when abortion is available the responsibility is tilted slightly towards the woman? If she gives birth she has made two choices: engaging in an activity that has the possibility of pregnancy, and *not* having an abortion, which is a choice leading to an extremely high likelihood of having a child.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
Owijad
1000 posts and still no title
Posts: 1625
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:07 pm UTC
Location: Mas-a-choo-sits
Contact:

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Owijad » Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:33 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:If you want to protest the sexist difference between the location of the gestation of a fetus, then I'm not sure I can really argue with you. Perhaps you would feel more comfortable where I to point out that if we bred like seahorses, my opinion wouldn't change?
Can you really not envision a scenario in which abortion is not an option for the woman, even if it is as simple as an ethical constraint? Is that even relevant? No matter how you boil this down, a consenting male chose to have sex with a consenting female; what resulted from that pairing is the responsibility of both parties.
If you want to add stipulations or caveats, be my guest. If you want to whine about how it's 'unfair' that women have the final say with their bodily autonomy (heh, not in this political clime/time), then I can only really laugh. You are some how stuck on the notion that it's 'unfair' that a man cannot decide what happens with his sperm after he decides to shoot them at potentially fertile ovum, while how forgetting that it was his decision to send his soldiers sallying forth. So yes, a woman has bodily autonomy insofar as she can choose to abort a fetus if it's an option. A man has bodily autonomy insofar as he can choose to not have sex with fertile women. Biologically, we aren't egg layers or external fertilizers, so your attempts to break responsibility into anything other then 50/50 is a wasted thought exercise.


Who are you talking to? This reads like you're copy/pasting from a different argument.
As soon as I say that people not the pregnant woman should have legal override with regards to terminating her pregnancy, you can repost this and it will make sense in context.

What I'm saying is that no individual should be made to bear the burden, physically or financially, of a child they had a reasonable expectation of not producing. And I'm saying that in a modern context, it is not unreasonable to expect coitus to result in no babies.

Owijad wrote:Why is "not wanting to" a valid reason to dodge the consequences of her decision to have sex?

Because it's like saying "I didn't want to get electrocuted" while playing around a subway's rails. This is something they teach pre-schoolers who throw snowballs with chunks of ice; you may not have 'wanted' to bust little Ricky's forehead open, but you threw snowballs with chunks of ice, and thus, you are responsible for his bleeding scalp. What you want is moot when you are willfully committing actions with consequences, and don't think that your desires affect your responsibility for the results.


I'm confused. This part reads like you're back to explaining why women should have to suck up and carry fetuses to term because, while they may not have wanted children, they were committing actions with consequences, and their desires don't affect their responsibility for the results.

Why do some actions not have consequences, and others do?
Or, why is bodily autonomy so much greater a right than financial autonomy that one must be honored and the other not?
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the devil gets your sould!

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:30 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:couldn't you argue that when abortion is available the responsibility is tilted slightly towards the woman?

Because 'what if' is so prevalent in this argument; What if the woman has a rare disorder that renders the abortion procedure potentially life threatening? What if the two of you live in Wichita Kansas? What if the mother simply feels she is emotionally ill-prepared to deal with terminating a fetus? What if she doesn't 'want to'? Or are we still hung up on the potential of her misrepresenting the risk to the father, and thus somehow more responsible? No, the final choice to carry to term is the woman's, but that doesn't mean the consequences are hers to bear alone, or even unequally.
Owijad wrote:Who are you talking to? This reads like you're copy/pasting from a different argument.

I'm responding to your complaint that a woman has bodily autonomy, namely, your statement that because she does, babies are her responsibility.
Owijad wrote:What I'm saying is that no individual should be made to bear the burden, physically or financially, of a child they had a reasonable expectation of not producing.

And I'm saying that the act of sex carries with it the risk of child. What you wanted, or expected, is irrelevant.
Owijad wrote:Why do some actions not have consequences, and others do?
Or, why is bodily autonomy so much greater a right than financial autonomy that one must be honored and the other not?

Some actions... like...?
Again, I'm not sure why you're so hung up on this; the father has financial autonomy insofar as he can choose to not have sex. Furthermore, there isn't any such thing as court ordered time with your children; if the father is so concerned with his financial autonomy, he can simply write the checks and be done with it. His time, which is more valuable then his money, isn't demanded of him the same way a woman's is. So even your financial autonomy doesn't hold water.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Owijad
1000 posts and still no title
Posts: 1625
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:07 pm UTC
Location: Mas-a-choo-sits
Contact:

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Owijad » Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:23 pm UTC

Why is it insufficient for the pregnant woman to have bodily autonomy only insofar as she may choose not to have sex?

[edit]
I'm responding to your complaint that a woman has bodily autonomy, namely, your statement that because she does, babies are her responsibility.

Again, not a statement I've made nor a position I hold. The closest I've come to this is to say that the willful decision to carry a child to term and to keep it indicates an acceptance of responsibility for that child.
Last edited by Owijad on Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:29 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the devil gets your sould!

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby setzer777 » Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:24 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
setzer777 wrote:couldn't you argue that when abortion is available the responsibility is tilted slightly towards the woman?

