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

Should men have the right to "abort" their unborn child? Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zayn008)
    Fair enough. I've actually never thought about a situation where a woman wanted a baby and the man didn't but the woman wanted the man to pay… in that case I'd say the man should be able to financially opt out or the woman should have an abortion. I'd like to think most women would have the decency to keep the fathers completely out if they wish to do so but I guess it does happen. I thought paying for child maintenance only happened after a divorce so that's why I said what I did.
    the law is so hilariously unfair that men have actually been forced to pay for embryos that have been created through another man that the woman had been cheating with as well. this law is in dire need of reform.

    at least it was the case in the US:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ting-time.html
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladymusiclover)
    There's no such thing as true equality. There's always other factors i.e the mother (bearer of the child) would generally have more rights than the father of the child. So no to the OP's question.
    what, in relation to child support?
    why?
    why can't the man just opt out and give notice of this?
    you're assuming that an abortion is impossible or that the woman can't pay for the child herself
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quantex)
    No, if think you are old enough to have sex, then you are old enough to take some financial responsibility for any resulting progeny.
    Are you prolife?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Coming back to the original question
    "If the father of the unborn child wants the mother to have an abortion and she does not want to, should he have the right at this stage to give up his rights as a father and therefore not have to pay child support to the mother? "
    How sad for a father to let his own son or daughter be born and walk the earth without ever even getting to meet them. I think that might be the kind of decision that would put the man in therapy years later when he realises what he has missed out on.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kvothe the Arcane)
    No. It does seem unfair but ultimately, it's her body and it'd be problematic if someone were able to make such a decision about another adult without their consent.
    The OP was talking about 'financial abortion' as it's often called, not actually forcing the mother to have a real abortion. She can keep the child if she wants to, but she has to make that decision knowing in advance that the father is or isn't going to financially contribute.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stoyfan)
    But what about the man? Should he pay for the costs? I think this should be resolved in a case by case basis by court. Things like" whether the man was careless and did not bother using contraceptives" should be explored in the court case.

    However one would wonder if this can do more harm than good if the man breaks up with the single mother as she would be left if essentially no source of income (if the court decided that the man didn't have to pay for child support).
    i applaud your ability to see reason and logic in these troubling times wherein brain cells are too few and far between to conduct a coherent sentence let alont a proper thought. i must also add, these suggestions do aid men those of which are stuck behind legal ties and values (e.g. as someone else said: financial servitude for kids they didn't want) there are some men that are stuck in financial servitude for kids that they didn't even know weren't theirs!

    however, i do find a bit of an issue with your statement, as you still imply that the consequences of sex automatically fall on the dude, Because HE failed to provide the condom in that situation you were describing. one wonders if you havn't actually thought about the fact that: Womens' condoms DO exist (e.g: implants. normal condoms. birth control. the morning-after pill. etc). the idea that men are responsible for each and every calamity to befall the 'oh-so-precious' sex angers me to no avail and the irony that these same women (well.. some of them anyway) have the gall to turn around and then blame men for their own carelessness, isn't lost on me. therefore, utilizing this thought, it isn't mainly on the man for him to provide protection; as last i checked, it took two to hump the bed, therefore the onus on responsibility would/should be on both..?
    regardless, there could be other issues, like: "women poking men condoms. false parenthood. Expecting the dude to bring the condoms" etc
    as to your other point, well, that's life folks. (heh. jk)

    the govt has funds/plans for these type of situations; whilst the woman keeps on looking for jobs that would accept her and thus build her own source of income (and as for the kid.. day cares exist); it would be a sound decision for the woman to be supported by the state whilst she Actively seeks a paycheck.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -Simon-)
    The foetus is part of the mother's body. When it is a foetus, you are not expected to pay for it as a father. When it is born it is no longer a foetus. You are then in it 50/50.

    She can have an abortion. It's her body and her right. The father isn't in the picture as there will never be a child for him to have a say about.
    Well it's an interesting way to look at it, I just see it from a different angle as 50/50 from conception.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChargingStag)
    Well it's an interesting way to look at it, I just see it from a different angle as 50/50 from conception.
    Responsibility can't be shared equally when there's such a difference in power. Women can trivially abort after conception, and steadily less trivially for a whole 24 weeks. That means that, on her whim, she can compel the male to spend the next 20 years funding a child that she's chosen to keep, or choose or not to.
    If the father can withdraw before the abortion limit, she simply has to decide where she can afford to sustain a child that she's choosing to have by herself.

    The difference is that while a man can only choose whether or not to have sex, a woman chooses whether or not to have a baby. You really can't equate the two.

    Spoiler:
    Show


    My problem with this is that, even if certain women couldn't afford a child without the man's financial aid, many would choose to keep it anyway (look at pretty much every teenage pregnancy in which both partners earn next-to-nothing). I worry that many men would just screw around and impregnate women almost on purpose, with no reason to care about the consequences. It's basically what evolution has programmed us to do. Until we have a much stronger culture of aborting unless you're sure you're in the best position to have a child (financially stable and, ideally, in a committed relationship with a willing father), financial abortion would just mean more and more single mothers dependent on government assistance.

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This sort of thinking reminds me of Trump-ness.
    Talk about the juxtaposed position of gender equality...
    Women will definitely goes 'Our body is our rights, no man tell us what to do!!"

