Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

If the woman wants to abort the child Watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sulpha)
    I don't see how I can make my point any clearly so I'll leave it. You just don't seem to understand.

    You have some very old-fashioned and concrete views on giving birth which I don't think will change easily.

    A child born today is a womans choice, not a mans.
    Again, because someone disagrees with you does not mean they don't understand your point. Don't be so condescending, it degrades both you and your argument if you need to take that tact.

    My views as expressed here take in to account contraception and abortion etc - hardly old-fashioned is it?

    The part we fundamentally disagree on, and in my opinion therefore completely invalidates the proposal put forward, is your final sentence. I do not agree a child is a woman's choice, it's a joint responsibility between two consenting individuals. As expressed numerous times, they both have an option to use contraception. Just let every person regardless of gender take care of their own actions and this problem for the most part goes away.


    (Original post by StacFace)
    I haven't mentioned such a clause precisely because it wouldn't work but even without it I don't see how this wouldn't be a huge improvement. The woman is the one in control being the only one who can actually do anything about an unwanted pregnancy once it happens, so it makes sense that she has more of the responsibilty.

    In response to your scenario about men going round impregnating left, right and centre I would have no sympathy for the women they slept with. If they still had sex when he didn't use a condom, didn't use their own contraception, didn't go get a morning after pill the next day and didn't get an abortion then I'm sorry but that's them choosing to have a child. Just not using contraception, however, is not.
    I'll address the two bold points above;

    1) This assumes responsibility occurs after the fact - "once it happens". Surely common sense dictates that responsibility for the action is created by the action, not by choices further down the line.

    2) This sums up your apparent view of women, and to be honest I find it pretty disgusting. In this scenario you don't blame the man for his actions (sleeping around without contraception with multiple partners), you instead place blame the woman for the man's actions? I have a feeling you must have a biased view on this for other reasons...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sulpha)
    No, I'm saying you don't understand it because you're conflating pregnancy and definitively having a child in a time where that's no longer the case. Also, can you please keep your emotions out of this thread because I'm getting a bit tired of you being a victim.

    Contraceptions don't always work.

    Your attitude then is along the lines of "Oh well, they both chose to have sex therefore they should both support it."

    That attitude would be absolutely, 100% not a problem if we lived in a time where the morning after pill and safe abortion did not exist.

    But they do and they're both the woman's choice to utilise.

    If they're not utilised, that's because the woman chose not to. Hence, bringing a child into the world is a woman's decision.

    If a woman and a man have sex without wanting a child, she gets pregnant and then decides to keep it - that's her choice. The man entered into sexual intercourse on the understanding that should the woman get pregnant, she would take the steps to get rid of it.

    If the man does want it, then he can sign to support it which would often be the case. If not, no support if it's kept.
    Either way he still made it and it's still his and is responsible for the life he created, even if it's purely financially
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sulpha)
    From the current societal standpoint yes.

    In the distant future, I think that attitude will shift.
    I hope not. The responsibility doesn't lie with simply the woman. Every time you (man or woman) chooses to have sex they're signing up for the chance of making a baby, however tiny that chance may be (because of contraceptives and MAP's etc). And as a man cannot mind read a woman to know her opinion on abortion (and plenty of women don't know their opinion on it either until put in that horrible position) said man should assume that the woman will potentially keep the baby. If he's not happy with that choice, think twice before having sex.

    Edit: a woman should consider the above too before choosing to have sex.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    So would all you guys feel ok coercing/ pressuring a woman to carry and give birth to a child she didn't want to carry/ give birth to?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sulpha)
    No, I'm saying you don't understand it because you're conflating pregnancy and definitively having a child in a time where that's no longer the case. Also, can you please keep your emotions out of this thread because I'm getting a bit tired of you being a victim.

    Contraceptions don't always work.

    Your attitude then is along the lines of "Oh well, they both chose to have sex therefore they should both support it."

    That attitude would be absolutely, 100% not a problem if we lived in a time where the morning after pill and safe abortion did not exist.

    But they do and they're both the woman's choice to utilise.

    If they're not utilised, that's because the woman chose not to. Hence, bringing a child into the world is a woman's decision.

    If a woman and a man have sex without wanting a child, she gets pregnant and then decides to keep it - that's her choice. The man entered into sexual intercourse on the understanding that should the woman get pregnant, she would take the steps to get rid of it.

