Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Sexathlete)
    a person's wealth is an extension of themselves.
    Whut

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Whut

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Wealth is accumulated through using your body.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    Could you explain why, from the father's perspective, this makes a difference to the scenario set out by OP?
    OP's logic was to draw an equivalence between the mother's choice to have an abortion post-conception, and his proposed father's 'choice' to unilaterally withdraw legal responsibility. Setting aside the flaws in this comparison itself, if the mother's choice does not exist, the reasoning fails even on its own terms.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Sexathlete)
    Wealth is accumulated through using your body.
    OK, for the sake of argument we'll set aside that this statement is meaninglessly general, and 'wealth' is an abstract concept.

    So what?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    OK, for the sake of argument we'll set aside that this statement is meaninglessly general, and 'wealth' is an abstract concept.

    So what?
    Forcing men to pay for child support is as bad as forcing women to continue with pregnancies they wish to be terminated.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Okay so as a man I feel like our right to choose is as important as a woman's right to choose. It's such a difficult situation. However - I do feel like as a man you need to be accountable for what you've done. You've had sex and you know a consequence of that could be the woman getting pregnant. You also know as much as the girl says she will get an abortion, you will not know 100% until the situation occurs. However I do believe in accountability - if you've done something you are accountable for the consequences of it. I think if the woman -NEEDS-, focus on the need, financial support, it is only right to do so. If you're not in a place to do so right now, perhaps in a few years time? Idk.. I know this is a sensitive topic and thus remember this will always have different opinions - I'd love you for helping, and I'd love you for walking away - pro-choice X
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Sexathlete)
    Forcing men to pay for child support is as bad as forcing women to continue with pregnancies they wish to be terminated.
    So as I understand it, your argument is that someone's 'wealth' (as I said, an abstract concept) somehow has morally equivalent status to their body, and as such, forcibly depriving someone of control of either is morally equivalent. If this is not your argument, then please say so.

    Now, assuming this is indeed your argument, you have, for a start, conflated two rather different senses of 'forcing' - the actual, physical force that would be required to force an abortion on a woman, and the legal 'force' that is applied when a child support order is made.

    More significantly though, this is quite an extreme argument, and the only support you have offered for it is "Wealth is accumulated through using your body".... from which your above argument does not remotely necessarily follow.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    So as I understand it, your argument is that someone's 'wealth' (as I said, an abstract concept) somehow has morally equivalent status to their body, and as such, forcibly depriving someone of control of either is morally equivalent. If this is not your argument, then please say so.
    The presupposed abstraction of wealth is immaterial to my argument.

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Now, assuming this is indeed your argument, you have, for a start, conflated two rather different senses of 'forcing' - the actual, physical force that would be required to force an abortion on a woman, and the legal 'force' that is applied when a child support order is made.
    I make no distinction, the law is what gives the state the right to use physical force, if a man doesn't pay child support either the money is forcable intercepted or he is forced into prison.

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    More significantly though, this is quite an extreme argument, and the only support you have offered for it is "Wealth is accumulated through using your body".... from which your above argument does not remotely necessarily follow.
    What we do is who we are.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    If I decided to have a baby against my partner's wishes I would not ask for child support. That's just the decent thing to do isn't it?

    Asks a pregnant woman - Do you want this child?
    Yes - assumes responsibility for taking care of said child.
    No - abortion or adoption etc BASICALLY if we don't want the baby or the responsibilities that come with it nobody should be able to force us.

    Asks man with pregnant partner - Do you want this child?
    Yes - assumes responsibility for taking care of said child.
    No - discussion of being forced to deal with the responsibilities for unwanted child - whyyyyyyyyy?

    Albeit the male may not have to deal with the physical pregnancy or whatever but why should he be told he has to commit his life to a child if he doesn't want it? I rest easy knowing that when I choose to have sex, even though I use protection, I also know I am comfortable with my decision to have an abortion if I get pregnant and do not want it. Why is it that a man cannot leave the situation?

    If a man or woman does not want a baby they should not be forced to pay for or be responsible for one. The ONLY time I insist someone pay child support, man or woman, is if they leave their partner they already have children with when they had the baby(ies) under the agreement they would support the child(ren) together.

    If your partner leaves you when you announce your pregnancy then it's up to you to decided whether you want to continue and handle the responsibilities without him or terminate the pregnancy. I wouldn't go chasing him down for the money.

