Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Why shouldn't men have more reproductive rights? watch

    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    Men don't assume every woman is going to keep any unplanned child against his wishes, either. I don't see a difference there. The fact is that they can, and sometimes do.

    The vast majority of men in such circumstances would choose to be involved anyway - to do 'the stand up thing'. But why should they be compelled to when they had no power over the decision? As it stands, the only way a man can be sure he won't be supporting a child to the age of 18 is not to have sex at all. Do you really think that's right?
    Beating is a hideous criminal act, keeping a child is not. There's your difference.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    Men don't assume every woman is going to keep any unplanned child against his wishes, either. I don't see a difference there. The fact is that they can, and sometimes do.

    The vast majority of men in such circumstances would choose to be involved anyway - to do 'the stand up thing'. But why should they be compelled to when they had no power over the decision? As it stands, the only way a man can be sure he won't be supporting a child to the age of 18 is not to have sex at all. Do you really think that's right?
    Some of the people on this forum do.

    Because the child shouldn't be made to suffer. Then you just end with a whole cycle of poverty an society as a whole suffers. What is far more important is getting better contraception options for men.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    When a baby is born, the mother takes the higher proportion of the burden. Also to mention the pain of childbirth. Only the mother suffers that while the father will be relaxed and snoozing at home.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SnooFnoo)
    for the good of the child that's genetically his?
    By that logic, I presume you're up for denying women abortions?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    By that logic, I presume you're up for denying women abortions?
    Nope as a foetus isn't considered a child with rights to care (financial or otherwise) until that child is born.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    Some of the people on this forum do.

    Because the child shouldn't be made to suffer. Then you just end with a whole cycle of poverty an society as a whole suffers. What is far more important is getting better contraception options for men.
    That choice is at the feet of women who choose to have children without the father's support, no?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SnooFnoo)
    Nope as a foetus isn't considered a child with rights to care (financial or otherwise) until that child is born.
    Well then at the point of choosing whether to abort the child, it has no rights to financial support then either. I'm glad we're on the same page.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    Well then at the point of choosing whether to abort the child, it has no rights to financial support then either. I'm glad we're on the same page.
    When it's born it does.

    Think a little bit about what it's like for a woman to go through an abortion, not just physically but emotionally. That stays with them forever. If they choose to keep it then their choice and therefore that child is entitled to financial care from BOTH parents, whether you want to is irrelevant. A life that's part of you needs care, you should provide it not only by law, but just morally speaking. Why would you want ANY child to suffer let alone one that was yours? (Wanted or unwanted regardless)
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    That choice is at the feet of women who choose to have children without the father's support, no?
    Well it's not much of a choice if, say, you've always wanted children and an accident happens or you find abortion traumatic.

    It's not as easy as 'well I'll just pop and get an abortion' for everyone.

    My friend has PCOS, and was told by the doctor she was infertile. Her partner wanted her to get an abortion but obviously if she did she probably would never be able to have children again. It's not just some easy choice to be made as you make it out to be. I'm sure plenty of older women have found themselves in a similar position.

    Also abortion comes with risks such as infertility and is a truly painful process to go through (ok so not as painful as childbirth but at least you end up with a baby out of that rather than a sense of loss and grieving).

    Why should the child suffer because of that?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SnooFnoo)
    Beating is a hideous criminal act, keeping a child is not. There's your difference.
    Not a relevant difference for the purposes of the analogy. Redferry was saying that 'psycho crazy women' are easy to spot and avoid. It wasn't strictly relevant to what I was saying, and was a bit of a straw man as a result. Nevertheless, I was making the point that you can't always identify people who will later screw you over as easily as she makes out.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Agree with this. Should be given the option at the start of the pregnancy to either support the child or give up all rights over the child and not have to support it.

    If the mother doesn't then feel like she can raise the child on her own then she has effectively the same choice.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Deal with pregnancy like an honourable, moral man should. A woman has to deal with it no matter what choice she makes. The least a man can do is support her in that decision. After all the baby (or abortion) is the byproduct of both your actions.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    Well it's not much of a choice if, say, you've always wanted children and an accident happens or you find abortion traumatic.