    If the man does want it, then he can sign to support it which would often be the case. If not, no support if it's kept.
    Tired of me being a victim? What on earth are you talking about? Focus on your argument rather than trying to discredit me... I suppose I'm brining emotion in to this as I dare to disagree with your warped view? Needless to say, the fact that the law literally operates in line with my view is besides the point right... you two on TSR have it covered.

    Your expectation is that a woman should then be responsible for taking a morning after pill every time she has sex, so that the man need not bear responsibility for his own actions in not wearing a condom? Are you aware of the side-effects of what you're suggesting? A healthy sex life would lead to a very unwell woman... I'm yet to hear of any side-effects from wearing a condom.

    The abortion argument holds a bit more weight, but is still blatantly flawed. Again - have you considered side effects, both physical and emotional to what you're suggesting? It seems like you're happy for men to be equal partner in causing the pregnancy, but for woman to bear all the downside in either financially supporting the child or all the downsides associated with an abortion. Essentially your proposal gives men the right to expect women to have an abortion if they don't fancy supporting their own child? Seems legit and completely objective, right?

    Also - lets say this proposal did go forward. What would happen when loads of men legally refuse to support their children? Who do you think should pick up that tab - the taxpayer? Great, nicely thought through.

    If you're going to continue to support this proposal, please provide objective answers to the above three points. Thanks.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sulpha)
    The bit in bold is what I'm talking about. Every single ****ing post of yours there is something. Perpetual victim.

    I'm not reading the rest of that essay.

    I'm sick of talking to you.
    I'm not claiming to be a victim - nor have I done so anywhere. I'm calling you out on your bull tactic where you attempt to win the debate by focusing elsewhere. Perhaps what you need to realise is that in every single one of your posts you try to pull that crap, hence I call it out. None of it is unsubstantiated, use your eyes and read your own posts. No objectivity in half of it.

    I've clearly dismantled your points and left you with nothing left to say. However in your classic debating style, you're not reading "the rest of that essay" as you have no response to it. Undoubtedly took you longer to type that post than it would have to read it, so I don't doubt that you read every word. Nice try, maybe next time think through your posts before hitting enter so that you don't get left looking like a fool.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    I'm not claiming to be a victim - nor have I done so anywhere. I'm calling you out on your bull tactic where you attempt to win the debate by focusing elsewhere. Perhaps what you need to realise is that in every single one of your posts you try to pull that crap, hence I call it out. None of it is unsubstantiated, use your eyes and read your own posts. No objectivity in half of it.

    I've clearly dismantled your points and left you with nothing left to say. However in your classic debating style, you're not reading "the rest of that essay" as you have no response to it. Undoubtedly took you longer to type that post than it would have to read it, so I don't doubt that you read every word. Nice try, maybe next time think through your posts before hitting enter so that you don't get left looking like a fool.
    No you haven't. What actually looks like it is that he's argued very well against your (nonsensical & rather tiresome points) and there's reason to continue because you're not engaging in the argument properly.

    And how is he left looking like a fool? You haven't embarrassed his argument -- no response here would suggest that he's left looking like a fool so don't chat ****. 'Classic debating style' to claim that someone else has made a fool of himself. :rofl2:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jam277.5)
    No you haven't. What actually looks like it is that he's argued very well against your (nonsensical & rather tiresome points) and there's reason to continue because you're not engaging in the argument properly.

    And how is he left looking like a fool? You haven't embarrassed his argument -- no response here would suggest that he's left looking like a fool so don't chat ****. 'Classic debating style' to claim that someone else has made a fool of himself. :rofl2:
    New member with 1 post? Seems legit.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    I'll address the two bold points above;

    1) This assumes responsibility occurs after the fact - "once it happens". Surely common sense dictates that responsibility for the action is created by the action, not by choices further down the line.

    2) This sums up your apparent view of women, and to be honest I find it pretty disgusting. In this scenario you don't blame the man for his actions (sleeping around without contraception with multiple partners), you instead place blame the woman for the man's actions? I have a feeling you must have a biased view on this for other reasons...
    1) Responsibility is present at every stage. Both parties have a responsibility to use contraception, however if that fails it's the woman's responsibility to take the morning after pill or get an abortion. The woman therefore has 3x the responsibility of the man.

    2) I am a woman. Having sex without protection isn't the "man's actions" it's both of their's. They both messed up. If pregnancy is the result then they both have a decision to make. Why society thinks it's ok when the woman decides 'no' but not when the man does I have no idea.