    (Original post by Razzor19821)
    I can't wait to be a dad but I want to choose to be a father when I know I can be there for the child and give them the best upbringing i canPosted from TSR Mobile
    I'm pro-choice for mother and father and the quote above is a fair and understandable statement. Replace the dad with moma and father with mother and that's basically my reasoning for why I would have an abortion.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    OP's logic was to draw an equivalence between the mother's choice to have an abortion post-conception, and his proposed father's 'choice' to unilaterally withdraw legal responsibility. Setting aside the flaws in this comparison itself, if the mother's choice does not exist, the reasoning fails even on its own terms.
    If the OP is drawing an equivalency between the mother's and father's right to choose, then surely in a specific scenario where the mother has no choice then the father's lack of choice ceases to be contentious? The OP is asking why, in a situation where the mother can exercise a free choice, the father shouldn't be given one.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Sexathlete)
    The presupposed abstraction of wealth is immaterial to my argument.
    One cannot physically take and carry off 'wealth' in the abstract. One can physically take stuff, which may possess value as an abstract quality, but that is not quite the same thing.

    I make no distinction, the law is what gives the state the right to use physical force, if a man doesn't pay child support either the money is forcable intercepted or he is forced into prison.
    Except in such an 'interception', i.e. a direct deduction from his bank account, the state has no need to use physical force against him. The money is purely digital.

    What we do is who we are.
    No. Actors, by definition, are in a completely different category to actions. This is not even wrong.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Much like a woman shouldn't be made to carry a child she didn't want against her will, a man shouldn't be made to support a child he didn't want against his will. It's only fair that both parents have an 'out' clause. A man should be able to divorce his rights and responsibilities from the unborn child if the mother won't abort it. It's really quite reasonable.

    I'm not so sure if the father should be able to force the mother into an abortion, however. It would be a violation of her rights to be forced into a medical procedure she doesn't want to have.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Been lurking on this post and want to throw out a hypothetical question.

    What happens when a girl doesn't want to follow through with the pregnancy yet a guy really wants to bring up and raise the child?
    Should the woman be allowed to abort against the man's will and make him lose the child he so eagerly wanted to raise by himself, or should the woman be forced against her will to carry on with the pregnancy and then leave the guy to raise the child alone?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Razzor19821)
    Well she has said she doesn't want anything from me but I hate knowing she could come for money at any time. I just think societies attitude towards this matter needs to change. It's not that I don't want kids, I can't wait to be a dad but I want to choose to be a father when I know I can be there for the child and give them the best upbringing i can


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Should have worn a condom mate, then you can actually physically see if the contraception worked or not lol (and therefore discussed it there and then)

    + you can be 100% sure you'e using contraception bc trusting someone to be on hormonal contraceptives is risky. Condoms are just a safer bet, plus no STIs . . .
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I don't support forcing men to pay for a child they don't want women have the right to escape and so should a man.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The issue is that a woman having an abortion leaves no child to support. A father having a 'paper' abortion leaves a child, but less support. If the mother cannot financially support the child, then the child loses out, or the taxpayer supports it.
    So many men (and women) are paying and will continue to pay.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wotcher)
    The issue is that a woman having an abortion leaves no child to support. A father having a 'paper' abortion leaves a child, but less support. If the mother cannot financially support the child, then the child loses out, or the taxpayer supports it.
    So many men (and women) are paying and will continue to pay.
    And the issue with that is in this situation a woman has a right that men do not.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I understand there is an equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome issue.
    I see the point.
    But men and women do not carry equal risks/responsibilities for child-rearing.
    Why stop at equality of opportunity for paper abortions? Shall we legislate for equal division of domestic labour and the pooling of pension/NI contributions between couples who have children? This would help to compensate the parent who has gaps in their employment history, especially when the state pensionable age for women and men will be the same from 2020.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jazzy97)
    Been lurking on this post and want to throw out a hypothetical question.

    What happens when a girl doesn't want to follow through with the pregnancy yet a guy really wants to bring up and raise the child?
    Should the woman be allowed to abort against the man's will and make him lose the child he so eagerly wanted to raise by himself, or should the woman be forced against her will to carry on with the pregnancy and then leave the guy to raise the child alone?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If the man wants the child and the woman doesn't then there's nothing a man can do about it. I don't agree that a woman should ever be forced to keep the baby or be forced to have an abortion.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shuu00)
    Should have worn a condom mate, then you can actually physically see if the contraception worked or not lol (and therefore discussed it there and then)

    + you can be 100% sure you'e using contraception bc trusting someone to be on hormonal contraceptives is risky. Condoms are just a safer bet, plus no STIs . . .
    Just need to put the finishing touches to this time machine and I'll be good to go.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.