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

A key double standard in the abortion debate... Watch

    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    Wow. Just wow.
    Why would anyone choose to bring a child into the world when they can't provide for them? We don't live in some third world country where the options are limited to giving birth or a coat hanger.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deedee123)
    i'm saying she might be pressured into having an abortion that she doesn't want if the father refuses to help to feed/clothe the child if she is unable to support the baby financially on her own.
    No, that's the government forcing the father to give the mother another option against his will. She's the one who chooses whether or not to abort. The father doesn't pressure her, he's made to alleviate the pressure of her being unable to financially support her child against his will.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    Are you not concerned about the effects of having a system whereby men can bail out of being financially responsible for their children just because they did not want a child? Surely that leaves women in a vulnerable position?

    As for the 50/50 split. How can you justify a scenario where one of the parties cannot afford to pay their half while the other party has more than enough to pay theirs? Surely it makes more sense for each party to pay what they can?
    It doesn't leave women in a vulnerable position at all. The option to sign away responsibility would have to be done prior to the birth, and at a time when abortion was still an option (the guy could perhaps fill in a form to give to the CSA signing away his responsibilities). If the mother decided to continue with the pregnancy in the full knowledge that the father did not intend to help, then so be it, but she bears the consequences.

    And 'reasonable' costs of raising a child would be very small in this country- to the extent even those who are on benefits would be able to cover their 'share'. How do we know this? Well, because people who are on benefits can and do raise children without them dying in the street. If children can be brought up fine in such conditions then everyone can afford to provide for their children- as everyone is entitled to state benefits if they don't have a job. Obviously reduce the paying parents liabilities according to child tax credit given to the resident parent to ensure equal balance. For instance:

    If 'reasonable costs' are deemed to be £70 a week for a child.

    Parent 1 earns £1000 a week.

    Parent 2 is on £50 a week jobseekers, but recieves a further £40 child benefit.

    £70-40= £30.

    Each parent contibutes £15 (part of the £50 jobseekers would, in this case, be deemed to be the resident parent providing for their child).

    You'd probably say parent 1 should pay the whole of the £70 on account of their much higher earnings. But why, given that children are apparently the responsibility of both parents? Why should the mother be allowed to financially contribute nothing while draining the cash off the dad? It's not even all about the money, it's about the principle. Your way encourages one parent to sit on their ass doing nothing, secure in the knowledge that the other parent who works, and thus earns more, will have to stump up the lions share of child costs. That's not right.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Why would anyone choose to bring a child into the world when they can't provide for them? We don't live in some third world country where the options are limited to giving birth or a coat hanger.
    I don't know... it is almost as if the mother may form some sort of attachment! You seem to be assuming that deciding to have an abortion is an easy choice to make for all women.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    No, that's the government forcing the father to give the mother another option against his will. She's the one who chooses whether or not to abort. The father doesn't pressure her, he's made to alleviate the pressure of her being unable to financially support her child against his will.
    if you'd read my post i said that men should be able to give up their rights and responsibilities, i mentioned that as another side of the argument. You come across to be very one sided on the issue, it's not as black and white as you're trying to make it out to be. I'm on no one's side, it's a difficult issue.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think forcing someone to pay child support for 18 years for a child he doesn't want is unfair, but then again so is letting the child who did not ask to be born suffer because it is inevitably the child that suffers. I think you need to view it as paying for your future child, not paying for the woman who refused to have an abortion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deedee123)
    i'm saying she might be pressured into having an abortion that she doesn't want if the father refuses to help to feed/clothe the child if she is unable to support the baby financially on her own.
    What about the man having to provide for a baby he doesn't want if the mother refuses to get an abortion? Or doesn't that matter for you?

