How much input should the father have in deciding on abortion?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by 100umsgod
Then why should only 1 have any say in whether it is born or not?
****ing great argument love.
****ing great argument love.
Read the first line. I believe the father should have input.
Original post by katiiiiie
Read the first line. I believe the father should have input.
Whilst I agree in an ideal world the father should have some input, I don't agree that they should have no financial responsibility to the child if it is born
Bolded implies that it is impractical and so the opposite should be, which in this case, is the father not having input.
Also the second clause is completely irrelevant to the OP's question.
I believe it should be the woman's choice solely, because otherwise a pregnancy or abortion might be forced on them, and it's their body that's going through the pregnancy, not the man
I disagree with everyone who says the man should not have to pay maintenance if it was unwanted - he should have thought about that before he took it out of his pants, and it's unfair for the child to grow up without a dad - it must be horrible for a child to think s/he wasn't wanted and that their dad isn't interested in them so anyone with a heart and is not self centred would take a role in the upbringing of the child. Actions have consequences. This is a child they're abandoning, not a contract they can happily sign out of.
I disagree with everyone who says the man should not have to pay maintenance if it was unwanted - he should have thought about that before he took it out of his pants, and it's unfair for the child to grow up without a dad - it must be horrible for a child to think s/he wasn't wanted and that their dad isn't interested in them so anyone with a heart and is not self centred would take a role in the upbringing of the child. Actions have consequences. This is a child they're abandoning, not a contract they can happily sign out of.
Original post by SophieSmall
1.I agree with you in a perfect world, but it's not a perfect world. And 2.ensuring the child is given a life in which it is clothed and fed is more important in my opinion than whether it's father has to pay £33 a week in child maintenance (going off a minimum wage job at 35 hours a week).
3.If you don't agree with that then that's fine, they're called opinions for a reason. But that's my take on it anyway.
3.If you don't agree with that then that's fine, they're called opinions for a reason. But that's my take on it anyway.
I thought you would reply to my logical arguments with your logical arguments. Because I am optimist and I want believe your arguments are based on logic and not on emotion or the desire to prioritise the wishes of a gender over the wishes of another gender.
1. That is not a reply to any of the logical arguments I gave you.
2. Hence, why medical access for non-abortion purposes should be restricted to those who can afford to have a child. This (and not the whole "the man must pay, there is no other way") is a necessary measure. Your dichotomy is fictional. It is not about a child's well-being vs a man's paying an amount of money is about holding those who have the power to make a decision responsible for their decisions and if you had no say, your responsibility on the matter is as great as that of a person in Cambodia.
3. It is not about agreement but about a) ethics (direction proportion of decision power and responsibility) and b) logic.
You did not tackle any of the 6 points I raised in post 94.
Original post by 100umsgod
Whilst I agree in an ideal world the father should have some input, I don't agree that they should have no financial responsibility to the child if it is born
Bolded implies that it is impractical and so the opposite should be, which in this case, is the father not having input.
Also the second clause is completely irrelevant to the OP's question.
Bolded implies that it is impractical and so the opposite should be, which in this case, is the father not having input.
Also the second clause is completely irrelevant to the OP's question.
I do believe men should have a say if a pregnancy is going to go ahead or not, I have a friend who was in a predicament where he had no say whatsoever. Also, my second point was aimed at some of the replies saying the father should have no financial responsibility. I suppose I assumed when men have sex they are always aware of the possibility that the woman could become pregnant, and if the woman has the baby that they may have to contribute.
Perhaps my opinion is biased and I am sorry if I offend you, just an opinion though
Original post by katiiiiie
I do believe men should have a say if a pregnancy is going to go ahead or not, I have a friend who was in a predicament where he had no say whatsoever. Also, my second point was aimed at some of the replies saying the father should have no financial responsibility. I suppose I assumed when men have sex they are always aware of the possibility that the woman could become pregnant, and if the woman has the baby that they may have to contribute.
Perhaps my opinion is biased and I am sorry if I offend you, just an opinion though
Perhaps my opinion is biased and I am sorry if I offend you, just an opinion though
It does offend me because it is a grossly flawed argument and hideous opinion.
Original post by Dandaman1
Which reminds me, "her body, her choice" isn't a good argument, and comes across as a little selfish. Another parent is still involved and is given responsibility, and there's also the baby's body to consider. The world doesn't revolve entirely around the mother and her interests.
