[lucaf]

(Original post by wikiellie)
Interesting that you have stated the meaning of this thread- one which I understood anyway, yet you have not tackled the issues I have raised: a) the parents were irresponsible for fornicating b) the child's life begins at conception, thus making abortion unethical and c)Yes, no one wants their child to live in poverty. In which case, they should never have fornicated! Sinple as!
I'm sure the reason why you have not looked at those issues is because no one can tackle them, because they are blatantly obvious and true. Regardless of one's religious views, when 'ethics' are concerned, the entire situation began because two people were unethical and irresponsible.

not everybody agrees that abortion is unethical. the point is that the woman has the right to have an abortion, and so rid themselves of parenthood. now I understand that abortion is not an easy option even if you are not morally against it, but it is an option none the less. men however have no such option. they can choose not to have sex, but beyond that they are bound to the womans decision (who is equally at fault for the pregnancy to start with)

basically what I am saying is if a woman has the option not to raise a child, why can't the man?

[wikiellie]

(Original post by lucaf)
not everybody agrees that abortion is unethical. the point is that the woman has the right to have an abortion, and so rid themselves of parenthood. now I understand that abortion is not an easy option even if you are not morally against it, but it is an option none the less. men however have no such option. they can choose not to have sex, but beyond that they are bound to the womans decision (who is equally at fault for the pregnancy to start with)

basically what I am saying is if a woman has the option not to raise a child, why can't the man?

For biological reasons- the man is not the individual who has endured 9 months of increasing weight and pain, nor has he experienced the biological attachment to the development of the child. Biologically speaking, the only donation he has made is the 10 minutes of irresponsible action, not the 9 months of pain and frustration endured by the woman (endured by all women). The simple reason is- biology. As in all reproductive species, the female is the individual who carries the child, the male is the one who contributes the least. Consequently, when the woman raises the child, it is the man's equal responsibility-after all, he was the other perpetrator in the act, the child possesses 50% of his DNA, therefore, he does not have the option to not raise the child.

[Rocketfairy]

Yes, ideally, both parties should have the right to abdicate responsibility for the child.

The problem is that for a woman to do so, she must go through an abortion, which is often incredibly traumatic, both emotionally and physically. A baby is not a piece of paperwork - it is a physical being that is living inside the woman and so the choice for her to end its life or give it up after birth is an unimaginably difficult one (aside from any specifically 'moral' issues).

If a man could just sign away his responsibilities towards that child, it would put the woman in a position where she is forced to go through the 'equivalent' process (i.e. aborting the baby or delivering the baby and then putting up him or her up for adoption), or she is forced to bring up the child by herself.

This would clearly be unfair, and I think that's why equality can never be achieved here. You have to weigh up which is better: being forced to have an abortion or being forced to pay for a child, because these are the parents' respective positions at the end of the day. I personally think the latter is preferable, especially since it is best for the child.

[lucaf]

(Original post by wikiellie)
For biological reasons- the man is not the individual who has endured 9 months of increasing weight and pain, nor has he experienced the biological attachment to the development of the child. Biologically speaking, the only donation he has made is the 10 minutes of irresponsible action, not the 9 months of pain and frustration endured by the woman (endured by all women). The simple reason is- biology. As in all reproductive species, the female is the individual who carries the child, the male is the one who contributes the least. Consequently, when the woman raises the child, it is the man's equal responsibility-after all, he was the other perpetrator in the act, the child possesses 50% of his DNA, therefore, he does not have the option to not raise the child.

but the woman does not NEED to raise the child. the fact that she endures pregnancy is irrelevant because she actually chose to do it. yes the man was equal in the conception, but he certainly did not make the decision for her to have a baby, that was her choice. how can you expect a man to pay for a decision he didn't make? he is not forcing her to carry the baby, in fact in our hypothetical he is against it, so how does her suffering entitle her to his help?

oh and ten minutes, give us some credit

[Rant]

(Original post by wikiellie)
For biological reasons- the man is not the individual who has endured 9 months of increasing weight and pain, nor has he experienced the biological attachment to the development of the child. Biologically speaking, the only donation he has made is the 10 minutes of irresponsible action, not the 9 months of pain and frustration endured by the woman (endured by all women). The simple reason is- biology. As in all reproductive species, the female is the individual who carries the child, the male is the one who contributes the least. Consequently, when the woman raises the child, it is the man's equal responsibility-after all, he was the other perpetrator in the act, the child possesses 50% of his DNA, therefore, he does not have the option to not raise the child.

