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

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

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SarahAlexis)
    Yes, but then again it's the child that suffers. I would like to think that most men wouldn't like to think of their child living in poverty and refuse to help out because it was the mother's decision to keep the child.
    Yes I'd like to believe most men would take an active interest in a childs life, but that is not what we are arguing here.

    If the mother decides to bring the child into this world you could argue it shouldn't be in a position of poverty because the mother should provide for the child.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foghorn Leghorn)
    Yes I'd like to believe most men would take an active interest in a childs life, but that is not what we are arguing here.
    No, but what I argued was relevant. You could not care less about the child's day to day life but it doesn't mean that you wouldn't feel bad to see that child go hungry or without other things that it needs.

    If the mother decides to bring the child into this world you could argue it shouldn't be in a position of poverty because the mother should provide for the child.
    When the child has been born it's rather petty to argue over who did what and who should pick up the pieces. If the child is 50% the man's the man should contribute no matter how unfair it is because it is 100 times more unfair for the child to go without things it needs.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SarahAlexis)
    [COLOR=#800080]When the child has been born it's rather petty to argue over who did what and who should pick up the pieces.[/COLOUR]
    No, the mother should take some responsibility for once and do what is the best interests of the child too. Most of the time the fact that she chooses to bring a child into the world despite it's father being unsupportive of it, is the pinnacle of irresponsibility. I would bet you 100% that the number of single mothers would drop two fold if men had no child support obligations.
    If the child is 50% the man's the man should contribute no matter how unfair it is because it is 100 times more unfair for the child to go without things it needs.
    If it's 50% of the man's then why does he have no say on whether or not the child should be born or not?

    Why is it 100% the woman's child when she chooses to have it or not but 50% of the woman's once the child has been brought to life? Why does she have no financial obligation to the child? And if it's only 50% of the man's child then why doesn't the father pay ONLY 50% of the costs to raise the child as opposed to obscene amounts many men who earn a decent amount of money are forced to pay?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SarahAlexis)
    When the child has been born it's rather petty to argue over who did what and who should pick up the pieces. If the child is 50% the man's the man should contribute no matter how unfair it is because it is 100 times more unfair for the child to go without things it needs.
    So basically the situation is a woman has a right to decide whether to have a child or not, no matter what the father says, ok it's her body fair enough. But when the child is born the father has to take responsibility despite perhaps legitimate opposition of bringing a child the parents cannot take full responsibility of into the world. Which puts us back at square one, where no matter what the outcome the system is wholly unfair and prejudice against males.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    Vaguely relevant: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...hts-child.html

    A sperm donor has been ordered to pay child support for the biological daughter he fathered to a lesbian couple who found him via Craigslist.
    Angela Bauer, 40, and partner Jennifer Schreiner, 34, placed an ad on the site three years ago for a donor which was answered by William Marotta.
    'We are foster and adoptive parents and now we desire to share a pregnancy and birth together,' Bauer wrote in the online posting.
    Mr Marotta provided sperm which was used for artificial insemination by Ms Schreiner. In return, he gave up parental rights including financial duties for the child.
    Absolutely disgusting. This is proof itself that child support isn't anything to do with the child's health in concern. It's just a pro feminist law used to appease women.

    Many cases in the US too where a man has been raped and then forced to pay child support. So the question hasn't been whether or not to charge the woman for rape or what punishment she should receive for her crime, no, no, it's been about whether the man should be paying friggin' child support.

    Just like alimony it's a fraud used to give wealth to undeserving women.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ultimate1)
    Absolutely disgusting. This is proof itself that child support isn't anything to do with the child's health in concern. It's just a pro feminist law used to appease women.

    Many cases in the US too where a man has been raped and then forced to pay child support. So the question hasn't been whether or not to charge the woman for rape or what punishment she should receive for her crime, no, no, it's been about whether the man should be paying friggin' child support.

    Just like alimony it's a fraud used to give wealth to undeserving women.
    To be fair we men are just rapist scum that should pay to bring up a child that has nothing to do with us, that story is so fair, the guy donates his sperm to an obviously lovely lesbian couple and they help the man by taking his money this story sounds so unique :mad:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SarahAlexis)
    When the child has been born it's rather petty to argue over who did what and who should pick up the pieces. If the child is 50% the man's the man should contribute no matter how unfair it is because it is 100 times more unfair for the child to go without things it needs.
    Think about it from your perspective. You don't want a child, you decide from the beginning. You are STILL forced to have a biological child, but choose to have no involvement. You are then expected to pay for this child?! And anyway, many families on benefits manage to raise children, so why can't just the mother raise the child?