Because 'what if' is so prevalent in this argument; What if the woman has a rare disorder that renders the abortion procedure potentially life threatening? What if the two of you live in Wichita Kansas? What if the mother simply feels she is emotionally ill-prepared to deal with terminating a fetus? What if she doesn't 'want to'? Or are we still hung up on the potential of her misrepresenting the risk to the father, and thus somehow more responsible? No, the final choice to carry to term is the woman's, but that doesn't mean the consequences are hers to bear alone, or even unequally.


I meant "available" in the broadest sense. Anyway, because of all of the possible factors, I don't think it would be remotely plausible to make that a basis for legally determining responsibility. But when it comes to *morality*, I don't see why the choice to have sex should be the only choice that counts. If one person makes more choices that have a higher risk of pregnancy, then morally I'd say they are more responsible for the existence of the child, and therefore its well-being. So for example, if a father decides to have the minimally required part in his child's life (i.e. only financial, no other support), I would feel differently about it if he took every precaution available (except abstinence) to avoid pregnancy than if he was using the pull-out method, pressured his partner to not have an abortion, and refused to put the child up for adoption.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
Shro
science genius girl
Posts: 2139
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:31 am UTC
Location: im in ur heartz, stealin ur luv.
Contact:

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Shro » Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:20 pm UTC

So have we discussed what happens when the man wants a baby and the woman doesn't? And assures the woman he will wear a condom or pull out, and counts on the woman's lack of response when he does continue unprotected and she gets pregnant? Or just doesn't want a baby period, but isn't allowed access to birth control? Or there's a woman who wants a baby, and can totally afford it and doesn't want the man to have anything to do with it because she's had bad experiences with her father but doesn't want to deal with the cost of a sperm bank? There are a million situations here, and all of them shouldn't be assigned "blame" to one party or another. If you're a guy that in no way, shape or form, wants to have a baby, don't have sex indiscriminately with women you think are manipulative and out to get your money. There are a lot of women more focused on school, their careers, and their lives to want to go around reproducing by way of tricking some guy into impregnating her.

I think most of this discussion stems from a failure of having a reliable, reversible form of male birth control. Even guys who know that they never want a kid will refuse to undergo a vasectomy because they think it would emasculate them. And a lot of them won't take it, either, since it would probably be hormonal contraception, and a lot of men won't understand it and be afraid it would affect their sex drive. Because the woman is usually in control of the method of contraception, she's the one that gets blamed for an unwanted pregnancy. Birth Control is expensive, and so are abortions. Getting a generic form of oral contraception costs more than $30/month without insurance. For a year that's $360. An abortion costs around $350-$500 (that's on the lower end as well, talking about something like a Planned Parenthood). A vasectomy costs about $1000. Since we're making it about money, if the financial burden of contraception falls solely on the woman, then she has a right to do whatever she likes about it.
argyl3: My idea of being a rebel is splitting infinitives.
Alisto: Rebel without a clause?

I made this thing:
www.justthetipcalculator.com

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Chen » Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:34 pm UTC

Shro wrote:So have we discussed what happens when the man wants a baby and the woman doesn't? And assures the woman he will wear a condom or pull out, and counts on the woman's lack of response when he does continue unprotected and she gets pregnant? Or just doesn't want a baby period, but isn't allowed access to birth control?


From a moral standpoint, the man acted immorally in the first case. From a legal standpoint one would want the man to be responsible for whatever incurred costs there are because of his action (and possibly punitive costs since an abortion/adoption clearly has other "costs" to the woman). The second case it generally depends on who was preventing access to birth control. Being forced into sex with no access to birth control is not really what was being discussed here. In all these cases, there is also still the option of not having a child, by the woman having an abortion.

Or there's a woman who wants a baby, and can totally afford it and doesn't want the man to have anything to do with it because she's had bad experiences with her father but doesn't want to deal with the cost of a sperm bank?


I'm fairly sure a mother can agree to not receive child support from the father so again I don't really see how this situation is applicable. The only issue here would be if the man wanted to have something to do with the child and the mother didn't allow it. Presumably in a case like this though there'd be some sort of agreement involved if the mother absolutely didn't want the donor to have anything to do with the child. Since you can give up your rights to your children by donating sperm I can't imagine it would be legally any different if a contract was written out in that way but the conception was carried out through traditional means.

User avatar
Shro
science genius girl
Posts: 2139
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:31 am UTC
Location: im in ur heartz, stealin ur luv.
Contact:

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Shro » Fri Nov 27, 2009 5:12 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
Shro wrote:So have we discussed what happens when the man wants a baby and the woman doesn't? And assures the woman he will wear a condom or pull out, and counts on the woman's lack of response when he does continue unprotected and she gets pregnant? Or just doesn't want a baby period, but isn't allowed access to birth control?


From a moral standpoint, the man acted immorally in the first case. From a legal standpoint one would want the man to be responsible for whatever incurred costs there are because of his action (and possibly punitive costs since an abortion/adoption clearly has other "costs" to the woman). The second case it generally depends on who was preventing access to birth control. Being forced into sex with no access to birth control is not really what was being discussed here. In all these cases, there is also still the option of not having a child, by the woman having an abortion.

See, here's the thing. The guy in the first case? Probably more common than women using their "crazy feminine. wiles" to get pregnant to "steal all the guy's money". Birth control sabotage happens MORE often in the case of the guy sabotages the woman's efforts. It is actually one of the most common form of domestic abuse. And an abortion? Yeah, good luck getting one of those if you don't even have access to birth control.