    It's not as easy as 'well I'll just pop and get an abortion' for everyone.

    My friend has PCOS, and was told by the doctor she was infertile. Her partner wanted her to get an abortion but obviously if she did she probably would never be able to have children again. It's not just some easy choice to be made as you make it out to be. I'm sure plenty of older women have found themselves in a similar position.

    Also abortion comes with risks such as infertility and is a truly painful process to go through (ok so not as painful as childbirth but at least you end up with a baby out of that rather than a sense of loss and grieving).

    Why should the child suffer because of that?
    You keep making this point about the child (foetus) suffering, but if you really believe that then you must be dead set against abortion. Are you?

    Very sad that some people have one shot at having a child. I'm sure most guys would want to be part of the child's life, but if not then I don't see why the mother's personal circumstances should create obligations on them.

    As a side note, interesting that you will criticise others for arguing on the basis of fringe cases, but are happy to use them yourself.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    You keep making this point about the child (foetus) suffering, but if you really believe that then you must be dead set against abortion. Are you?

    Very sad that some people have one shot at having a child. I'm sure most guys would want to be part of the child's life, but if not then I don't see why the mother's personal circumstances should create obligations on them.

    As a side note, interesting that you will criticise others for arguing on the basis of fringe cases, but are happy to use them yourself.
    You're completely misconstruing my argument

    I mean the child will suffer from poverty and lack of financial support once it is born.

    Except that what I have said applies to every childless woman in their 30s so is hardly a fringe case?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    It might not sound fair, but I genuinely believe that it is the best of a series of difficult and unfair alternatives.

    Firstly, sex is great, yeah. But if you're going to have sex, and you're fertile (i.e. haven't had a procedure to make it otherwise) then you always have to go into it assuming that there is a risk, however small, of conceiving a baby. That's just the risk you take when you have sex. If you don't use protection at all then you deserve everything you get. If you use condoms then less so, but still there's still a risk even when they're used properly.

    So, now consider that something goes wrong and the woman does get pregnant. You might agree on what to do, either have the baby and keep it, have the baby and have it adopted, or get an abortion. If so, great.

    But you cannot force a woman to have an abortion. It's inhumane. Especially if you don't find out in the first couple of weeks, because it then becomes an operation (and even before then it's very uncomfortable physically). You also have to consider the emotion of it. It's not just "take a pill and it's all fine". You are killing something that has the potential of becoming a child. Even if a woman didn't think she wanted children at that point, it becomes very different when she actually has a "baby" growing inside of her. Abortion isn't just something you go into and forget about. Okay so some women aren't affected by it, but others can feel guilty about it for years and years, if not forever. So it's a very difficult decision.

    And if the partner decides he doesn't want a baby - then she has to go through pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood on her own. It's not as though woman get the easy options with it all. I would consider it a much easier option to send money every month and not have to have anything to do with actually looking after or raising the child.

    Also, it's not a problem that only men have. If the parents come to an arrangement where the father looks after the child when it's born, then the mother would have to pay too, even if she chooses to have nothing to do with it. So that is by no means something that only a man has to deal with.

    Ultimately, yes, it sucks. But unless you're going to start forcing abortion on women then you just have to realise that if you have sex, this might result in having a child, however small that possibility is. The only way to absolutely make sure you don't end up in this situation is not to have sex, and while this might not seem like the ideal option for you, then I'm sorry but sex isn't an absolute essential. You have to be grown up enough to realise the risks, and be prepared to deal with them when they occur.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SnooFnoo)
    When it's born it does.

    Think a little bit about what it's like for a woman to go through an abortion, not just physically but emotionally. That stays with them forever. If they choose to keep it then their choice and therefore that child is entitled to financial care from BOTH parents, whether you want to is irrelevant. A life that's part of you needs care, you should provide it not only by law, but just morally speaking. Why would you want ANY child to suffer let alone one that was yours? (Wanted or unwanted regardless)
    Yeah, but I'm not arguing that men should be able to support the mother's decision up until birth and then back out. If you're saying that foetuses have no right to financial support, then we really have nothing to argue about. I don't think that genetic material alone is a plausible basis for property rights. I think that intestacy laws are outdated and arbitrary for the same reason.