You seem to hate men. 10 minutes of irresponsible action? Why is this the man's fault? Unless the woman was raped, she's at least equally to blame.

Also, you're wrong about animals: male seahorses carry their offspring.

[buchanan700]

Why would you not want to help your child? Someone who is a part of you? Any man worth anything would respect the potential mother of your child's decision.
If you are responsible enough to stick your dick in someone, then you are responsible enough to accept anything that may happen as a consequence, because it's nobodies fault and it is absolutely not your child's fault.

[lucaf]

(Original post by Rocketfairy)
Yes, ideally, both parties should have the right to abdicate responsibility for the child.

The problem is that for a woman to do so, she must go through an abortion, which is often incredibly traumatic, both emotionally and physically. A baby is not a piece of paperwork - it is a physical being that is living inside the woman and so the choice for her to end its life or give it up after birth is an unimaginably difficult one (aside from any specifically 'moral' issues).

If a man could just sign away his responsibilities towards that child, it would put the woman in a position where she is forced to go through the 'equivalent' process (i.e. aborting the baby or delivering the baby and then putting up him or her up for adoption), or she is forced to bring up the child by herself.

This would clearly be unfair, and I think that's why equality can never be achieved here. You have to weigh up which is better: being forced to have an abortion or being forced to pay for a child, because these are the parents' respective positions at the end of the day. I personally think the latter is preferable, especially since it is best for the child.

not trying to belittle the trauma an abortion can cause, but walking away from a woman and your child is not easy either. I mean, I am sure there are some horrible people who could walk away and really not care less, just like there are girls who have multiple abortions and don't care, but for most guys it would be a difficult choice.

[A Perfect Circle]

(Original post by wikiellie)
For biological reasons- the man is not the individual who has endured 9 months of increasing weight and pain, nor has he experienced the biological attachment to the development of the child. Biologically speaking, the only donation he has made is the 10 minutes of irresponsible action, not the 9 months of pain and frustration endured by the woman (endured by all women). The simple reason is- biology. As in all reproductive species, the female is the individual who carries the child, the male is the one who contributes the least. Consequently, when the woman raises the child, it is the man's equal responsibility-after all, he was the other perpetrator in the act, the child possesses 50% of his DNA, therefore, he does not have the option to not raise the child.

Biological reasons i.e. reasons that people have no control over.

You're a sexist in my opinion.

[lucaf]

(Original post by buchanan700)
Why would you not want to help your child? Someone who is a part of you? Any man worth anything would respect the potential mother of your child's decision.
If you are responsible enough to stick your dick in someone, then you are responsible enough to accept anything that may happen as a consequence, because it's nobodies fault and it is absolutely not your child's fault.

if you are responsible to let somebody put his dick inside you, then you are responsible enough to accept anything that might happen, right?

[Sabertooth]

(Original post by Rocketfairy)
This would clearly be unfair, and I think that's why equality can never be achieved here. You have to weigh up which is better: being forced to have an abortion or being forced to pay for a child, because these are the parents' respective positions at the end of the day. I personally think the latter is preferable, especially since it is best for the child.

This is basically what I wanted to say.


It's a difficult issue to resolve but I can't help feeling that if men could simply sign a bit of paper and waive all responsibility that the vast majority would immediately do this without a second thought (then again maybe I take a pessimistic view of humans?). Whereas for the woman she can't just sign a piece of paper she needs to make a decision to kill a living thing which is a far greater responsibility. I certainly wouldn't want to have that on my conscience so I think it's wrong to basically force a woman to do so when she knows she won't receive any help with bringing up the kid.

[nexttime]

So such children just have to suck it up and deal with not having a father AND having to live in poverty? Great.

There aren't just two people involved in such cases.

[buchanan700]

(Original post by lucaf)
if you are responsible to let somebody put his dick inside you, then you are responsible enough to accept anything that might happen, right?

Absolutely I didn't say the women is not responsible. But that doesn't mean she should feel pressured in to having an abortion.
They BOTH have to accept their fate and do what is best for the child.

[lucaf]

(Original post by buchanan700)
Absolutely I didn't say the women is not responsible. But that doesn't mean she should feel pressured in to having an abortion.
They BOTH have to accept their fate and do what is best for the child.

well maybe that is right, but it doesn't change the fact that the woman is not obliged to do what is best for the child, legally at least. the fact remains that the man is bound to the womans decision completely in this, and since both partners are equally at fault to begin with that is simply not fair

[Twixwrapper]

I was recently told by my ex-girlfriend that she had an abortion a week after we broke up. I'd pay every penny I earned for the rest of my life never mind child support for the chance that that baby would have lived.