If a guy does not trust a girl to make a reproductive decision that suits his ideas, then why the hell would he not wear a condom every single time. If the guy does decide to "take a chance" then he must realize there is a pretty giant chance of a pregnancy. The entire point of sex being so damn pleasurable from an evolutionary context is to have lots of babies. Human bodies are a finely tuned machines for... making babies! At the peak of her cycle, a woman has an almost 1 in 3 chance of getting pregnant without birth control. What about countries where abortions aren't readily available or areas where you have to drive to another state for an abortion? Guys, getting an abortion isn't just something you throw around in casual conversation as the magic solution to everything. It's a big. fucking. deal. Expensive. Morning after pill, also a pretty big deal. Effects of an abortion are pretty debilitating, so it is a purely selfish act to not use a condom when you don't want to get someone pregnant.

Regardless of "misrepresentation of risk" getting pregnant is an inherent risk of having sex. If you are having sex, you must be prepared for having a kid, otherwise don't engage in the risky behavior! This is not a difficult concept.
argyl3: My idea of being a rebel is splitting infinitives.
Alisto: Rebel without a clause?

I made this thing:
www.justthetipcalculator.com

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Chen » Fri Nov 27, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Shro wrote:Regardless of "misrepresentation of risk" getting pregnant is an inherent risk of having sex. If you are having sex, you must be prepared for having a kid, otherwise don't engage in the risky behavior! This is not a difficult concept.


There is always a risk of getting pregnant. There is a separate risk from the risk of bringing a child into the world. If a woman says that she will abort any pregnancy she may have there is NO risk of bringing a child into the world, unless the statement made by the woman is untrue. If I decide to use a condom when having sex and my partner has made no such statement about abortion, I know there is a small risk of having a child and I will perform the act depending on my assessment of whether it is worth the risk. If my partner assures me that they too do not want a child and any pregnancy that occurs will be aborted, that same risk is no longer present. I have a large problem with the statement that "If you are having sex, you must be prepared for having a kid". In society now (at least first world countries for the most part) this is simply untrue. Whether through contraception and/or abortion you can now have sex with no risk of bringing a child into the world. Simply telling people not to have sex if they don't want a child is just as foolish as teaching abstinence only sex education. It does not work.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Nov 27, 2009 6:33 pm UTC

Chen wrote:I have a large problem with the statement that "If you are having sex, you must be prepared for having a kid". In society now (at least first world countries for the most part) this is simply untrue. Whether through contraception and/or abortion you can now have sex with no risk of bringing a child into the world. Simply telling people not to have sex if they don't want a child is just as foolish as teaching abstinence only sex education. It does not work.


Understanding the consequence of your actions != teaching abstinence only education. I'm not sure how you made that leap.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Shro
science genius girl
Posts: 2139
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:31 am UTC
Location: im in ur heartz, stealin ur luv.
Contact:

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Shro » Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:03 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
Shro wrote:Regardless of "misrepresentation of risk" getting pregnant is an inherent risk of having sex. If you are having sex, you must be prepared for having a kid, otherwise don't engage in the risky behavior! This is not a difficult concept.


There is always a risk of getting pregnant. There is a separate risk from the risk of bringing a child into the world. If a woman says that she will abort any pregnancy she may have there is NO risk of bringing a child into the world, unless the statement made by the woman is untrue. If I decide to use a condom when having sex and my partner has made no such statement about abortion, I know there is a small risk of having a child and I will perform the act depending on my assessment of whether it is worth the risk. If my partner assures me that they too do not want a child and any pregnancy that occurs will be aborted, that same risk is no longer present. I have a large problem with the statement that "If you are having sex, you must be prepared for having a kid". In society now (at least first world countries for the most part) this is simply untrue. Whether through contraception and/or abortion you can now have sex with no risk of bringing a child into the world. Simply telling people not to have sex if they don't want a child is just as foolish as teaching abstinence only sex education. It does not work.

Since when is teaching people to realize that there are consequences to their actions foolish? I am not saying that a child is a foregone conclusion of having sex. A question you should *always* be asking yourself when you're having sex with someone is "would it be worth it with the chance of having a kid?" regardless if your partner has sworn up and down that she would get an abortion. To be responsible when you are choosing a partner, you should always assume that an abortion is not an option, even if it is. Unlike abstinence only education, that view would *decrease* the number of unwanted pregnancies, since guys would *always* wear a condom instead of not even knowing about contraception.
(I do think you overestimate the availability/ease of abortions. It is not a magic wand you wave and go *poof no baby!*)
argyl3: My idea of being a rebel is splitting infinitives.
Alisto: Rebel without a clause?

I made this thing:
www.justthetipcalculator.com

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby setzer777 » Fri Nov 27, 2009 8:09 pm UTC

Hmm, are you suggesting that it's *always* irresponsible to rely on hormonal birth control and not use a condom?
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
Shro
science genius girl
Posts: 2139
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:31 am UTC
Location: im in ur heartz, stealin ur luv.
Contact:

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Shro » Fri Nov 27, 2009 8:23 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:Hmm, are you suggesting that it's *always* irresponsible to rely on hormonal birth control and not use a condom?