I do agree with you. If I was part of this scenario, I would always give the baby's father a say.
However, it's not quite as straightforward as you put it, for the following reasons.
1. If a father can 'financially sever' himself, that leads to a massive murky area, where fathers of all types may be able to abandon a mother with a child. I mean no disrespect to the fantastic single fathers who are out there, but the statistics do say that the vast majority of single parents are female, and I seriously doubt that's a lifestyle choice, or indeed down to abortion disputes. Child maintenance payments are not a 'tax on men' - they are an attempt to force a parent of any gender who just walks away to reassume their equal share of the responsibility.
2. Practicality. I don't actually agree with 'my body, my choice' - I believe it's about both partners. However, reasonable people are not the issue here - it's how to deal with the unreasonable ones. If a mother says no, what can you possibly do? Drag them to the operating table and drug them?
Truthfully, it's never going to be fair. All we can do is damage control.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Juichiro
I thought you would reply to my logical arguments with your logical arguments. Because I am optimist and I want believe your arguments are based on logic and not on emotion or the desire to prioritise the wishes of a gender over the wishes of another gender.
1. That is not a reply to any of the logical arguments I gave you.
2. Hence, why medical access for non-abortion purposes should be restricted to those who can afford to have a child. This (and not the whole "the man must pay, there is no other way"
is a necessary measure. Your dichotomy is fictional. It is not about a child's well-being vs a man's paying an amount of money is about holding those who have the power to make a decision responsible for their decisions and if you had no say, your responsibility on the matter is as great as that of a person in Cambodia.
3. It is not about agreement but about a) ethics (direction proportion of decision power and responsibility) and b) logic.
You did not tackle any of the 6 points I raised in post 94.
1. That is not a reply to any of the logical arguments I gave you.
2. Hence, why medical access for non-abortion purposes should be restricted to those who can afford to have a child. This (and not the whole "the man must pay, there is no other way"
is a necessary measure. Your dichotomy is fictional. It is not about a child's well-being vs a man's paying an amount of money is about holding those who have the power to make a decision responsible for their decisions and if you had no say, your responsibility on the matter is as great as that of a person in Cambodia. 3. It is not about agreement but about a) ethics (direction proportion of decision power and responsibility) and b) logic.
You did not tackle any of the 6 points I raised in post 94.
Okay well you've just completely decided for yourself why I have the opinions I do by pulling them right out of your arse crack.
I didn't bother going through all the points because you also clearly ignored points I made, I saw little reason to.
We clearly have different opinions and different ethical standards.
Don't reply to me again if you're going to continue to be such a buffoon, I remember when you used to actually be a good poster on here. Seems lately you've just devolved into someone who decides for yourself why people think the way they do and will do anything to "win" an argument.This is clearly a subjective topic, there is no winning.
Original post by 100umsgod
It does offend me because it is a grossly flawed argument and hideous opinion.
I would much rather believe in equality between both men and women rather than 'man being head of the household, what he says goes' etc. We will agree to disagree
Original post by katiiiiie
Whilst I agree in an ideal world the father should have some input, I don't agree that they should have no financial responsibility to the child if it is born. They chose to have sex and pregnancy is always a possibility. If a child is born they should step up and be responsible as it takes two to make a baby.
The responsibility of the consequences of an act you hold is directly proportional to your ability to make a decision about that act.
Pregnancy can be tackled with abortion so pregnancy is no issue. Thus a child is not born unless someone decides otherwise. Under the "my body my choice" philosophy, that power rests solely on the mother. Thus, the logical conclusion is that the sole responsibility for the child rests on the person who had the power to decide whether or not the child would be born: the mother.
Original post by Kyle1198
I believe it should be the woman's choice solely, because otherwise a pregnancy or abortion might be forced on them, and it's their body that's going through the pregnancy, not the man
I disagree with everyone who says the man should not have to pay maintenance if it was unwanted - he should have thought about that before he took it out of his pants, and it's unfair for the child to grow up without a dad - it must be horrible for a child to think s/he wasn't wanted and that their dad isn't interested in them so anyone with a heart and is not self centred would take a role in the upbringing of the child. Actions have consequences. This is a child they're abandoning, not a contract they can happily sign out of.
I disagree with everyone who says the man should not have to pay maintenance if it was unwanted - he should have thought about that before he took it out of his pants, and it's unfair for the child to grow up without a dad - it must be horrible for a child to think s/he wasn't wanted and that their dad isn't interested in them so anyone with a heart and is not self centred would take a role in the upbringing of the child. Actions have consequences. This is a child they're abandoning, not a contract they can happily sign out of.