[kpwxx]

There have been so many of these threads! Lol.

Personally I think both parties take on the responsibility when they have sex, but I don't think your idea can ever really work out. I agree with your point in theory... it is unfair that a man doesn't have the option but that's a responsibility that he has to accept when he chooses to have sex. It's just that biology means the woman has a little longer to decide/a 'get out clause' in a way. It's an unfair part of life which can't be changed.

It's kind of like any other choice... for example, a man could choose to have a vasectomy without his wife's consent, even though it is a decision which affects both of them. Of course this is by no means the same situation, but the principle that a person is in charge of choices about their own body is still the same.

xxx

[tibbles209]

The problem with this situation is that to 'abort' his responsiblity all he would have to do would be say "I don't want to be involved", wheras to abort her responsibility, the woman would have to go through the traumatic and potentially dangerous abortion procedure (and knowing you are directly having your child killed is much more difficult to handle than simply cutting off your responsibility to them). Men and women have such massively different roles in procreation that true fairness it impossible. The law is not fair as it is, and the law would not be fair if it was changed. The best solution therefore is to go for what is in the best interests of the child (and to have the financial support of both parents does seem best).

[lucaf]

(Original post by kpwxx)
There have been so many of these threads! Lol.

Personally I think both parties take on the responsibility when they have sex, but I don't think your idea can ever really work out. I agree with your point in theory... it is unfair that a man doesn't have the option but that's a responsibility that he has to accept when he chooses to have sex. It's just that biology means the woman has a little longer to decide/a 'get out clause' in a way. It's an unfair part of life which can't be changed.

It's kind of like any other choice... for example, a man could choose to have a vasectomy without his wife's consent, even though it is a decision which affects both of them. Of course this is by no means the same situation, but the principle that a person is in charge of choices about their own body is still the same.

xxx

but the thing is that sex is just as much the womans choice, but only she has options in a pregnancy. it is unfair that women can choose to not have the baby, while men are just told to suck it up

[Cicerao]

If you were drunk? Your fault, I'm afraid.

If she poked holes in the condom you used, that's different. You took responsibility.

[buchanan700]

(Original post by lucaf)
well maybe that is right, but it doesn't change the fact that the woman is not obliged to do what is best for the child, legally at least. the fact remains that the man is bound to the womans decision completely in this, and since both partners are equally at fault to begin with that is simply not fair

Sometimes abortion is not an option. You don't seem to realise how devestating it is for a lot of women (and men). I wouldn't expect you to. Women who go through with them live with the grief and pain every day of their lives, and it never goes away. No matter what your views are in the first place, it is a deeply traumatic incident 99% percent of the time, and it is not fair for a man to expect a woman to subject herself to this because he doesn't want to pay child support. He must live with the consequences of his actions if he chooses to have sex, which he knows can result in pregnancy.

[pauline_lg]

(Original post by Rant)
In another thread, I suggested abortion as a solution to avoid screwing up the poster's life. This was met with large amounts of neg rep. Now, I understand abortion has been discussed a lot - this is not a thread about whether it's right or wrong, it's about the financial effect on men.

It got me thinking, though... I mean, abortion is largely seen as the woman's choice, right? Most girls I know who've had abortions just went ahead regardless of the guy. However, if they kept the baby they would probably have expected help from the guy.

Society - or rather, the government - seems to want men to "help out" mothers by partially funding the child. Does society - and the government - consider that if the woman chooses not to have an abortion, it's her problem, not the man's problem?

That would be my opinion. I mean, why should the guy chip in when the woman could have resolved the problem herself? Sure, I could understand a guy putting up some money for the abortion fees - paying half, say. And if he wants to keep the baby and is willing to pay child support, then fine.

But why should he be punished because the would-be-mother can't be bothered to go through with an abortion?I mean, imagine... you're a guy, you sleep with some girl on a night out, you wake up in the morning horrified, realise you were drunk and she took advantage (yes, girls can do this) and then a few months later she tells you she's having a baby. Then, a few years later you're told you need to be paying for this kid, like it's your responsibility... seems completely unfair to me.

What does everyone else think?

Here's some for and against links:

For
Against

Logic decrees that if a woman decides to have a baby against the potential father's will, she should pay for it.

Errr, bit presumptious? Some might see going through with an abortion as being a huge emotional decision, can't really assume that a decision to keep the baby is a result of their laziness.