When I was on the pill, when I in college, my partner and I used both. We were both in school, and both did not even want to deal with an abortion. My partner graduated, got a job, we relied on solely on the pill. I didn't like the pill, went off, and used the pretty 'effin dangerous method of withdrawal. This was at a time that we had both graduated, I was unemployed and my parter did have a job. An abortion wouldn't have been the end of the world, but neither would have a baby. Then I got an IUD and condom-free sex abounds. As a person who is really forgetful, I had a tough time remembering taking a the pill at the same time every day, especially in the summer when I didn't have a set schedule for classes and everything. So most of the time we used a condom. When I was sure I had taken all of my pills at the same time for a week, and it was probably an infertile time for me in my cycle if I had been off the pill, *then* we would have condom-free sex. No. It's not paranoia. It's *responsibility*. If you do not have that kind of rapport with your partner, if you know she's been taking her pill at the same time, etc. you should always be using a condom. If a guy does not trust the partner to have an abortion (which should be her damn decision) you should wear a condom. It is just Due Diligence. It's like purposefully leaving a couple of ports open, and when the hacker gets in saying "Well, it's not my fault. I secured *most* of the ports." It's a balance of trust vs. risk. If you are only using trusted site, then you can leave yourself pretty open. If you don't trust the site, to be secure, you browse carefully. But you still want to be on the internet. You just have to be as careful as possible.
argyl3: My idea of being a rebel is splitting infinitives.
Alisto: Rebel without a clause?

I made this thing:
www.justthetipcalculator.com

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Chen » Fri Nov 27, 2009 8:52 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Understanding the consequence of your actions != teaching abstinence only education. I'm not sure how you made that leap.


The statement "If you are having sex, you must be prepared for having a kid" is completely untrue. You can have sex and not be prepared at all for having a kid, if you are willing to use birth control and/or abort a pregnancy/give up a child for adoption. By my reading of the statement its pretty similar to the statement of "Don't have sex, if you are not prepared to have a child". Which is why I likened it to abstinence only education because people are GOING to have sex without being ready to be parents. If the statement was meant more of "be prepared for the chance at getting pregnant" than sure. But, if one party acknowledges that if pregnancy occurs something will be done about it that does not result in both partners needing to be parents, I'd consider that being "prepared" for the chance of a pregnancy occurring.

I a moral sense, misrepresenting the risk of pregnancy through deception (or even changing your mind later) I'd say is wrong. The issue is that in a legal sense, there is no recourse for a man in this situation. He is forced to pay child support regardless of what situation led to the child. Now when things are in doubt, I absolutely believe it needs to be this way for the benefit of the child. This is why I like the idea of the legal contracts which allows you to remove these situations of doubt (or at least some of them). If either one breaks the contract they would be the ones financially responsible for the child. Now I also grant that you'd likely need some sort of extra support system from society (i.e, the government) to help ensure the single parent children received the necessary financial support if only 1 parent was supporting them. This is probably a good idea anyways since there are already plenty of single parent children out there and I imagine there are a decent amount who could use extra financial support, for whatever the reason.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Izawwlgood » Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:58 pm UTC

Chen wrote:The statement "If you are having sex, you must recognize that a child can be the consequence" is completely untrue.


Fixed... Still completely untrue? Again, no one is saying "If you have sex, you must be able to care for a child" or even "If you have sex you must become ready to care for a child". What I have been saying, for pages now, is you need to recognize that the one of the consequences of having sex can be a child.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:23 pm UTC

Especially when, as this thread seems to be demonstrating, the individual with the lowest cost, easiest access, essentially-zero side effect form of contraception refuses to use it.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Chen » Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:36 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Fixed... Still completely untrue? Again, no one is saying "If you have sex, you must be able to care for a child" or even "If you have sex you must become ready to care for a child". What I have been saying, for pages now, is you need to recognize that the one of the consequences of having sex can be a child.


The point was this is not always true. Say I'm a woman and I'm certain I do not want a child now. If abortion/morning after pills/whatever are not available I know there is a slight chance, even if I use birth control, that I can end up with a child. In a situation where abortion and similar things do exist, I can end up in a situation where I can have sex and there is no possibility of a child resulting. Either the birth control method is effective OR should it fail I can abort the pregnancy. End result -> Sex with no chance of a child being born. Of course this means you have to be willing to a abort a pregnancy. If you are not willing to do so, then it goes back to the situation where there is a risk of having a child whenever you have sex.

Azrael wrote:Especially when, as this thread seems to be demonstrating, the individual with the lowest cost, easiest access, essentially-zero side effect form of contraception refuses to use it.


I don't even know where this keeps coming from. In no place have I or anyone else stated that you SHOULDN'T use contraception. Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you are saying. We know that contraception has a certain % failure rate. So if you are using contraception and are not willing to abort a pregnancy, then yes there is a risk of a child whenever you have sex. Clearly if you're not using contraception (and again unwilling to abort) then there's an even higher risk of having a child. In the end, if you are willing to abort a pregnancy there is 0 risk in having a child. Whether you use contraception or not changes the risk in getting pregnant in the first place. Since abortion should not be used a primary method of birth control, it logically follows you should be using contraception with abortion as the last resort in the event you are certain you do not want a child.