1. Forcing something on someone is not ethical whether it is a pregnancy/abortion on a woman or financial payments on a man.
2. "I disagree with everyone who says the woman should not have to abort if it was unwanted - she should have thought about that before she chose to get pregnant".
3. "it's unfair for the child to grow up without a dad - it must be horrible for a child to think s/he wasn't wanted [because the mother chose to gave birth to a fatherless child]".
4. " anyone with a heart and is not self centred choose to only give birth to a child whose biological parents have chosen to have. Actions have consequences. "
Original post by SophieSmall
Okay well you've just completely decided for yourself why I have the opinions I do by pulling them right out of your arse crack.
I didn't bother going through all the points because you also clearly ignored points I made, I saw little reason to.
We clearly have different opinions and different ethical standards.
Don't reply to me again if you're going to continue to be such a buffoon, I remember when you used to actually be a good poster on here. Seems lately you've just devolved into someone who decides for yourself why people think the way they do and will do anything to "win" an argument.This is clearly a subjective topic, there is no winning.
I didn't bother going through all the points because you also clearly ignored points I made, I saw little reason to.
We clearly have different opinions and different ethical standards.
Don't reply to me again if you're going to continue to be such a buffoon, I remember when you used to actually be a good poster on here. Seems lately you've just devolved into someone who decides for yourself why people think the way they do and will do anything to "win" an argument.This is clearly a subjective topic, there is no winning.
Why do feminists always back out of a debate? Is it because their emotions get the better of them and they are incapable of typing/speaking coherently?
Original post by 100umsgod
Why do feminists always back out of a debate? Is it because their emotions get the better of them and they are incapable of typing/speaking coherently?
I'm not a feminist I'm an egalitarian, purely because of the bad rep feminism now has due to extremists and misandrists.
It just so happens this is a particular area which will never be fair purely due to the nature of pregnancy.
But well done for throwing shrouded insults, all you've done is make yourself look silly.
The reasons I did not bother with Juichiro I made quite clear, if you have a problem with any of those reasons why don't you make yourself more clear? Please feel free.
Original post by SophieSmall
I'm not a feminist I'm an egalitarian, purely because of the bad rep feminism now has due to extremists and misandrists.
It just so happens this is a particular area in which men and women will never before purely due to the nature of pregnancy.
But well done for throwing shrouded insults, all you've done is make yourself look silly.
The reasons I did not bother with Juichiro I made quite clear, if you have a problem with any of those reasons why don't you make yourself more clear? Please feel free.
It just so happens this is a particular area in which men and women will never before purely due to the nature of pregnancy.
But well done for throwing shrouded insults, all you've done is make yourself look silly.
The reasons I did not bother with Juichiro I made quite clear, if you have a problem with any of those reasons why don't you make yourself more clear? Please feel free.
There wasn't one insult in my post. Let alone the plural.
It should not be a subjective issue. In fact, if you argue it morally/ethically/philosophically, and correctly so, objective conclusions are easy to reach.
Original post by Kyle1198
I believe it should be the woman's choice solely, because otherwise a pregnancy or abortion might be forced on them, and it's their body that's going through the pregnancy, not the man.
Keep in mind that being pregnant is not a disease. I know many women who keep working up to 8 months, and if the woman gives up the child to the father at birth, she won't lose any time on maternity leave either, so a pregnancy wouldn't put her job in jeopardy. If I got pregnant by a man I liked as a person, and he asked me to have the child and let him raise it - I would do it (I don't want children and I'm thinking of a past boyfriend right now - I think he would have made a great father). As for the opposite scenario, where the woman wants to keep the child but the man doesn't, she can obviously go through with it as well. Not sure about maintenance in either scenario - I think that, for the sake of the child, someone has to pay for maintenance, but it could be the state rather than the absent mother or father.
But I think my argument is kind of academic, because I think it's not really a question of how much input the man should have, but more a question of how important an embryo is to you. If someone thinks the life of an embryo is very important, they'll want the father to have the right to veto an abortion (in the hope that this will prevent some abortions), and if someone thinks it isn't very important, they'll think only the woman should decide because it's her body. Not sure how many abortions this would stop, anyway. IME it's usually the boys / men who don't want the children.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by 100umsgod
There wasn't one insult in my post. Let alone the plural.