    (Original post by jreid1994)
    To be fair we men are just rapist scum that should pay to bring up a child that has nothing to do with us, that story is so fair, the guy donates his sperm to an obviously lovely lesbian couple and they help the man by taking his money this story sounds so unique :mad:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Though I agree it's unfair, reread the article - the lesbian couple are supporting the sperm donor and agree that he shouldn't have to pay.

    (Original post by Ultimate1)
    And if it's only 50% of the man's child then why doesn't the father pay ONLY 50% of the costs to raise the child as opposed to obscene amounts many men who earn a decent amount of money are forced to pay?
    Out of interest, how much actually is it? I think perhaps (if CSA remains mandatory) a minimum needed to raise a child could be calculated, and then the father is only liable for 50% of this?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joker12345)
    Think about it from your perspective. You don't want a child, you decide from the beginning. You are STILL forced to have a biological child, but choose to have no involvement. You are then expected to pay for this child?! And anyway, many families on benefits manage to raise children, so why can't just the mother raise the child?

    Greed causes it, more money, more money, more money.


    Though I agree it's unfair, reread the article - the lesbian couple are supporting the sperm donor and agree that he shouldn't have to pay.

    I'm sorry but I reread the article and it doesn't say that :l the couple pushed for it in court.

    Out of interest, how much actually is it? I think perhaps (if CSA remains mandatory) a minimum needed to raise a child could be calculated, and then the father is only liable for 50% of this?
    Usually its about 15-25% of the guys total income I am not completely certain the exact amount, have you ever watched shows on tv, they call the fathers deadbeats for having a one night stand and automatically assume the guy is in the wrong, (guilty until proven innocent)

    I believe the law is very biased and unjust, when it comes down to child support laws, I believe that if the guy does not want a child, he should be allowed to sign a document before the child's birth stating that 1A; he is to have no rights for the child 1B: no legal financial obligations. 2A should state if he's married to her, he has to get a divorce, or the result is he has financial and social obligations and most importantly, rights to the child and lastly 2B: he has to completely cut contact to the child, 2C: most importantly is there is no way out of the contract either.

    Also if the women doesn't know who the father of the child is the first time around, then she should not be allowed access to further investigation into finding the father as she had to have had multiple one night stands, which means that there was no real relationship involved in the creation of the child.

    I bet if this was passed the baby boom would stop, because of obvious reasons.
    If you think my opinion is unfair meh is all I have to say. Don't really matter to me about CSA I'm gonna adopt when I'm older not just because of the fact that the custody laws are less biased, but also because there are so many kids in care homes, they don't belong there and they need real "parental" guidance through life, and for personal reasons.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    You're ignoring the OP entirely.
    No - pointing out that he was not being honest. What he wants is control over the woman's body to force an abortion. Once a child is born both parents have legal and moral obligations to a child. If you don't want those obligations then don't have sex - or you could have a vasectomy, that's a form of contraception available to men that is at least as effective as methods available to women.

    Abortions are permitted in this country under certain conditions, they have been spelt out elsewhere and do not include a desire to avoid financial responsibility. Whether abortions are sought or permitted too readily is a separate debate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by parentlurker)
    No - pointing out that he was not being honest. What he wants is control over the woman's body to force an abortion. Once a child is born both parents have legal and moral obligations to a child. If you don't want those obligations then don't have sex - or you could have a vasectomy, that's a form of contraception available to men that is at least as effective as methods available to women.

    Abortions are permitted in this country under certain conditions, they have been spelt out elsewhere and do not include a desire to avoid financial responsibility. Whether abortions are sought or permitted too readily is a separate debate.
    :rolleyes:Right because a vasectomy is fair on us explain because unlike the pill its extremely rarely reversible, weird YOU think that being a FEMALE and all,huh. I'll spell it out for you birth control procedures
    males: vasectomy which is proven(by statistics) to be not only risky to reverse but also expensive and usually ineffective(if you know what that means)

    Females: pill,sterilized,hysterectomy,and a hell of a lot of others I can't think of off the top of my head the fact is when you look at it from this angle can you see why I think its unfair on males?

    Can you tell me why we should have to pay usually hmmmm... £50-80,000 to raise a child we never wanted?? Just like to hear why, no seriously give me One good reason why apart from the obvious same B.S loaded answer everyone gives, CSA mugs males , we don't want the child , we usually have a one night stand in the case of marriage I'd give you a different answer but for having sex with a female once and we have to pay way too much so don't patronize males for not wanting to raise a child they didn't want!