    Give fathers a 12-week window to opt-in to supporting their child if they want to be part of its life. If they don't, then mothers can make an informed decision about whether to keep the baby in the absence of the father's support.

    I'm sorry, but the emotional trauma of an abortion (anecdotally, not something shared by all women, but accepted for the purpose of argument) doesn't give moral force to a father's obligation to provide for a child he never wanted.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox)
    It might not sound fair, but I genuinely believe that it is the best of a series of difficult and unfair alternatives.

    Firstly, sex is great, yeah. But if you're going to have sex, and you're fertile (i.e. haven't had a procedure to make it otherwise) then you always have to go into it assuming that there is a risk, however small, of conceiving a baby. That's just the risk you take when you have sex. If you don't use protection at all then you deserve everything you get. If you use condoms then less so, but still there's still a risk even when they're used properly.

    So, now consider that something goes wrong and the woman does get pregnant. You might agree on what to do, either have the baby and keep it, have the baby and have it adopted, or get an abortion. If so, great.

    But you cannot force a woman to have an abortion. It's inhumane. Especially if you don't find out in the first couple of weeks, because it then becomes an operation (and even before then it's very uncomfortable physically). You also have to consider the emotion of it. It's not just "take a pill and it's all fine". You are killing something that has the potential of becoming a child. Even if a woman didn't think she wanted children at that point, it becomes very different when she actually has a "baby" growing inside of her. Abortion isn't just something you go into and forget about. Okay so some women aren't affected by it, but others can feel guilty about it for years and years, if not forever. So it's a very difficult decision.

    And if the partner decides he doesn't want a baby - then she has to go through pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood on her own. It's not as though woman get the easy options with it all. I would consider it a much easier option to send money every month and not have to have anything to do with actually looking after or raising the child.

    Also, it's not a problem that only men have. If the parents come to an arrangement where the father looks after the child when it's born, then the mother would have to pay too, even if she chooses to have nothing to do with it. So that is by no means something that only a man has to deal with.

    Ultimately, yes, it sucks. But unless you're going to start forcing abortion on women then you just have to realise that if you have sex, this might result in having a child, however small that possibility is. The only way to absolutely make sure you don't end up in this situation is not to have sex, and while this might not seem like the ideal option for you, then I'm sorry but sex isn't an absolute essential. You have to be grown up enough to realise the risks, and be prepared to deal with them when they occur.
    Pretty much what I have said through out this thread. Can't rep you as I've run out sorry! X
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    You're completely misconstruing my argument

    I mean the child will suffer from poverty and lack of financial support once it is born.

    Except that what I have said applies to every childless woman in their 30s so is hardly a fringe case?
    If a man would not have had that child come into existence, given the choice, why is it his problem what condition it grows up in? If a mother makes an informed decision to have a child in the knowledge that she will have no support from the father, is it not her responsibility to ensure that the child will receive financial support? I am asking for nothing here besides accountability for one' own decisions.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    If a man would not have had that child come into existence, given the choice, why is it his problem what condition it grows up in? If a mother makes an informed decision to have a child in the knowledge that she will have no support from the father, is it not her responsibility to ensure that the child will receive financial support? I am asking for nothing here besides accountability for one' own decisions.
    'One' choose to engage in sexual acts fully knowing the potential consequences
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    If a man would not have had that child come into existence, given the choice, why is it his problem what condition it grows up in? If a mother makes an informed decision to have a child in the knowledge that she will have no support from the father, is it not her responsibility to ensure that the child will receive financial support? I am asking for nothing here besides accountability for one' own decisions.
    It is clearly the responsibility of both parents, especially since the woman will be financially at a disadvantage through having a child and therefore it is the mans responsibility to compensate for that, whether he likes it or not.

    It's best for society to have kids growing up with the financial support they need.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

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

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