It should not be a subjective issue. In fact, if you argue it morally/ethically/philosophically, and correctly so, objective conclusions are easy to reach.
It should not be a subjective issue. In fact, if you argue it morally/ethically/philosophically, and correctly so, objective conclusions are easy to reach.
Well clearly it is, just look at how different the responses are to each other in this thread
Juichiro thinks it is unethical for a man to have to pay for a child he doesn't want and has no say in, I think it is unethical for a child to go without due to it's father not paying child maintenance.
Clearly in a perfect world this child never would have been born if it didn't have two parents who want it. But this isn't a perfect world and children will be born regardless, is that unethical? Yes. But it is also unethical to force women to abort to prevent this.
Original post by SophieSmall
Well clearly it is, just look at how different the responses are to each other in this thread
Juichiro thinks it is unethical for a man to have to pay for a child he doesn't want and has no say in, I think it is unethical for a child to go without due to it's father not paying child maintenance.
Clearly in a perfect world this child never would have been born if it didn't have two parents who want it. But this isn't a perfect world and children will be born regardless, is that unethical? Yes. But it is also unethical to force women to abort to prevent this.
Juichiro thinks it is unethical for a man to have to pay for a child he doesn't want and has no say in, I think it is unethical for a child to go without due to it's father not paying child maintenance.
Clearly in a perfect world this child never would have been born if it didn't have two parents who want it. But this isn't a perfect world and children will be born regardless, is that unethical? Yes. But it is also unethical to force women to abort to prevent this.
That is because nobody, or atleast the people your refer to, are arguing logically. Getting caught up in emotions often hinders this.
Original post by 100umsgod
That is because nobody, or atleast the people your refer to, are arguing logically. Getting caught up in emotions often hinders this.
Excuse me how was none of that logical?
Original post by SophieSmall
Excuse me how was none of that logical?
It was to your point that this is determined as a 'subjective' topic because people in this thread have different opinions. That is what I was contesting.
Original post by Octohedral
If a mother says no, what can you possibly do? Drag them to the operating table and drug them?
Truthfully, it's never going to be fair. All we can do is damage control.
Truthfully, it's never going to be fair. All we can do is damage control.
You can just provide abortion-only medical access and no child benefits.
Original post by SophieSmall
1.Okay well you've just completely decided for yourself why I have the opinions I do by pulling them right out of your arse crack.
2. I didn't bother going through all the points because you also clearly ignored points I made, I saw little reason to.
3.We clearly have different opinions and different ethical standards.
4.Don't reply to me again if you're going to continue to be such a buffoon, 5.I remember when you used to actually be a good poster on here. 6.Seems lately you've just devolved into someone who decides for yourself why people think the way they do and will do anything to "win" an argument. 7.This is clearly a subjective topic, there is no winning.
2. I didn't bother going through all the points because you also clearly ignored points I made, I saw little reason to.
3.We clearly have different opinions and different ethical standards.
4.Don't reply to me again if you're going to continue to be such a buffoon, 5.I remember when you used to actually be a good poster on here. 6.Seems lately you've just devolved into someone who decides for yourself why people think the way they do and will do anything to "win" an argument. 7.This is clearly a subjective topic, there is no winning.
1. Talking about anger. I said "I want to believe". I did not say "I believed". Also, using offensive words does not support your views.
2. I didn't. If you have a look at post 94, you will see that I used the bold feature on your text to reference the replied I made. You will see that most of your text has been referenced. You have done no such things with my points. If you still believe, that I didn't feel free to give the number of posts containing points I didn't reply to. I believe your claim is false but I am willing to change my beliefs in the face of evidence.
3. No two individuals have the same ethical views. Your blanket statement seems to lack relevance here. If you don't wish to have your views challenged, don't post in here. But you should not get angry whenever someone challenges your views.
4. Again, using offensive words does not support your views.
5. Ad hominem.
6. Same as point 5. Also point 3 applies here too.
7. Point 3 applies here too.
There is no point in getting angry and using offensive words, Sophie.
I want to believe that you can do better than that.
On the issue of child support I think that if the man doesn't want the baby but she goes through with the pregnancy anyway then he shouldn't have to pay. I would probably still pay but I don't think that the man should be obligated to pay. It's not the man's problem. Even if the mother didn't want to abort because of ethical reasons I still don't think that the man should have to support the child.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