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby bigglesworth » Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:46 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:Especially when, as this thread seems to be demonstrating, the individual with the lowest cost, easiest access, essentially-zero side effect form of contraception refuses to use it.
I haven't seen this in the thread. Looks like a straw man to my eye.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Izawwlgood » Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:47 pm UTC

So you agree/concur that birth control has a certain rate of failure? And that abortion isn't something readily/constantly/easily/always available? OR, that abortion, as an invasive surgical procedure, might not even be an option? Yes? That perhaps given our technology and social milieu's, we CANNOT actually, guarantee that one of the consequences of sex is a child? And that everyone knows? And people still have sex? And thus, if you have sex, you have to accept the potential of consequence?

The OP was about moral responsibility towards ones offspring, and the spin off argument involved a woman misrepresenting the risks of pregnancy, or misrepresenting her willingness to pursue avenues to terminate a potential pregnancy. What doesn't seem to be understood is that A) no matter how misrepresented these risks may or may not be, the risk was NEVER 0%!!!, and B) the victimized male in question still chose to undertake those risks. Thus, even if the woman said she was on the pill and would have an abortion, the man must recognize that she may still become pregnant, and may be financially/physically/emotionally unable to have an abortion. Her lying about this has almost zero relevance, as the man still chose to have sex.

bigglesworth wrote:I haven't seen this in the thread. Looks like a straw man to my eye.

A large argument chain bandied around was 'What if the woman lies about being on birth control', with the assumption being that because she said she was on birth control, the man did not use a condom. The counter that we continually made was 'Use a condom', but that has been repeatedly glossed over.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Chen » Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:34 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:So you agree/concur that birth control has a certain rate of failure? And that abortion isn't something readily/constantly/easily/always available? OR, that abortion, as an invasive surgical procedure, might not even be an option? Yes? That perhaps given our technology and social milieu's, we CANNOT actually, guarantee that one of the consequences of sex is a child? And that everyone knows? And people still have sex? And thus, if you have sex, you have to accept the potential of consequence?


I am in agreement that not EVERYONE can have sex and have 0 risk of having a child. Yet there are people who also can. If a woman is willing to have an abortion and has easy access to one (almost any large metropolitan city in the US or Canada for example), that risk can be brought down to 0 if the woman is in fact willing to go through with it. From the man's point of view in this case the risk is 0 unless the woman is lying or decides to change her mind. The last part there is key. If you are uncertain that the woman is being truthful in this regard (or just unsure that she will not change her mind) the risk returns.

Its akin to working for someone in exchange for payment. With no contract there is always the risk that the person will not pay. In general this is why we DO have work contracts. So that the person who decides to go against the mutual decision that was made between you, is the one that needs to pay for the consequences of it. If you make a deal with someone, in good faith, they are expected to keep their end of it. I don't see why this should not apply to sex and pregnancy as well.

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby bigglesworth » Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:19 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:A large argument chain bandied around was 'What if the woman lies about being on birth control', with the assumption being that because she said she was on birth control, the man did not use a condom. The counter that we continually made was 'Use a condom', but that has been repeatedly glossed over.
Ah. Sorry, I thought the argument was about what should happen in the event of a condom break/ other similar occurance. Which, whilst happening IIRC less than 1% of the time, is still worthy of discussion.

As an aside, I've never heard of an evidenced occurrence of a lie about contraception in order to let a woman get pregnant. In all the instances of a man becoming a father when he didn't really want to I know about, it was the result of emotional bulling.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:32 pm UTC

Chen wrote:If you make a deal with someone, in good faith, they are expected to keep their end of it. I don't see why this should not apply to sex and pregnancy as well.
Well, what happens if you make a deal with me in 'good faith' and I don't keep my end of it? Do you have any legal recourse to get your money back, or do we all understand that deals made in 'good faith' are not contractually binding and that if someone decides to abuse that good faith, this is allowable (albeit regrettable)?

Remember that deals made in 'good faith' are yet another form of risk assessment. It's in my interest to make deals with you in 'good faith', because assuming we both stick to them, the result is greater mutual trust (which benefits us both). Also, a reduction in paperwork as well as the cost and time associated with contractual deals. And, of course, one of those risks is that you won't fulfill your side of the bargain, and I will have no recourse to address that. I accept that risk when I make a deal with you in good faith, just as I accept the potential benefit of greater mutual trust between us.

You can argue that morally, I should be impelled to keep my word outside of contractual obligations (and I would generally agree), but legally, I absolutely should not--and the legalities are all that really concern me, as they ultimately determine where the resources will go.

Anyway, an interesting (though no doubt highly controversial) aside: Should men be obligated to pay half the abortion fee if a woman doesn't want to have the child?

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Chen » Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:29 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Well, what happens if you make a deal with me in 'good faith' and I don't keep my end of it? Do you have any legal recourse to get your money back, or do we all understand that deals made in 'good faith' are not contractually binding and that if someone decides to abuse that good faith, this is allowable (albeit regrettable)?