    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    I don't know... it is almost as if the mother may form some sort of attachment! You seem to be assuming that deciding to have an abortion is an easy choice to make for all women.
    So what? There's plenty of hard decisions that need making in life, you just need to man up and get on with it. Actions have consequences. No one's suggesting forcing the mother to get an abortion- but if she doesn't, under the full knowledge that she won't receive help from the father, then she should be prepared for the hardships of being a single mother. If she can't handle that, then yes, she'll have to get rid of the child, even if it's not what she really wants. We don't always get what we want in life, and this is one of those scenarios.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    I don't know... it is almost as if the mother may form some sort of attachment! You seem to be assuming that deciding to have an abortion is an easy choice to make for all women.
    Then why doesn't the state step in instead of going after just the father? It isn't as if he's committed a crime by getting a woman pregnant who chooses not to have an abortion, why does he get fined for the next 18 years? If you're arguing that it's to look after a vulnerable person who has developed an attachment to something that the law doesn't recognise has human rights, the government should do so because you're saying it is the woman who needs to be looked after.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tgaa)
    What about the man having to provide for a baby he doesn't want if the mother refuses to get an abortion? Or doesn't that matter for you?
    (Original post by deedee123)
    i'm pretty sure if i got pregnant and started moaning about it then people would also tell me to shut up and that i shouldn't have had sex if i didn't want a baby abortion is very difficult to turn into an equal process, how could you possibly make it an equal decision? if it is the man's decision then the woman is forced to bear the child and give birth to it, yet if it is the woman's decision the man is forced to pay child support or is completely powerless to stop the "killing" of his child. I suppose men should be able to sign away they rights to their children i.e have no parental rights or responsibilities, but then again do you want to pressure someone into an abortion that they don't want to have? there's never going to be an easy answer to this.
    maybe read what i said before replying :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ultimate1)
    Aha but this is exactly from where the double standards stem from.

    If a woman knows a father will not financially support the child and she has no means to support it she is creating the monetary burden to go ahead with the child and having it.
    Exactly! I would rep you again if I hadn't already

    I've always thought that there should be a sort of 'get out clause' for the father before a certain number of weeks.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deedee123)
    if you'd read my post i said that men should be able to give up their rights and responsibilities, i mentioned that as another side of the argument. You come across to be very one sided on the issue, it's not as black and white as you're trying to make it out to be. I'm on no one's side, it's a difficult issue.
    Why would you bring it up as a counter-argument? The father doesn't pressure the mother into having an abortion, her circumstances of being unable to afford the baby is the pressure and the law forces him to alleviate it with his money.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tgaa)
    It doesn't leave women in a vulnerable position at all. The option to sign away responsibility would have to be done prior to the birth, and at a time when abortion was still an option (the guy could perhaps fill in a form to give to the CSA signing away his responsibilities). If the mother decided to continue with the pregnancy in the full knowledge that the father did not intend to help, then so be it, but she bears the consequences.
    Well, the question is this: who really bears the consequences? I say the child does. When did he or she have a say in it?

    And of course this leaves women in a vulnerable position. It means that they can decide against abortion only to have the father sign away his responsibilities. This leaves them with two choices: have an abortion or remain financially stable. That's a ridiculous position to place someone in.

    You'd probably say parent 1 should pay the whole of the £70 on account of their much higher earnings. But why, given that children are apparently the responsibility of both parents? Why should the mother be allowed to financially contribute nothing while draining the cash off the dad? It's not even all about the money, it's about the principle. Your way encourages one parent to sit on their ass doing nothing, secure in the knowledge that the other parent who works, and thus earns more, will have to stump up the lions share of child costs. That's not right.
    I'd say that parent 1 should pay more than 50% - but not necessarily 100%. It's right because it is fair - especially if parent 2 is the resident parent, who would presumably be providing childcare and actually bringing up the child.

    I also question your, seemingly, rose tinted views on the state of some children in the UK - child poverty is at the 3 (4?)million mark now.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Then why doesn't the state step in instead of going after just the father? It isn't as if he's committed a crime by getting a woman pregnant who chooses not to have an abortion, why does he get fined for the next 18 years? If you're arguing that it's to look after a vulnerable person who has developed an attachment to something that the law doesn't recognise has human rights, the government should do so because you're saying it is the woman who needs to be looked after.
    The state does step in, to an extent. But the fact remains - he is the father, why should he try and shirk sole responsibility onto the mother or the state?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Then why doesn't the state step in instead of going after just the father? It isn't as if he's committed a crime by getting a woman pregnant who chooses not to have an abortion, why does he get fined for the next 18 years? If you're arguing that it's to look after a vulnerable person who has developed an attachment to something that the law doesn't recognise has human rights, the government should do so because you're saying it is the woman who needs to be looked after.
    you might be happy to pay for other peoples children because they can't be bothered, but i certainly am not. Why should i pay for his child and he shouldn't?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    Unless people support the view that a man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion, I see little value in the OP's post.
    Assuming the man is able to be informed in a timely, he could say he is not willing to play a role in fathering the child, and the women could decide whether or not her having child was viable. If it wasn't then she like any other women who could not look after the child would have to consider an abortion, or just adoption. Madness to me the money we spend on fertility treatment and such when there loads of kids who need good homes and loving parents.