    I have no reason for having a biased view, I'm just interested in what's fair. I currently don't want children. I'm a full-time uni student, I live in a 9-bed student house with friends, I drink a lot, I sleep in at weekends etc. Having a child now would change my whole life, nothing about my current situation would be suitable. Even if someone else (eg the father) said they would look after it I'd have to go out less to afford child maintenance. I have previously had a condom split during sex, missed pills not realising until after sex and had sex not realising my implant had expired. These situations were never a problem because the morning after pill was there, and when I realised too late an abortion would have been there had I gotten pregnant. If I was a man, however, that could have been my life essentially over by now through no fault of my own. That's what's disgusting.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StacFace)
    1) Responsibility is present at every stage. Both parties have a responsibility to use contraception, however if that fails it's the woman's responsibility to take the morning after pill or get an abortion. The woman therefore has 3x the responsibility of the man.

    2) I am a woman. Having sex without protection isn't the "man's actions" it's both of their's. They both messed up. If pregnancy is the result then they both have a decision to make. Why society thinks it's ok when the woman decides 'no' but not when the man does I have no idea.

    I have no reason for having a biased view, I'm just interested in what's fair. I currently don't want children. I'm a full-time uni student, I live in a 9-bed student house with friends, I drink a lot, I sleep in at weekends etc. Having a child now would change my whole life, nothing about my current situation would be suitable. Even if someone else (eg the father) said they would look after it I'd have to go out less to afford child maintenance. I have previously had a condom split during sex, missed pills not realising until after sex and had sex not realising my implant had expired. These situations were never a problem because the morning after pill was there, and when I realised too late an abortion would have been there had I gotten pregnant. If I was a man, however, that could have been my life essentially over by now through no fault of my own. That's what's disgusting.
    1) Your first point is contradictory. How can responsibility exist at every point if you determine the only point that matters is the woman's decision after the event. The whole idea specifically removes responsibility from the man unless he signs the piece of paper? At least know what it is you're arguing!

    2) Society has decided it's OK for the woman to decide what to do with her own body. Her body is not communal property of herself and the man. This is why the woman can decide if she wants to have an abortion. Is it a perfect system? Of course not, condoms can break yada yada. But it's a darn sight better than this alternative proposed.

    3) Through no fault of your own? Forgetting to take your contraception or using expired contraception is no fault of your own? I'll give you the condom split though, that's an unfortunate situation. However lets remember that not all women are out to trap men in such events, as you clearly demonstrated by taking your morning after pill. It's hardly like one split condom = 100% baby.

    You also talk here about the maintenance side of a man trying to support a child. That's a very good point! Well what happens from a practical point of view when men can legally sign away any right to support their child? We end up with the child being supported by the state, aka taxpayers become the surrogate father. I wonder how many kids would be in such a situation within 10 years, and how much of a burden that would put on the state? This is inevitable if you remove responsibility from one party to the pregnancy.

    Also - before you jump in with "well the woman should just have an abortion" - we all know that's a very touchy subject and that an awful lot of women would not feel right about making that decision for religious or moral reasons. Regardless of whether that's sensible or not, from a practical stand point it's the truth.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Reading through this thread makes it seem like all men just run away from a woman if they don't want a child. It may be my ties to this kind of action (my brothers father did this) but not all men do this obviously. There are some who do but im sure its not the majority.

    Plus someone said that men can just choose to leave and pay the money with only financial impact. Think of this scenario;
    A low income man leaves the mother who has decided to keep the baby. The man puts in lots of overtime and gets another job to keep himself afloat whilst still paying for the baby. This extra stress affects his health. He gets more agitated and looses friends and family is more reluctant to interact with this man.
    This obviously isn't what always happens but its not outside the realms of possibility.

    Trying to answer the OP's question, I would say the man should try supporting the mothers decision and the baby and seeing how this goes.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    1) Your first point is contradictory. How can responsibility exist at every point if you determine the only point that matters is the woman's decision after the event. The whole idea specifically removes responsibility from the man unless he signs the piece of paper? At least know what it is you're arguing!

    2) Society has decided it's OK for the woman to decide what to do with her own body. Her body is not communal property of herself and the man. This is why the woman can decide if she wants to have an abortion. Is it a perfect system? Of course not, condoms can break yada yada. But it's a darn sight better than this alternative proposed.

    3) Through no fault of your own? Forgetting to take your contraception or using expired contraception is no fault of your own? I'll give you the condom split though, that's an unfortunate situation. However lets remember that not all women are out to trap men in such events, as you clearly demonstrated by taking your morning after pill. It's hardly like one split condom = 100% baby.