    Seriously women have a monopoly on this, but I bet you like that fact though. If you can give me one good, simple answer justifying that we need to practically pay the same amount of money to buy and maintain a brand new porche for our whole lives I'll actually buy you one, morals don't mean anything in cases like this the media lies right in your faces about them so called dead beat dads(they did not want a child the female did though.)
    Forced abortion, hahah right. girls use it as a cashcow to rob men blind.
    If there is ever and I mean ever a male birth pill on the market, I'll take my opinion completely back but there isn't. Like as if we need more children anyway the world is overpopulated, and running out of resources quickly.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tgaa)
    Getting bored of this now, so this will be my last post on the matter.

    Getting fired was an analogy to show the link between actions and consequences. That much really should have been obvious. I can have my job, or I can have my free time in the morning, but I can't have both. A woman can have her baby, or she can have financial security, but not both (if the man doesn't want to pay).

    Big deal, it's a 'traumatic' medical procedure (BTW, up until about 12 weeks, it's just simply taking a couple of pills and the child/ball of cells dies and gets pushed out of the body much like a heavy period- there's no surgery required). I would certainly argue taking a couple of tablets- or even been subject to proper surgery, is less 'traumatic' than having to pay 18 BLOODY YEARS for a child you don't want. We shouldn't seek to wrap women up in cotton wool and have them never be subjected to a difficult decision or a painful procedure. Such an procedure would be called for in this case (assuming the woman wanted financial stability), as to grant the woman financial stability WITH her child would be an onorous penalty on the man compared with the woman simply having an abortion.

    Yeah, it's not pleasant, but guess what, plenty of things in life aren't. It's a far greater evil to expect a guy to pay 15% of his income for 18 years than to 'subject' a woman to a medical procedure she herself is 50% responsible for having to undergo anyway.

    Instead of asking 'why the child must suffer', you should instead ask the question 'why does the child deserve a better life just because of the accident of birth that their father COULD potentially provide money for them'. When you're born, you're not entitled to live in a nice house, to go to a good school, to have holidays every year and buy decent clothes. You're granted it because your parents wish you to have it. If they do not, that's their choice- it is, after all, their money and their assets. FWIW, I strongly believe having to 'suffer' through bad times makes one appreciate the value of money more and breeds a mentally stronger person than having it good right from the moment you were born.

    I'm not saying the mother cannot do what she wants with her own body. But given it is HER choice, SHE should be liable for the consequences. With rights also come responsibilities. If she has the 'right' to choose, she also has the 'responsibility' for the child. You're not considering the guy at all in this scenario. You just say 'even if the guy doesn't want the child, he has to pay'. That's what it all boils down to.

    I say **** that. The one making the decisions should take the consequences. Furthermore, who came up with the idea in the first place that just because I blow my load inside some girl I'm obliged to remit to her 15% of my salary for 18 years? Throughout history guys have gone across the world shagging as they pleased, doubtless leaving a trail of children in their wake and they would not have paused to debate matters of 'responsibility'.

    You don't want to get pregnant, then don't open your legs, unless you're on the pill. Outlying minority examples where the pill hasn't worked aside, that's the main problem sorted here. Take the pill and you won't get pregnant. Even if you did get pregnant there's abortion. The chance of the pill failing if properly taken though is really so ****ing tiny it's not even worth discussing.

    Basically, women should bear the vast majority of the responsibility because they can make all the decisions. It's girls who decide to have sex- a guy will have sex as much as he can, but it's a girl who decides to give it to him. Girls have more contraception options- not only are there condoms which she can make sure the guy uses, but there's implants, the pill, and the coil. Post-pregnancy, she can have an abortion. You make the decisions then you have to pay for them, simple as that.
    This has got to be one of the greatest posts on TSR ever.

    Take a bow son.

    Take a bow.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SarahAlexis)
    When the child has been born it's rather petty to argue over who did what and who should pick up the pieces. If the child is 50% the man's the man should contribute no matter how unfair it is because it is 100 times more unfair for the child to go without things it needs.
    Surely you mean 'things it wants', right? Basic neccesities are food, water, and shelter- government assistance is sufficient to provide all of those even if the man contributes nothing. Yep, some single mothers blow all their child benefit on **** and booze, but those same single mothers would spend child support payments the same way. Further to this, if a mother is on benefits, she doesn't receive the child support money anyway- and if she has a job, even one on minimum wage, that will alone be sufficient to provide for needs.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • 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.