    IMO, a women should have to inform a man if she is pregnant. Most women will know, just from looking, that they are pregnant within the abortion time limit. At that point the man should have a time limited option to opt out of his fatherly obligations, and rights. Then the mother can decide if and how to proceed. Once the deadline has passed things become more complicated, but I don't think that should ever happen.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    The state does step in, to an extent. But the fact remains - he is the father, why should he try and shirk sole responsibility onto the mother or the state?
    If you want to focus on his responsibility to the child, why did you bring the mother's 'emotional attachment' into it? There are two responsibilities the father can have here, to the child and to the mother. Any responsibility he has to the mother as a vulnerable person is silly, if he's responsible then the state has a far greater responsibility to look after vulnerable people. As for his responsibility to the child, I'd say he can 'shirk' it in the same circumstances that the mother can 'shirk' hers - when an abortion is permitted.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deedee123)
    you might be happy to pay for other peoples children because they can't be bothered, but i certainly am not. Why should i pay for his child and he shouldn't?
    That line of argument was to point out that any obligations the father had to the 'vulnerable' mother ought to be covered by the state's obligation to look after vulnerable people.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    Well, the question is this: who really bears the consequences? I say the child does. When did he or she have a say in it?

    And of course this leaves women in a vulnerable position. It means that they can decide against abortion only to have the father sign away his responsibilities. This leaves them with two choices: have an abortion or remain financially stable. That's a ridiculous position to place someone in.



    I'd say that parent 1 should pay more than 50% - but not necessarily 100%. It's right because it is fair - especially if parent 2 is the resident parent, who would presumably be providing childcare and actually bringing up the child.

    I also question your, seemingly, rose tinted views on the state of some children in the UK - child poverty is at the 3 (4?)million mark now.
    The mother would be able to decide for/against abortion after the knowledge of whether the guy wanted to be a part of the childs life or not. Let's say the termination limit is 24 weeks. We'll say that a guy has to have decided by 18 weeks. This gives the mother a further 6 weeks to make the decision of whether she wants the child or not, having received this knowledge.

    Yep, they'd have to have an abortion or remain financially stable. I don't see what's so ridiculous about that. Actions have consequences. You shouldn't get to have your cake and eat it, especially when it is costing someone else (i.e. the man, who has already said he doesn't want the child). Children cost money, and if you don't have a partner who is willing to provide that money, you make the decision to go it alone or not. Simple really.

    And with regard to the second paragraph, how does your plan prevent the all too common occurance of a mother sitting on her arse, confident that the father will be providing plenty of money for the child anyway? That was the plan of the girl I got pregnant, who still doesn't work even to this day.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    If you want to focus on his responsibility to the child, why did you bring the mother's 'emotional attachment' into it? There are two responsibilities the father can have here, to the child and to the mother. Any responsibility he has to the mother as a vulnerable person is silly, if he's responsible then the state has a far greater responsibility to look after vulnerable people. As for his responsibility to the child, I'd say he can 'shirk' it in the same circumstances that the mother can 'shirk' hers - when an abortion is permitted.
    Read my earlier posts - when the mother shirks hers there are few consequences. When the father shirks his, he leaves a woman and a child without the financial support he owes them.

    Yep, they'd have to have an abortion or remain financially stable. I don't see what's so ridiculous about that. Actions have consequences.
    Only for the mother, if we follow your line of thinking.

    And with regard to the second paragraph, how does your plan prevent the all too common occurance of a mother sitting on her arse, confident that the father will be providing plenty of money for the child anyway? That was the plan of the girl I got pregnant, who still doesn't work even to this day.
    All my plan is concerned about is ensuring that a child is adequately cared for.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    Read my earlier posts - when the mother shirks hers there are few consequences. When the father shirks his, he leaves a woman and a child without the financial support he owes them.
    Not if he does so early on in the pregnancy when abortion is permitted. Then he leaves a pregnant woman who might willingly choose to bring a child into the world, or might willingly choose to abort.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • 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.