    You also talk here about the maintenance side of a man trying to support a child. That's a very good point! Well what happens from a practical point of view when men can legally sign away any right to support their child? We end up with the child being supported by the state, aka taxpayers become the surrogate father. I wonder how many kids would be in such a situation within 10 years, and how much of a burden that would put on the state? This is inevitable if you remove responsibility from one party to the pregnancy.

    Also - before you jump in with "well the woman should just have an abortion" - we all know that's a very touchy subject and that an awful lot of women would not feel right about making that decision for religious or moral reasons. Regardless of whether that's sensible or not, from a practical stand point it's the truth.
    1) You can still have a moral responsibility to do something even if there are no legal repercussions for your failure to do so.

    2) If you mean it's better than forcing a woman to go though with an unwanted pregnancy then yes I agree with you, however a woman being able to force a man to go through with an unwanted pregnancy is not better than the woman not being able to do so.

    3) I was reversing the situation, if I was the man it would have been my partner, not me, that forgot to take or had expired contraception so yes it would have been through no fault of my own. I agree not all women are out to trap men, in fact most probably aren't, however that doesn't mean the law should ignore those who are.

    4) It's not the man's child in such a situation, it's the woman's, or at least that's the way it should be. The woman has decided to have a child, the man has decided not to have one. If this law really would put lots of children in such a situation in the future then that says the problem of men being forced into having children they never wanted is a widespread problem and is all the more reason for something to be done about it.

    5) In that case the woman has made a decision to raise the child alone. At least she has been able to make that decision herself and not had it forced upon her.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StacFace)
    1) You can still have a moral responsibility to do something even if there are no legal repercussions for your failure to do so.

    2) If you mean it's better than forcing a woman to go though with an unwanted pregnancy then yes I agree with you, however a woman being able to force a man to go through with an unwanted pregnancy is not better than the woman not being able to do so.

    3) I was reversing the situation, if I was the man it would have been my partner, not me, that forgot to take or had expired contraception so yes it would have been through no fault of my own. I agree not all women are out to trap men, in fact most probably aren't, however that doesn't mean the law should ignore those who are.

    4) It's not the man's child in such a situation, it's the woman's, or at least that's the way it should be. The woman has decided to have a child, the man has decided not to have one. If this law really would put lots of children in such a situation in the future then that says the problem of men being forced into having children they never wanted is a widespread problem and is all the more reason for something to be done about it.

    5) In that case the woman has made a decision to raise the child alone. At least she has been able to make that decision herself and not had it forced upon her.
    I'm sorry, but this is idealistic nonsense with no thought for real world application.

    1) So you're now saying a man should have a moral responsibility to look after the child even if it's not a legal responsibility? So if you believe that's the right thing to do, why should the law explicitly remove said responsibility? It's all so contradictory, your last few posts indicate you really aren't thinking this through.

    2) You ignored my point and answered something else entirely. I don't see the relevance of your point, given those are only the two options you choose to present and clearly not an exhaustive list. The man has a very clear method to avoid pregnancy if he so chooses, as does the woman.

    3) So you're saying the law should punish the majority to hinder the minority. Alternatively, why not put responsibility on individuals choosing suitable partners? As for your example, again irrelevant what the woman does as it's the man's responsibility to use a condom if he doesn't want a child just like it's the woman's responsibility to use contraception if she doesn't either. There's no rule saying only one person can use contraception at a given time!

    4) You completely skirted around the issue raised. I'm not going to type it all again given it's two posts up, but to summarise the taxpayers end up paying for the children that are not accepted by the fathers in many cases - is this a superior scenario to the status quo? All you've done in your response is say it's not the man's child as he didn't sign a piece of paper, but that has no bearing on the fact the child still needs to be financially supported.

    5) She has had it forced upon her if she doesn't see abortion as an acceptable option. Again you've ignored that point entirely, as laid out in my previous post. Ignoring the issues raised and giving half answers does not make them go away...

    Have a go answering the questions rather than repeating the same points!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    I'm sorry, but this is idealistic nonsense with no thought for real world application.

    1) So you're now saying a man should have a moral responsibility to look after the child even if it's not a legal responsibility? So if you believe that's the right thing to do, why should the law explicitly remove said responsibility? It's all so contradictory, your last few posts indicate you really aren't thinking this through.

    2) You ignored my point and answered something else entirely. I don't see the relevance of your point, given those are only the two options you choose to present and clearly not an exhaustive list. The man has a very clear method to avoid pregnancy if he so chooses, as does the woman.