Remember that deals made in 'good faith' are yet another form of risk assessment. It's in my interest to make deals with you in 'good faith', because assuming we both stick to them, the result is greater mutual trust (which benefits us both). Also, a reduction in paperwork as well as the cost and time associated with contractual deals. And, of course, one of those risks is that you won't fulfill your side of the bargain, and I will have no recourse to address that. I accept that risk when I make a deal with you in good faith, just as I accept the potential benefit of greater mutual trust between us.

You can argue that morally, I should be impelled to keep my word outside of contractual obligations (and I would generally agree), but legally, I absolutely should not--and the legalities are all that really concern me, as they ultimately determine where the resources will go.


Well that was pretty much the point I was making. Without a contract there is a risk involved in any "good faith" deals. As such I think the whole idea of a contract to state how things would work out with regards to pregnancy and the like are useful.

Anyway, an interesting (though no doubt highly controversial) aside: Should men be obligated to pay half the abortion fee if a woman doesn't want to have the child?


I don't see why not, unless there was some sort of deception on the part of the woman, in which case they should bare the costs entirely. Seems like that latter situation would be unlikely anyways as lying about birth control or the like and then aborting the resulting pregnancy seems pretty counterintuitive. In the opposite case of a man being deceptive I'd say the man should pay the entire cost plus possible extra punitive damages as a result of the woman now needing to go through a traumatizing procedure.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Izawwlgood » Sat Nov 28, 2009 9:56 pm UTC

bigglesworth wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:A large argument chain bandied around was 'What if the woman lies about being on birth control', with the assumption being that because she said she was on birth control, the man did not use a condom. The counter that we continually made was 'Use a condom', but that has been repeatedly glossed over.
Ah. Sorry, I thought the argument was about what should happen in the event of a condom break/ other similar occurance. Which, whilst happening IIRC less than 1% of the time, is still worthy of discussion.

As an aside, I've never heard of an evidenced occurrence of a lie about contraception in order to let a woman get pregnant. In all the instances of a man becoming a father when he didn't really want to I know about, it was the result of emotional bulling.


In the event of a condom break, obviously both bear the responsibility 50/50. As always.
I'm curious about this notion that a man would become a father when he didn't want to as a form of emotionally abusing a woman (Unless I'm reading that backwards?). I can easily envision scenarios either way.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

DipDog3
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:22 am UTC

CONCLUSIONS

Postby DipDog3 » Sat Nov 28, 2009 11:46 pm UTC

After reading this thread (so far), I have come to the following conclusion:

1. If you don’t want a child, and you want to have sex then you need to protect yourself.
For a guy that means a condom and for the girl that means birth control.

2. All verbal acknowledgements and agreements before sex are worthless.
Statements like “I’m on the pill”, “I’m sterile”, “I’ll abort”, or “I’ll pull out” should not be trusted.

You might not like it, but you have only yourself to blame :!:

User avatar
drkslvr
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 8:59 pm UTC

Paternal Rights vs Maternal Rights

Postby drkslvr » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:41 am UTC

The recent thread on Abortion and Women's Rights got me thinking. Currently, the law looks like this, at least here in the US:

  • Men: No right to an abortion without consent of the other parent. Implicit consent to supporting a child given at intercourse.
  • Women: Right to an abortion even if the other parent is non-consenting. Implicit consent to support a child given at fetal viability.
Why the discrepancy? If we wanted to make things "equal", it seems like we'd be forced to do one of two things:

  1. Give the father the right to demand an abortion even if the mother is non-consenting, or
  2. Take away the mother's right to an abortion without the consent of the father.
I don't want to force a false dilemma. Maybe there is a compromise that works better than actual equality. E.g., leave women's rights the same but allow men to wave parental rights in exchange for escaping parental responsibilities. It would solve the discrepancy in when consent to support was given without taking away a woman's choice to carry or abort. It's not equal, but it's a lot closer than the system in place right now. Which leads me to my question:

  • What do you think would be the best fix for this discrepancy? Why?
I can already hear people objecting to what I'm saying here, proposing that since the woman actually has to carry the child, her responsibilities are so much greater than his responsibilities as to make the father's rights negligible. This I have to strongly disagree with*. There was a woman who posted on one of these fora recently a link to an article that cited the cost of raising a child at nearly $200,000. (Coincidentally, her avatar was a picture of a woman's stomach with the words "My life, My choice" written on it. If anyone knows the user or link I'm referring to, I would be glad to be enlightened, as I can't seem to find this post again.) Is carrying a child for nine months an enormous responsibility? Yes, as is providing over $10,000 a year to support the child. Could giving birth kill you? Rarely, but yes, as could coming up with $200k. The responsibilities may be very different in nature, but they aren't drastically dissimilar in magnitude.

Of course, if you actually like the fact that we have such an unfair system, and don't want it to change, I would be interested to know why as well.

EDIT: *At least in the general case. There are always exceptions.

What is it about reproductive rights and all things surrounding it that utterly prevent people from using the search function?