    Seriously speaking... no. Unless the man is her husband or of family relations. Otherwise he's just a busybody who are too concerned about a stranger's problem/life. Paying for child support is another sort of consequence.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    A bill like this recently passed in the MHoC on here

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -Simon-)
    No, the more accurate comparison would be:

    You invite someone who you aren't sure about/don't know that well, to come and look round your house and then they take some of your stuff as they weren't to be trusted. Then he'd be saying "Well you did invite that strange person in your house"

    or

    You see someone at school with a gun and think this is probably fine I imagine the safety is on and no one would shoot a gun at school and follow them into the room. Then he'd be saying "You should have left when you saw the gun"

    The point is largely that you know there is the risk of something occurring and still enter the scenario yourself. It doesn't excuse what the other person did, but, you did knowingly enter that situation of risk, you weren't an innocent bystander.
    Getting raped and being forced to go through with the pregnancy was a good example.


    (Original post by DerpTwerk)
    the law is so hilariously unfair that men have actually been forced to pay for embryos that have been created through another man that the woman had been cheating with as well. this law is in dire need of reform.

    at least it was the case in the US:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ting-time.html
    ye atleast women can get justice when they get raped.

    Men have laws that allow them to be ****ed over lmfao. Imagine being cheated on by your wife and then as an added insult to injury you lose half your stuff in the divorce and then have to pay child support for someone else's child for 18 years. Where are all those feminists that constantly spam "feminism is about getting equal rights for women AND men." :rofl:

    Stuff like that is why male suicide rates are so high.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lavaridge)
    Spoiler:
    Show



    My problem with this is that, even if certain women couldn't afford a child without the man's financial aid, many would choose to keep it anyway (look at pretty much every teenage pregnancy in which both partners earn next-to-nothing). I worry that many men would just screw around and impregnate women almost on purpose, with no reason to care about the consequences. It's basically what evolution has programmed us to do. Until we have a much stronger culture of aborting unless you're sure you're in the best position to have a child (financially stable and, ideally, in a committed relationship with a willing father), financial abortion would just mean more and more single mothers dependent on government assistance.


    Well the simple solution to that is. Get an abortion or practice safe sex if you're female and don't want to take care of a child. Which they can already do so it's not a problem.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChickenMadness)
    Well the simple solution to that is. Get an abortion or practice safe sex if you're female and don't want to take care of a child. Which they can already do so it's not a problem.
    Yeah they can do that, but many don't. That was my point. And you can say that just sucks for them to be landed with a fatherless baby, but it also sucks for us as taxpayers, and as people who don't want to live in a society where huge numbers of kids have no dads.

    We need quite a significant cultural shift before this can actually work. Right now, too many people think that abortion is still an ethically murky area, or think that the fact they're already pregnant should influence whether they want a child or not.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lavaridge)
    Yeah they can do that, but many don't. That was my point. And you can say that just sucks for them to be landed with a fatherless baby, but it also sucks for us as taxpayers, and as people who don't want to live in a society where huge numbers of kids have no dads.

    We need quite a significant cultural shift before this can actually work. Right now, too many people think that abortion is still an ethically murky area, or think that the fact they're already pregnant should influence whether they want a child or not.
    Well it doesn't suck for them. That's their choice. They're not being landed with a fatherless baby they're choosing it. You can't force people not to have a child because you think it's irresponsible. There are plenty of poor families already having children and claiming benefits.

    If anything this will lower that amount because those women who choose to have children and be single moms, are going to be less likely to do that if they can't find a man pay child support.

    There are a lot of women in poor areas that literally go out and get pregnant just so they can receive child support and benefits. If they can't get that child support they're not going to do it.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    No
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quantex)
    This is one of those tired debates that gets done over and over again on TSR to the point where you just know how to trigger people.
    Lol at how you never replied to that guy tho
    As soon as your double standards hypocrisy is pointed out "hurr ur jus all triggered :^)"
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    BOTH parties should
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Metal Gear)
    Would you say the same to a woman who wants an abortion?
    A woman who has an abortion won't have any resulting progeny, so the question is moot.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Either abortion is immoral and should be forbidden. In which case neither man or woman has a say in it.

    Or abortion is all about bodily autonomy in which case, sorry guys, but it isn't your body carrying the fetus.

    Either way, men don't get any final say.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lavaridge)
    The OP was talking about 'financial abortion' as it's often called, not actually forcing the mother to have a real abortion. She can keep the child if she wants to, but she has to make that decision knowing in advance that the father is or isn't going to financially contribute.
    Ok then but that is going to have other considerations to take into account. The cost on society if the mother needs financial support etc. Are all the horrible oiks on here with their anti-welfare spiel seriously suggesting that a man can just bugger off his financial responsibility for the state to pick up the slack? Or instead of hypocrisy are they instead going for a poverty kick in screwing over a load of single poorer women? Do you guys really expect woman to have to make the decision between killing her fetus and having a child she can not afford because a man has had a "financial abortion"?

    I'm fine with chucking money at people just for existing, child included. But then I'm a disgusting left winger :borat:
 
 
 
  • 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 time of year is the worst for students?
    Help with your A-levels

    All the essentials

    The adventure begins mug

    Student life: what to expect

    What it's really like going to uni

    Rosette

    Essay expert

    Learn to write like a pro with our ultimate essay guide.

    Uni match

    Uni match

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course for you

    Study planner

    Create a study plan

    Get your head around what you need to do and when with the study planner tool.

    Study planner

    Resources by subject

    Everything from mind maps to class notes.

    Hands typing

    Degrees without fees

    Discover more about degree-level apprenticeships.

    A student doing homework

    Study tips from A* students

    Students who got top grades in their A-levels share their secrets

    Study help links and info

    Can you help? Study help unanswered threadsRules and posting guidelines

    Sponsored content:

    HEAR

    HEAR

    Find out how a Higher Education Achievement Report can help you prove your achievements.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.