    3) So you're saying the law should punish the majority to hinder the minority. Alternatively, why not put responsibility on individuals choosing suitable partners? As for your example, again irrelevant what the woman does as it's the man's responsibility to use a condom if he doesn't want a child just like it's the woman's responsibility to use contraception if she doesn't either. There's no rule saying only one person can use contraception at a given time!

    4) You completely skirted around the issue raised. I'm not going to type it all again given it's two posts up, but to summarise the taxpayers end up paying for the children that are not accepted by the fathers in many cases - is this a superior scenario to the status quo? All you've done in your response is say it's not the man's child as he didn't sign a piece of paper, but that has no bearing on the fact the child still needs to be financially supported.

    5) She has had it forced upon her if she doesn't see abortion as an acceptable option. Again you've ignored that point entirely, as laid out in my previous post. Ignoring the issues raised and giving half answers does not make them go away...

    Have a go answering the questions rather than repeating the same points!
    I am answering your points, you just don't like my answers. It would work perfectly fine in the real world, it would essentially just be the birth certificate being signed in advance, everyone would be clear from the start who is expected to support the child and decisions on whether or not to keep it could be based on that whilst it's still early enough for such decisions to be made. It would be the best option for all involved.

    1) No I'm saying the man has a moral responsibility to use contraception to try and prevent the pregnancy in the first place if he doesn't want a child, not that he has any moral responsibility to care for a child he never wanted in the first place. Look back at what I said ("Both parties have a responsibility to use contraception"). The reason this shouldn't be enforced legally is because, as I've said before, it would be impossible to prove contraception was used but failed rather than not used and it is far more unjust for a responsible man doing all he could to prevent pregnancy to be forced into fatherhood than it is for an irresponsible woman (as I said before, if contraception isn't used that is both parties being irresponsible not just the man) to be given the choice of supporting a child alone or not having it.

    2) Your point explained why it is considered acceptable for women to have abortions and I stated I agree with you, it's her body and her decision. You then skip straight to saying it's not a perfect system but better than what I am proposing without giving any explanation why. I can only address points you actually make, so with no reason given on this particular point for why the current system is better all I can say is I disagree.

    3) How is it punishing the majority? The majority is cases like mine where regardless of what the law says the woman takes the morning after pill / gets an abortion because the reason they were using contraception in the first place was to prevent pregnancy. They're unaffected. The only potential unfairness I can see in this is if a man lies to a woman before sex saying he does want children and then backs out refusing to sign as father when she gets pregnant. This would be a downside however it would still be better than the equivalent under the current system where a woman lies saying she doesn't want them and then backs out of the morning after pill/an abortion forcing the father to support her child against his will. At least the woman in the first situation has a choice of an abortion or bringing up the child alone.
    You say why not put responsibility on individuals to choose suitable partners but you could just as easily argue that for my suggestion. The difference is it would be the woman not the man having to choose between abortion/raising a child alone not being forced into having a child. And it's not irrelevant what the woman does because if a woman says "it's ok I'm on the pill/injection/implant/etc" it's completely unacceptable for her to then turn around a few weeks later and say "I'm pregnant, I'm having the baby and you have to support it". Plus your suggestion doesn't take into account the torn condom scenario or what happens when both contraceptives fail.

    4) I haven't skirted the issue you just haven't understood what I was saying clearly. If a man says from the start he doesn't want the child and the woman keeps it anyway then that is her decision, her child, not his. The child does need supporting yes, but it is wrong to force the man to do so. If something is wrong it is wrong, "but otherwise she'll need benefits" isn't an excuse to make other people pay for her decisions. I can understand the argument that she should be supported and the state should do that, I can also understand the argument that it was her decision knowing she couldn't afford it and that she shouldn't be supported, however the idea that someone who could be as insignificant as a one night stand should be forced to support them is just incomprehensible.

    5) In that case she's forced it upon herself, it's not the same as the law forcing it upon someone. You can't argue that the law forcing a decision upon an entire group of people is better than an option being given to an entire group of people where some of those people will have to choose one of them because of their personal beliefs. It defies all logic. I'm not saying this is a perfect outcome - that would be a contraceptive that is 100% effective - however it is much better if people are at least given an option.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    It's an incredibly silly idea. Why would any man not in a marriage sign it? Essentially you remove the man's responsibility for his actions from the equation.