This has been done before

- Az
Help a paralyzed kitten get surgery! Fundly.com/Help-Link-Walk-Again
Image
Like Link's page for photos and updates on his status: Facebook.com/HelpLinkWalkAgain

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Paternal Rights vs Maternal Rights

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:04 am UTC

drkslvr wrote:E.g., leave women's rights the same but allow men to wave parental rights in exchange for escaping parental responsibilities

This is a fine idea in theory, but in reality, it simply means that women who cannot get abortions now also face single parent income. In short, the individual this hurts the most, is actually the child.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Glass Fractal
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 2:53 am UTC

Re: Paternal Rights vs Maternal Rights

Postby Glass Fractal » Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:16 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
drkslvr wrote:E.g., leave women's rights the same but allow men to wave parental rights in exchange for escaping parental responsibilities

This is a fine idea in theory, but in reality, it simply means that women who cannot get abortions now also face single parent income. In short, the individual this hurts the most, is actually the child.

And I'd add that this is how the system work as it is since in many cases of unwanted pregnancy men are very able to wave parental responsibilities just by leaving. CASAs I know say that most of the time if the father doesn't show up of his own freewill you're unlikely to ever find the guy.

User avatar
drkslvr
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 8:59 pm UTC

Re: Paternal Rights vs Maternal Rights

Postby drkslvr » Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:18 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:This is a fine idea in theory, but in reality, it simply means that women who cannot get abortions now also face single parent income. In short, the individual this hurts the most, is actually the child.

This would be a lot less of a problem somewhere like Sweden where childcare is free, you get 480 days off work per kid, college is free, and you get an allowance for each child under 18.
Help a paralyzed kitten get surgery! Fundly.com/Help-Link-Walk-Again
Image
Like Link's page for photos and updates on his status: Facebook.com/HelpLinkWalkAgain

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Paternal Rights vs Maternal Rights

Postby omgryebread » Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:39 am UTC

Firstly, requiring spousal consent has come up, as part of Planned Parenthood vs. Danforth, and it was ruled unconstitutional, because the state cannot delegate a veto power that it is forbidden from exercising.

Okay, on to the post itself.

Firstly, you act as if the financial responsibility is the man's alone. This isn't true, obviously. In addition to that, coming up with $200,000 simply cannot kill you, that's gross hyperbole. Debt isn't punishable by death.

Secondly, it's a bit of a false dichotomy. If the woman chooses abortion, neither party is responsible. Under your system, the male is not responsible either way. (I presume if he wanted any custody he would be required to pay support, but that's not relevant.)

Letting a man demand abortion is wildly out there. Would you like someone to be able to demand you undergo a medical procedure? Pretty much doesn't matter what it is.

Legal questions aside, spousal consent is not as out there, but still pretty bad. Child support tends to be required from both parties, in accordance with their means. Having to pay an amount reasonably within your ability to provide for the support of a child you helped create (even if you didn't want to) is a far cry from carrying it around in your body, providing it with nutrients, being unable to function as you normally do, and risking your health.

It's unequal yes, but not nearly as unequal as you claim it is. Furthermore, there's no good solution. As Izawwlgood noted, reducing the child to single parent income is pretty bad. I suppose the ideal situation is one in which the state ensured that every child had a certain amount, and gave subsidies to parents, both single and not, that couldn't meet it. That's if you are okay transferring the cost from the willing mother and unwilling father to the willing mother, the willing members of the tax base, and the unwilling members of the tax base.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Paternal Rights vs Maternal Rights

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:44 am UTC

I'd be comfortable coming up with some minimum amount required for a father to pay in the event of waiving all paternal rights to the child, but I have no idea how to go about determining that.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
drkslvr
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 8:59 pm UTC

Re: Paternal Rights vs Maternal Rights

Postby drkslvr » Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:00 am UTC

I'm not going through this point by point (mostly because I find it annoying when others do that to me and want to be nice guy), but there are a couple of things I feel are too important to ignore.

omgryebread wrote:In addition to that, coming up with $200,000 simply cannot kill you, that's gross hyperbole.

Pennsylvania Explosion Kills Coal Miner
Occupational Exposure to HIV
"Workers... such as railroad crews and truck drivers, may have a 40% greater risk of lung cancer."
Work Stress Leads To Heart Disease And Diabetes
Construction Laborer Dies from Heat Stroke at End of Workday
"People who work with asbestos are at greater risk of developing mesothelioma."
Need I go on?

Child support tends to be required from both parties, in accordance with their means.

Which is nice, except that in cases where one parent has custody, they almost always have much more modest means that the other parent, because they are spending time with the kid(s) instead of working. Which means that the majority of the burden is shifted to the parent who doesn't even receive the rights of parenthood, just the financial burden.

EDIT: I asked for what you thought, so of course I'm not saying that you're wrong! It would be pretty silly for me to tell you what you're thinking. I just feel that these are also good points to consider. :)
Help a paralyzed kitten get surgery! Fundly.com/Help-Link-Walk-Again
Image
Like Link's page for photos and updates on his status: Facebook.com/HelpLinkWalkAgain

User avatar
hidden
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:03 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Paternal Rights vs Maternal Rights

Postby hidden » Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:18 am UTC

drkslvr wrote: Is carrying a child for nine months an enormous responsibility? Yes, as is providing over $10,000 a year to support the child. Could giving birth kill you? Rarely, but yes, as could coming up with $200k. The responsibilities may be very different in nature, but they aren't drastically dissimilar in magnitude.


I have to disagree here, hard.