    If a man doesn't want a child, don't feckin make one. If you make one, it's your responsibility. Don't whine about not having a choice regarding abortion - it's the woman's body and the woman can choose what to do with her body within the remit of the law.
    Removing his responsibility is exactly the point, isn't it? If the mother has the ultimate choice over whether or not to keep the baby, then the father should surely have the choice to opt out of supporting it. Otherwise you're giving very little control to men, and allowing women to pass a long-term burden of their decision on to other parties. All it takes is a broken condom for that to happen.

    You're espousing the logic that men should take responsibility for the sexual risks that they take. Yet I presume that you don't believe that women should be forced to accept that same responsibility. Applying your reasoning to women, we should be denying them abortion rights.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    A man can easily find someone else who will want to have a child with him.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Simple solution the law should state that it is a agreed decision or one takes full legal responsibility.
    What I mean is either both agree for having the child or not having it or one person will agree to raise the child with a signed contract which says they will care until the age of 18. The other parent then signs a release which says they no longer have custody over the child and have no responsibilitys. For example the man wants the child but the mother doesn't they do all the legal stuff and she must go through the pregnancy unless a threat to life.
    I mean at the end of the day everyone turns round to a man and says I'm pregnant and it's your fault, wait a minute was you there?? If a woman agrees to sex she agrees to a child. It's like turning round to a woman when she pregnant and saying "why did you have to have those eggs"
    I hate the gender gap, it disgusts me to be honest.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think its fair and right for men to have no say in the pregnancy. What if the man wants to raise his kid and become a father? I know men don't get pregnant or give birth to children but it does take 2 to tango.

    I don't know the best solution because if the woman aborts the child, the child is gone and dead. The only thing he can do is grieve over his kid. I kind of agree that a pregnant woman does not own her body entirely. Currently in the USA, there is a law that bars have to serve alcohol to pregnant women. If a waiter/tress refuses, they can get sued for discrimination. Irrelevant I know. The baby in the mom's womb shares half of the chromosome of the father. So doesn't he get a say whether to be involved in his son/daughter's life?

    I never been pregnant or understand the complications of pregnancy but if the woman is already pregnant, then no one can say she engaged in sex accidentally or did unprotected sex. No one forced the woman to be pregnant if she landed herself in the spot in the first place. The man can take the responsibility of the child without the biological mom involved. Is that not a good thing?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mystery Me)
    If a man and woman, are in a relationship. And if the woman becomes pregnant and does not want the child. But the man wants the child as he is very able to provide and spend time for the child.

    If the woman, only cares about HER needs and HER pain and HER desires and HER wishes. Then certainly it's not a healthy relationship. The man will be blamed for being insensitive and a jerk, anyways.

    So, the best solutions, I can think of, would be to dump her or divorce her (if they are married).

    Its all about WOMEN WOMEN WOMEN.

    So, what do you think is the best solution for the man? And i'm talking about the best solution for the MAN. Lets take out women from this picture. Completely. Because obviously, the woman will succeed in aborting the child without a spec of guilt left in her and the man will be left in misery.
    The issue is a very complex one and is a bit oversimplified by representing it as the rights of choice of one person trumped by the rights of choice by another.

    If the man wants the child but the woman does not then for him to force her to go through with a pregnancy is contrary to her liberty. It's not simply a fifty per cent stake in the child, even if the man promises to do all the care, the woman will suffer the negative effects of pregnancy for nine months and then go through a painful birth against her will. Is it right to enforce this upon her for the sin of having sex? It'd be no different to the old religious laws that children cannot be aborted in any circumstances.

    The rights of a child in utero don't have bearing here as they are inherently lessee given it is not legally a person in being so right or wrong that argument won't contribute here. The rights of the father however are massively important. If he wants the child but she does not then she may have an abortion, if she wants it but he does not then he must pay child support. There is no denying a fundamental unfairness in that system.

    The question becomes is it justified? If there was no child support then the child may live in poverty, may lose out on the advantages of it's peers and may in both the short and long term, he harmed. The state helps somewhat but it would be naive to assume the state can support single parent families by itself even if it was inclined to, there needs to be money from somewhere. I disagree with the idea they must be kept in the state of living to which they are accustomed, rather they should simply owe a flat percentage of post tax income to adapt to variability in the job market and personal choice.

    If the system were to change, how would anyone do so without upsetting the delicate balance already established? It's undeniably a bit unfair, but even offering a writ of exclusion for example to allow dads to opt out of having the child ie state pre birth they will not contribute would still leave the problem of an impoverished child as well as a child who may in the future discover they were unwanted. There is no safe solution to change the system as is.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Which web browser do you use?

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.