Sure the miracle of life is wonderful and magical but pregnancy itself is messy, grueling, and hard - the state is glamorized (and rightfully so) but the process is an enormous insult. It can be an immense stress and permanently alters the physiological processes of the female body. It can be nine months involving a sweet myriad of hemorrhoids, morning sickness, swollen everything, insomnia, back ache, breast ache, heartburn.... Not to mention birth compilcations during and after pregnancy.
then there are career and lifestyle considerations, as much as we boast sexual equality it is far from. Something as simple as being prescribed bedrest, or an employer discriminating based on pregnancy or percieved inevitability of maternity leave.

But all that notwithstanding what terrifies me the most about "state sanctioned" pregnancies is that the female has no control over her own body. The psychological trauma in itself I believe is enough of a deterrent. There isn't enough money in the world you could pay me to give up my freedom of choice. 200 K isn't gonna cut it.

That's if you are okay transferring the cost from the willing mother and unwilling father to the willing mother, the willing members of the tax base, and the unwilling members of the tax base.


Agreed, society not just the parents are responsible for rearing and protecting children, an idea which seems to receive more and more opposition in this day and age.
Last edited by hidden on Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:23 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Paternal Rights vs Maternal Rights

Postby omgryebread » Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:22 am UTC

Workplaces can be fatal. I'm not sure of any data showing that having to pay child support increases workplace fatality. I suppose you could argue that having to pay child support would make someone more likely to take a higher paying and less safe job, but child support is determined by means to pay, so that's not much of an argument.


Your second point is fair, because they have the financial responsibility of parenthood without the rights. However, they don't have the non financial responsibilities, which are substantial. (and which limit workplace opportunity, as you've noted.)
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Paternal Rights vs Maternal Rights

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:30 am UTC

hidden wrote:Agreed, society not just the parents are responsible for rearing and protecting children, an idea which seems to receive more and more opposition in this day and age.

I oppose the notion that society is more responsible for children than parents are. I don't disagree that society at large should aim to protect kids, but I think that stops at providing for and rearing.

This thread started by asking the question of how to equalize paternal and maternal rights in regards to an abortion and/or child support. The fact that only one sex can become pregnant means there's already an inequality, and any efforts to usurp a females bodily autonomy or negatively impact the child by reducing resource availability don't seem like they are aimed balancing the inequality as much as they are aimed at making life more difficult for females/children.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Paternal Rights vs Maternal Rights

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:38 am UTC

drkslvr wrote:Which is nice, except that in cases where one parent has custody, they almost always have much more modest means that the other parent, because they are spending time with the kid(s) instead of working. Which means that the majority of the burden is shifted to the parent who doesn't even receive the rights of parenthood, just the financial burden.

EDIT: I asked for what you thought, so of course I'm not saying that you're wrong! It would be pretty silly for me to tell you what you're thinking. I just feel that these are also good points to consider. :)


Well, I would say that the problem is more that the custodial system is not well set up rather than the child support system. Equal time for both parents should be the legal standard IMHO, unless there is a very compelling reason for that not to be the case (eg. abuse).

I do agree with your general premise that men lack any real reproductive rights to speak of. The idea of allowing the male partner to waive parental rights in exchange for parental (namely financial) responsibility sounds good in theory, but probably tends to lead to more problems than it solves. It's more fair to the man, but much less fair to the child. I don't know if there's any option that is particularly reasonable for all parties.

User avatar
hidden
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:03 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Paternal Rights vs Maternal Rights

Postby hidden » Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:04 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
hidden wrote:Agreed, society not just the parents are responsible for rearing and protecting children, an idea which seems to receive more and more opposition in this day and age.

I oppose the notion that society is more responsible for children than parents are. I don't disagree that society at large should aim to protect kids, but I think that stops at providing for and rearing.

This thread started by asking the question of how to equalize paternal and maternal rights in regards to an abortion and/or child support. The fact that only one sex can become pregnant means there's already an inequality, and any efforts to usurp a females bodily autonomy or negatively impact the child by reducing resource availability don't seem like they are aimed balancing the inequality as much as they are aimed at making life more difficult for females/children.


Yes i wouldn't go so far as to say that society's role surpasses the parental one, I feel they have equal stake, each party has loosely defined roles.

I think the question in the OP comes down to which rights and which freedoms take precedence. In this case I think the idea of equality is more of an afterthought. That is, freedom of choice>paternal rights.

I believe I have a moral responsibility to care for any child born of my genetic material, however, I realize this is highly contestable. I don't think it's fair that if an individual, a father, wants no part in child rearing and was all for an abortion, should then be forced to make a monetary contribution. Paying into the social safety net should be enough for this individual to ensure the child is taken care of.

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: Paternal Rights vs Maternal Rights

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:26 am UTC

It's her body, so it's her choice. If men were able to be pregnant, it would be their choice, but they can't, so it isn't.
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

User avatar
Wyvern
Posts: 488
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:31 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA
Contact:

Re: Paternal Rights vs Maternal Rights

Postby Wyvern » Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:11 am UTC

But you're wrong, OP. There is no discrepancy in rights. Women have the right to an abortion without anyone's consent. Men also have the right to an abortion without anyone's consent. Nobody has the right to force an abortion on anyone else.

They have the same rights. Most men have the privilege of never having to worry about using those rights, as most men don't have a uterus.

And no, you don't get even more rights because you have some you don't ever have to exercise. Equality does not work that way.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests