Throughout the 70's, 80's and 90's the one argument that was made for pro-abortion was that an unwanted pregnancy reduces the chances for a woman to pursue a career of her choice and hence abortion should be an option and the woman should have society's support,
Flip it around and u could make the same case for men's choice of being a father,
Say a woman gets pregnant and the man would have a serious dent in his career, shouldn't he have the option to call out of paying child support right?
What are your thoughts?
Is forced fatherhood fair?
Updates
+1 y
lol some of the women on here are so self centered it amazes me as if consent to sex is not consent to parenthood for women then it should be the same for men anything less would be discrimination against men plus highly unfair
No, it's not fair. I have doubts about how to regulate denying child support... I don't see it all white or black because I can't 100% pretend this is the male version of abortion, because I know about a woman who abandoned their husband and 2 kids, and she has a legal duty to give money to this man just like any father who abandon a family. However I guess the situation it's different if he already knows he doesn't want to be father when abortion is still an option or if he talked about it even before pregnancy occurs... And if despite beign told so she still wants to have it. I think maybe should exist a kind of legal procedure for those men, but I guess it should be able to use it in an specific context, meaning that a parent can't suddenly decide to use this law after having been taking care of their kids for 1 or 2 years voluntarily.
But honestly, I must add that I don't understand how anyone would like to have a baby if they partner (either the woman or the man) isn't happy with the idea at all... Weird people :V
2
1 Reply
Asker
+1 y
i agree that it is hard to put into action but in the situation the womon had already consent to parent the kids as she had them with her husband plus did not put them up for adoption so in that sutuation yes make her pay child surrport but in the case of the man not wanting the baby before it is born he should be able to say not to being a parent but only before it is born
Unless the woman inseminated herself without the man's consent, there is no such thing as forced fatherhood.
Men make the choice to risk pregnancy when they have sex with a woman. They can reduce the risk a lot by many methods shared between them. (Not having vaginal intercourse, withdrawal, condoms, other contraceptives.)
But really, when a man ejaculates inside the vagina of a woman of childbearing age, he's taking the risk. This is why I recommend that people establish a significant amount of trust with partners - so the man knows his partner is faithfully using her birth control, and they have discussed what each would want to happen if an unplanned pregnancy were to occur.
A lot of men just want to raw dog women they barely know and never plan to see twice. Well, I have news for you. That's how babies are made.
3
17 Reply
Asker
+1 y
yes there is as women get a choice you can claime all you want that sex is consent to parenthood but it is not you know why as women get a choice after they have sex yes they consent to sex as well so why does having sex only lead to consent to parenthood for men but not the women
Yes. Sex risks pregnancy. That's just a fuckin fact. Men have choices they can make if they don't want to become parents. If they didn't make those choices, or something failed, that risks parenthood.
Men don't get to get off the hook for their choices just because they have no say in whether a woman has an abortion or not.
The responsibility is not toward the woman. it's toward the child. And if men do not support the children they father, the taxpayers will and that is not fair to all of us.
Children need to be supported by the parents that made them.
Sex risks pregnancy.
Nothing about abortion changes that.
The woman didn't steal his sperm and defraud him.
Now, are there women who have lied and got pregnant on purpose? Yes. That's horrible and it should never happen. I could totally see where a man has a case there.
But sex risks pregnancy. It just does. We can't make that not true just because men want to ditch the children they created. That kid didn't ask to be born.
so consent to sex is consent to parenthood for men only then i have noticed that the current system is hightly unfair to men is a hugh black stop in the minds of most women as they benefit from it and get freedom of choice why at the same time force a man to pay for her choice so tell me again how conset to sex is consent to parenthood cuz if it was then women would not be able to get abortions or put the baby up for adoption and safe haven laws would not be a thing would they
Yes, consensual coitus is consent to a risk of pregnancy, whether mitigated by other factors or not.
Just because women have the final say on choosing to terminate a pregnancy doesn't mean men had no choice or were forced into parenthood.
Ideally I hope all such decisions be discussed and agreed upon by the two parents, but not all pregnancies occur in situations where that is possible, so ultimately it has to be the woman's decision because it's her body. For many women, abortion is an act of self defense, and most people agree on can kill in self defense, so...
Men are making the choice to risk pregnancy. (So are women, of course.) Those children who may be born cannot be left destitute. THAT'S an abomination to me.
The laws are not written to punish men. When men retain custody, it is likely the mother will pay child support. Men just rarely seek custody. At least in the US.
@MlleCake It’s only 51 percent of cases that have no disputes of child custody. In those cases men gain custody 37% of the time. That’s 1/3. 49% of the time both parents want the child/children. That’s basically 1/2. But women get child custody in 90% of all disputed cases. So only 10% of the time will a man win a custody battle over a woman. It doesn’t matter wether he’s better able to provide for the child or not, because the courts more than happy to take his child from him and then tell him he has to give his money away as well. Let’s not even talk about the fact that male rape victims are actually forced to pay child support for a child they didn’t consent to create. Seriously it’s happened here’s some links.
There are dozens of other cases I’ve read about but these are the ones I could think of off the top of my head. The fact is the system for child support and child custody is currently biased against men. Women get every opportunity to have an out. Wether it be abortion, giving the child up for adoption, or leaving them in the custody of their father. Women are 67% less likely to be court ordered to pay child support than men, and when they are they pay on average 30% less than men who are court ordered. They have every opportunity to get out, they are less likely to face consequences and their consequences are less severe when they occur. All of this is down gender bias, yes I’m saying it. In this case men are being discriminated against. I wholeheartedly believe that this is the case.
So women are to stupid to understand how sex works? I mean, if she is allowed to avoid all responsibility for her actions the only possible conclusion would be that you believe that men are able to take responsibility for their actions while women are mentally incapable of doing so. If that is the case why should women be allowed to make decisions at all? I mean we don't let children make decisions for themselves because they don't have the mental capacity to understand and take responsibility for the consequences so why would you allow that for women? I mean don't get me wrong, I think that you have a really messed up idea about women, but if this is what you believe that is the only conclusion one could draw.
@Wharvey98 The single biggest reason men do not get custody is they do not seek it. In the US. There are also other reasons, but my point was to show that it's not men who are punished by child support orders. It is any non-custodial parent.
And as to your other comments I refer you to the first things I said: "Unless the woman inseminated herself without the man's consent, there is no such thing as forced fatherhood." That would refer to cases of rape of the man, as well as other circumstances.
@MlleCake The statistics I just sighted earlier are directly contradictory to what your saying. If only 51 percent of cases are undisputed that means at least one in two fathers seek custody of their children. Throw in the 37 percent of men that get child custody in undisputed cases and suddenly it’s roughly 3/4 men that want custody of their children. That’s the exact same percentage of women as it turns out. Don’t they to pull the men don’t want heir kids shit on me, I’ve done too much research to be fooled by that.
@Wharvey98 According to DivorcePeers. com, the majority of child custody cases are not decided by the courts.
In 51 percent of custody cases, both parents agreed -- on their own -- that mom become the custodial parent.
In 29 percent of custody cases, the decision was made without any third party involvement.
In 11 percent of custody cases, the decision for mom to have custody was made during mediation.
In 5 percent of custody cases, the issue was resolved after a custody evaluation.
Only 4 percent of custody cases went to trial and of that 4 percent, only 1.5 percent completed custody litigation.
In other words, 91 percent of child custody after divorce is decided with no interference from the family court system. How can there be a bias toward mothers when fewer than 4 percent of custody decisions are made by the Family Court?
Oh wow, divorcepeers. com and huffington post. Both known to be reliable sources of facts and statistics, I think not. I got my stats from the US census. I’d say that’s a little bit more reliable than the huffington post. www.census.gov/.../P60-255.pdf
Well according to my stats 75 percent of men want custody of their children. 50 percent of custody is disputed and only 10 percent of custody battles are ruled in favor of men. So unless you can beat the 49.5 percent of men that lose custody because the courts rule against them which you can’t according to my stats then your stats are wrong. So no, I understand the connection just fine. I also understand what your trying to say. But I’m telling you your stats are wrong according to the US census.
According to your statistics the courts don’t make the decisions most of the time. If you’d actually bothered to pay attention to my stats you would see they directly contradict that statement. I’ll reiterate here only 51 percent of child custody cases are not disputed. That means only 51 percent of child custody cases do not go to court. That means that essentially 50 percent of cases go to court. That’s half. There are several mediation steps before an actual child custody hearing, but all of them are court supervised. Most of the men that give up in these cases are told they have no chance of winning by their lawyers and that their best shot is to take a deal for visitation rights. These men don’t want to give up their children, but they don’t want to lose any chance of ever seeing them again either.
And those stats I provided didn’t say anything about marriage. They were strictly about custody battles, which do not require marriage in the first place.
It's a very simple argument: either both should have an option to opt-out, or neither should. Any other argument is a hypocritical one.
If you're gonna say to one of them that if they didn't want the responsibility of having a kid then they should have either kept it in their pants or used adequate protection, then you should say this to both people.
It's mostly women who argue that men shouldn't have an out, while still supporting abortion. They might say "not to be sexist", but that's exactly what it is. Many of these people are also feminists, who want to deny that there are differences between men and women everywhere else, but all of a sudden here that's the basis of their argument.
There's no consistency in their arguments, to them it really is one rule for them, another rule for men. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
Both of you created the child, both of you are completely responsible. It's not been forced on you, you had a child with someone knowingly. Unless it was non consensual, both parents should be involved in providing for that child. If the man chose to have a child then he has to live with it, even if it damages him. By all means, he shouldn't be alone in caring for the child and he will inevitably struggle but it's his responsibility as a father. And it's just the same with the mother if it was the other way around and the mother was forced to raise the child.
i am not aginst the women having for say on the abortion but what i am against is the women demanding money from the father for a choice she made against his will forceing it upon him when she got a choice but he did not
I can understand where you're coming from. It depends on the context of the situation. If the father was being careless and just thought he could abandon the mother during the pregnancy then I think he really should be held accountable for not realising the consequences of his action.
If a father accidentally gets her pregnant but would rather not raise a child in a financially unstable environment then I can sympathize but he should help where he can.
If a father has sex without giving consent or was heavily intoxicated and then has to deal with the strain of bringing up a baby he didn't want then I think there should be something there as an option for him
i agree he cannot just run off in he middle of the pregnancy what i am saying is he should be given the choice at the same time the mother can get an abortion and he should stick to that choice say like he choose to be a parent then he cannot not pay but if he choose to not be a parent then he loses all rights and does not have to pay
Yeah, I know what you mean. I think children can be used as a weapon almost in relationships. Biologically, the kids have a right to know who their dad is. It depends how active the dad wants to be in the kid's life
I c ur point but what happens if a woman pokes holes in a condom or lied about being on birth control to get pregnant on purpose to try and force the guy into being with her or to get money from him? What if hey guy was up front about not wanting a child and he thought she shared the same views on the matter? What if when discussing abortion he says get the abortion but she chooses not to because she knows she can get money? Then is it fair to force this guy to be a father to a kid he is u front about not wanting?
What is fascinating about the question is what it leaves out. Fair to the man - who made certain choices. Fair to the woman - who made certain choices. Perish the thought that men and women be held to account for the consequences - both expected and unexpected - for their actions.
The child, on the other hand, is merely the raw material caught in the crossfire. Its' disposition to be left with those who have power over it. It is not a living being worthy of love in its own right, it is merely the hot potato to be tossed back and forth in a game of moral abnegation.
Yes, indeed, poor guy. He did certain things that produced unintended consequences, but since we make the moral error of not making the woman take on the responsibility for her actions, it is only fair that we compound the ethical error by being "fair" to the guy.
"Fair," then, is not about justice, but about the simple evasion of responsibility. It's a funny way to define fair.
Here I take the unusual step of speaking personally as I normally try to avoid that when discussing political and cultural questions. However, I was a man who got a woman pregnant. She had an abortion without telling me and it is, without question, the most painful thing that has ever happened to me.
Now I have a girlfriend whom I have lived with for over ten years and we have three beautiful children who are the most wonderful gifts a woman could ever give to a man. She - and they - have made me happier than I ever thought I could be. Yet the memory of the little person that I, as a man, should have protected and failed to, hurts me and still brings me to tears when I think about it.
The point in this digression being to note that the question is rooted in a moral equivalence that defines the end of law and culture as being freedom. It is an implicit - if not explicit - moral relativism that stipulates that men and women should be free of any obligations. That no responsibility attaches to action.
Surely this is the classic definition of decadence. Fairness is the thin moral gruel that is left behind when justice becomes not about recurrence to principle and the elevation of life, but about acting autonomously, separate from both our fellows and freed from any sense of objective moral obligation.
There is an old saying, "If you can't do the crime, don't do the time." Actions have consequences and tears should not be shed for those who want to have all the fun but don't believe that it is fair that it be expected that they live with the result.
Lost in all of this faux morality is the fact there is a little life at stake. Of course, the ethic of the "pro-choice" argument is that life has no value save that which each person randomly chooses to attach to it. Society, in this formulation, has no authority to set a collective standard and absent such a standard, the culture is left to discuss rights - usually defined by the convenience of the person claiming them - and fairness - the language of two squabbling pre-adult siblings.
Is forced fatherhood fair? You bet it is. It is making a man meet his obligations as a man. The man made a choice to have sex, certain obligations follow. Children are expected not to consider their actions and are therefore not held to account for them. They are taught over time to learn about morality, obligation and responsibility.
The individual who is avoiding all of that effectively, if unintentionally, defines him - or her - self. The word "adult" cannot accurately be applied to such a person.
The answer to the moral relativism of the so-called "pro-choice" position is not fairness. It is rather to shape law in the direction of virtue and moral excellence. To call men and women to meet a standard better than what they are.
Suffice to say, when freedom is defined not as a means to an end but as the ultimate end of life and society, what is left behind in the tinny and brittle whining of those who demand fairness. That fairness being nothing of the kind.
0
110 Reply
Asker
+1 y
i am all for men paying only if you do the same for women too so if consent to sex is consent to parenthood for men it should be the same for women as well so no abortions as she consent to carry a pregnancy the moment she consented to sex
Forgive me, I cannot follow what you wrote. However, from what I can glean, you make the case that men and women should both be obliged to "pay." (I assume that by that you mean to support the child.)
That was my point. The question is more concerned with protecting some equivalence between man and woman - the needs of the child are utterly neglected in that formulation. It simply sets the stage for a sort of least common denominator moral obligation.
In truth, the needs of the child - a being utterly dependent and utterly helpless - should by any moral calculus be paramount. In this formulation the obligation of both parents is to sustain the needs of the child. Ideally this should be balanced between man and woman, but that is actually a secondary consideration.
Dad decides to abandon the child. So mom decided that she, too, has no obligation to the child. The only victim in the scenario is the one individual who is morally blameless - the child. By any reasonable standard that is a gross injustice.
Try this: Abandon your child - see what the law and the courts have to say about that.
The laws vary from state to state. Many states include deserting a child within its child abuse laws and vice versa, while some states have laws specifically targeting the act of abandoning a child.
In fact, because abandoning a child is considered child abuse in some states, certain people may be required to report known or suspected cases of child abandonment to the proper authorities.
if children had the right to be cared for by their parents as u say then adoption and safe haven laws would not be legal would they and Abandoning your child if diffrent as that only works if they choose to be a parent then left
That is the fallacy of the false alternative. The laws makes allowance for the fact that human being will not necessarily adhere to the law. It makes zero sense to say that children have the right to be care for and then make no provision for their care.
Most adoption laws have their origin not in abandonment, but in the death or ill health of the parent. Safe haven laws are a prophylactic against the failure of the parent to meet his obligations under law.
Makes more sense than saying, "Well, the parents broke the law so the kids will have to just deal with it," no?
still chilren do not have a right to be cared for by their parents like i said plus if they did abortion would also be against the law as the mother would have to care for her unborn child as its parent would she not but that is besides the points so i will make it simple
1. two people consent to sex 2. unplanned pregnancy happens 3. only one person consents to being a parent 4. the man is forced into what ever the women chooses agasint his will 5. when the child is born or some time after the women can still give the child up 6. if man tried to give child up then he would be jailed unlike women 7. women can give child up without question or jail time but man on other hand cannot so what do you not understand it is an unjust and unfair system which punishs men for the choice a women makes how is that fair
The only part of the whole equation that you are missing is the little life in the middle. Your sense of fairness is inadequate because it is equitable only for two - but three individuals are involved.
That, by definition, is not fairness or justice. It is merely a test of wills or power. An odd notion of fairness, to say no more.
do dont seem to think about the child when giving the women the right to aboirton do u and again children do not have the right to be cared for by their parents as if they did abortion would not be legal
You may have not read what I wrote terribly closely. I do not favor abortion and am, to use the modern locution, "pro-life."
That was sort of the gravaman of my whole point. To wit, the premise of the question ignored the central issue. It defines "fairness" abstractly and without reference to any defining notion of the value of life nor to the rights that must logically come before any standard of fairness.
Please pay closer attention when you read. In that connection, I offer my response to this question - posted under my Nightdrot nom de guerre - What do you think about abortion? ↗
i am ok with making men pay only if abortion was not a thing then it would be fair as they both do not get a choice but as it stands only the women gets to chocie post sex but also force that choice on the man which is unjust
Without meaning to offend, you seem to be missing my broader philosophical point. You are fixated on "fairness" and yet persist in defining this not with reference to any larger moral framework.
There is no fairness - there can be no fairness by definition - where in a dispute between two parties the penalty is paid by a third innocent party. To speak then, as you do, of fairness is feckless where not simply fatuous.
This is my problem with the question - and with your response to me. Fairness in the absence of a moral framework, or in the context of what pretends to be a moral framework, is nothing of the kind.
No indeed, which is why they were re-defined not as property, but as living beings in their own right. The same then applying to the unborn child. He or she is not property, but is human in his or her own right and therefore cannot be treated as an extraneous afterthought between two other people.
but by forcing a choice made by one person onto another you turn that person into a slave as you have taken away his freedom of choice forced that choice onto him by threat of jail time so tell me how that is diffrent than being a slave
No, it is not slavery to set a predicate in law and morals that people must take the consequences of, and responsibility for, their actions. A moral society is one that demands that individuals live with the consequences of their actions - intentional or not.
When you kill someone in a car accident - by definition unintentional - you still go to jail. You take on the responsibility for the consequences of your actions.
You do not foist the price of your actions on an innocent third party. Hence my point about fairness. You define fairness absent any broader moral context. This then conduces to a mere contest of wills and as assertion of power. In no meaningful sense can that be called fairness.
then why do women get out off that accident then so what u are saying is a women gets in a accident then she forces the other person to pay for her choice in the accident which is wrong plus the very defintion of slavery is the state of being under the control of someone where a person is forced to work for another like a man is when he is forced to work to pay child support or go to jail based on a another persons choice what part of that do you not understand or are you ok with giving women freedom but at the same time stripping it from the man as women never pay for there actions do they as people like you let them go away with forceing their choices onto another plus you cannot justify abortion until you can justify forecing the womens choice onto the man and i will repeat why is consent to sex consent to parenthood only for the man but not the women untill you can counter that you have not leg to stand on
My apologies, but we have reached the point where I cannot even read - let alone follow the logic such as it is - what you have written
For starters, the word you is spelled Y-O-U, not "u." Further, proper spelling, grammar, punctuation, sentence structure and some semblance of paragraphs would be enormously helpful. If you wish to be understood, writing in proper English is a minimal requirement.
As it is, I can barely fathom what you wrote. In any case, the point remains, the question posits a conflict of two competing interests when, in fact, three interests are involved. The child is a human being in his own right and therefore an elementary sense of fairness and justice - both legal and moral - gives him/her a claim on the obligation of the other two individuals whose actions brought about the creation of the child.
Of course, in a society such as we now have, where the child's humanity is subjective and contingent, that is problematic. However, the problem is that the logical implication is that if the humanity of the child is relative, then so too must be the interests of the other parties. There being no consistent definition of the human person.
Thus, we are left with the question as it was posted. A false premise since fairness cannot exist absent justice, and all we are left with is a competition of interests and an assertion of wills.
ok i will make it simple for you 1. both man and women consent to sex 2. women refuses to get abortion thereby consenting to be a parent unless she gives baby up to adoption or uses safe haven laws 3. man dose not consent to being a parent but is forced into it by women who kept baby 4. if man does not pay he goes to jail 5. women can force her choice onto the man but he cannot do the same 6. mans freedom to choice is striped from him yet womens freedom to choice is protected by law so yes you cannot see your own hypocrisy which is sad as you give women all the say and choics post sex yet force the man into her choice so again i ask why is consent to sex consent to parenthood for men only until you can justfity that you have no leg to stand on and are just showing your hypocrisy
There is no hypocrisy, because to repeat for the umpteenth time, the problem with the argument as you have formulated it is that the interests and rights of only two people are considered in your formulation. Yet three individuals are impacted, and of those three, one is the consequence of the other two.
To repeat, my argument is against abortion on demand. My argument is that a moral legal and social order is such that individuals be obliged to take responsibility for the consequences - intended and unintended of their actions. In that connection, that to speak of fairness as a dichotomy when in fact the interests and rights of three persons are engaged is a misnomer. In fact, there is no fairness where the interests of the child are the primary issue and yet the questions posits no consideration of the child. Therefore "fairness" in this formulation does not exist and therefore the question is based on a faulty premise.
You are either being obtuse - or are simply unable to grasp the central thesis of the argument. Beyond that, it is a bit rich to be lectured by someone who cannot take the time to write their ideas out in whole sentences and proper paragraphs in standard English.
not really as the child is not a legal person until it is born right so what right does a child have that is not seen as a legal person so walking away from an unborn child is not violating anyones rights as the unborn baby has not right until a birth certificate is fulled out and filed so you have no case for what you are saying
so you are against abortion for women then if so then we are on the same page as i am ok with men paying for a child if women cannot get an aborton what i was agaisnt is men getting now choice where as the women does but if you are against abortion then sure the man should pay for the child is payed what was trying to say is as long as abortion is open for women to have when ever they want then men should also get a choice post sex like women
This is not hard - legality absent a morality that recognizes the child as a human person is not just. In the absence of justice there can be no fairness. So, to repeat, the question is based on a faulty premise.
Forgive me, this is not that difficult to grasp. You are presuming the existence of fairness absent justice. That is impossible. So when you speak of fairness to the man, you are conflating his capacity to impose his will with a presumption of fairness.
There is no issue of fairness here. Only, rather, a question of who is able to assert their will and power.
Beyond that, as again you have failed to use punctuation and proper grammar, I am unable to decode what you are asking. However, as you seem to be repeating the same mistaken premise over and over, I can only assume that I have actually addressed your point and you either are, as I say, being deliberately obtuse or are simply unable to grasp the concept.
My sense is that you have never taken a philosophy, ethics or logic class.
You are making a distinction without a difference. The initial question deals with the issue of "fairness." There can be no fairness absent justice.
You cannot discuss fairness when the law lacks the relevant moral prerequisites. The law here exists absent an ethical basis, therefore to speak of fairness is - to repeat for the 20th time - a misnomer. All you are really left with is a legal facade for a contest of wills and power.
As to the second part of your ungrammatical sentence, I did read it and my response was tailored accordingly. Suffice to say, you keep attempting to add qualifiers that do not materially impact the problematic nature of the central premise.
not really as i have said it is only fair if both get a choice and if both can opt out which is fair but you are bringing the unborn child into this which at this point has not standing for legal rights or personhood which means their rights are zero in this so we do not need to think of that as the father walks away before the birth and before the birth certificate is filled out and filed to recored the child as a legal person which means he walked away at a time when the child had no claime to his time or money or his care as they where not a legal person so until you can justify them being a legal person before birth then what rights is the father violating again
Forgive me. I am not going to read another entry not written in proper English. Try again or stop. What you have just posted is utterly unreadable. Write with paragraphs, proper sentence construction and grammar and punctuation as appropriate.
Bottom line, a person who has not mastered basic writing skills - as you seem not to have - is really not well placed to discuss deeper philosophical issues.
No. I grow weary of trying both to make a rational argument to you and to decode what you seem to be saying to me. You expect that I will ferret out your gibberish and explain to you my own argument - thus putting the whole of the burden to communicate on me when communication is a two way street.
Then, when I object to having to try to translate whatever it is you are attempting to say, you claim to be insulted and say that obviously I cannot defend my argument.
Seriously? You obviously have no sense of irony. As I said before, I am being called ugly by a frog. That only being outweighed by your colossal arrogance and self-absorption.
Frankly, I have every reason to doubt at this point that you will comprehend anything I say to you let alone extrapolate the logic that flows therefrom.
The link is formatted as the question. Click on the question and you should get to it. As the question was posted on this site, there is no reason to believe, since you are using this site, that you cannot access it.
Forgive me, but I otherwise see no reason in repeating myself to you. Particularly as I am dubious at this point that you would grasp the argument anyhow. You can read all that I have already written in our exchanges or you can read the link that I have attached in three different postings above.
so if i get what you are saying is that laws and ethics are conntected as laws are put into place to uphold are ethics in a modern civilization so abortion should not be on demand as that would violate them ethics and the value of life no matter what stage it is out am i close to what you mean
Here is my response to your last two postings - I was writing this as you sent the second:
Then I am going to lay this out in very brief compass without nuance. Frankly, I have no expectation that you will grasp what I write nor its logical implications.
Beyond that, get a better computer.
To wit - pay attention:
Do human beings have rights? Yes
Are babies human? Yes - if not then what are they? If they become human at some specific point, what is the biological and moral difference between the day before the baby becomes human and the day after?
Related point:
Are individual adults to be held morally responsible for their actions, both intended and unintended? Yes - and if not, what kind of a social order would you have?
If mother wants baby, mother is doing no more than demanding that the man take responsibility for his actions. In this connection, the baby's rights as a human being are being duly recognized.
This is just and therefore "fair" as you are crudely using that term.
If mother does not want baby, she is violating the baby's rights and those of the father. This is unjust and therefore unfair.
To wit, in one case you want to call the father's failure to meet his obligations "fair." In the other case, you want to call the mother's actions as unfair.
You cannot have it both ways. Justice requires the baby's rights be recognized and, pursuant to that end that both parents meet their obligations to the child and to taking responsibility for their actions.
Hence, in neither the case of the mother aborting nor the father evading his responsibility for his actions, is justice being done. Hence there is no fairness.
so if i get what you are saying is that laws and ethics are conntected as laws are put into place to uphold our ethics in a modern civilization so abortion should not be on demand as that would violate them ethics and the value of life no matter what stage it is
ok i am starting to see your point as i was only basing my argument on laws and nothing else so if we do want fairness as you say with ethics then yes we cannot ignore the baby in this equation so to be truly fair we need to be just and morally right
so if we are to take into acount the baby in this then first we need to agree on when life begins so where do you think it begins (this is just for this debate)
The logical implications are clear. A baby must be human at the moment of conception - it cannot be otherwise.
A man is a human. A woman is a human. Put them together they must, by definition, produce a human. It cannot be otherwise.
If you make the argument that it is not a human but only becomes so at a certain point in time - say, the third trimester - what is the moral and biological difference between the baby on the day before the third trimester and the first day of the third trimester?
well the baby may be of human dna but we also must take into acount when it becomes conscious some say they only become conscious at six months gestation so we can give a samll window before that time can we not
So, a man in a coma is not human? For that matter, in what sense is a newborn baby conscious. It has no ability to distinguish between itself and its environment. That only comes with time.
You are creating a false distinction in both moral terms and basic scientific terms.
but men in comas are conscious unless braindead at which point they can pull the plug can they not so they do kill them in a way do they not plus babys can react to their environment as they react to touch and sound but that is besides the point if we can kill a man who is braindead why can we not kill a baby who has not become conscious yet
Really? They cannot think. They cannot feel. They cannot speak. They have basic autonomic functions but nothing else that we would define as consciousness. In fact, they are less than the newborn baby which can at least articulate, even if it makes no distinction between itself and its environment.
A man who is braindead IS dead. Keeping the organs moving via machine is NOT the same things as the body sustaining itself in response to neurological activity - even where that activity is impaired.
but before an unborn baby becomes conscious they are just have basic autonomic functions and what is the diffrent between a mother keeping her babys organs moving and a machine doing the same thing
Not correct. Insert a needle into the placenta and the baby reacts with pain.
In any case, you persist on evading the question. From conception to death, a human being evolves but that does not negate its humanity. Either humanity exists as a moral proposition or it is a mere act of subjective judgment.
If the former, it has rights. (See also Thomas Jefferson, the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.) If the latter, you have opened the gates of hell. Today the baby is not human. Tomorrow I defined humanity in some way that excludes the Jews - bad things follow.
Either humanity is an absolute concept in morals and therefore law, or it subjective and each person decided according to their convenience who has rights and who not.
then by your logic we would have to keep ever braindead person alive as they are human which in its self would have many problems like do we keep them alive at the cost of someone else not getting care due to not having the room or man power to care for everyone
reacton to pain is an automatic response of the bodys nervous system not due to consciousness as you can poke a braindead person and their body will respond
No - pay attention. A braindead person IS dead. Their body is not functioning from brain activity, but from external mechanical activity. The braindead person IS dead. There is no contradiction. Dead is dead - a machine does not change that.
Okay, then, tell me the exact moment that the baby becomes human. Define how a non-human thing becomes human. What is the difference between the non-human and the human in terms of cell structure, DNA and all the rest. More to the point, when exactly do rights inhere in humans?
Here - in two parts - was my response to the abortion question. You will reach its end when you see the word END typed at the bottom of the screen:
The British statesman and political philosopher Edmund Burke wrote, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do as they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations." Therein lay the problem with laws that permit abortion on demand.
A society that premises its law as "Choice"- to use the locution of abortion rights advocates - effectively leaves open the question of the value of human life. It becomes not a standing principle, but a subjective judgment to each individual. In such a society, human life becomes not an end in itself, but mere instrument. Life becomes not an object whose preservation is the highest standard, but rather a convenience to be maintained or not according to the satisfaction of another's will.
We shape our laws and then our laws shape us - see also the civil rights laws of the 1960s which have effected a revolution in race relations. (The idea that a black man and a white man cannot sit together at the same lunch counter is as alien to this generation as Neptune. Yet in 1965 it was pretty much the norm.)
Inherent then in the pro-choice argument is the idea that life has no value save that which each person chooses to attach to it. It denies society any authority to make a collective judgment on such questions. Therefore, in this view, the law may not afford protection to life except at some arbitrarily defined (and inherently subjective) point.
This then conduces to an assertion of power over rights. Life is maintained not as its own end, but according to the will of the person who, effectively, controls it because they can. An ethic of convenience is established and it is a slippery slope on which to build a culture and a legal edifice.
Such a society will not value life that sees life as not an end, but as a means to some other end. Indeed, that is why at about the same time as the culture began to shift on the abortion question we also saw a rise in child abuse, spousal abuse, divorce, out of wedlock births and other social pathologies. These were not unrelated phenomena.
Aristotle said that the first questions of politics are, "How ought we to live? What kind of a people do we wish to be?" The implicit answer of those who support abortion on demand is, in effect, that it is nobody's business. Predictable results follow. One cannot expect the society to absent itself from collective moral judgments on the value of life and then expect an ethical social order to result.
i will pose you this what is the diffrents between a cell from your cheek and the lump of cells that turns into a baby as a sperm and a egg make a zygote which is a single cell right so what is the diffracne in the two you can kill the cells in your mouth but you cannot kill the cells in your womb why is that as they are both human and both alive they both divide they both can die so by your logic killing a cell in your cheek would be murder
However, you are in error. The cell structure - specifically the DNA - is the same from the moment of conception. You will not find ape DNA in one and human in the other. Indeed, that is why you can do a mouthswipe and be tested for DNA. It is the same in your eyes as in your mouth as in your hair and so on.
In any case, you are creating evasions. If society can arbitrarily define at what point a life becomes human, it will invariably define that according to its convenience - an expression of power - not any moral or ethical standard.
maybe a better agrument would be with say sperm ok
a man has sperm which is a cell right just like a zygote right what makes one life and the other not
as if you say life is an absolute concept then we must apply that to all life that is human so a man jacking off is killing his sperm cells which as you say by your own logic is life as if it is an absolute concept and we cannot define when life begains then sperm must be a form of life as it has human dna so by jacking off the man has killed that life which is an absolute concept so in a way he just murdered that sperm
so what maked a zygote different than a sperm or any other part of the body as they are all classed as life by your own logic
Your first point is wrong. A sperm is not a human until it links to the egg. 1/2 a person is a logical impossibility.
Your second point is a crashing non sequitur. HUMAN life is what we are talking about.
Answer this question: On what day - down to the hour, minute, second - of gestation does the baby become human? Be absolutely specific.
Answer this question: How is the baby different before that day that makes it not human?
Answer this question: What if you are wrong about the day you pick - and pick a day that is too late?
Now, if you'll forgive me. I have three children who have to get up for school and I work from home and have other matters to attend to. My strong suggestion to you is that you approach the question empirically and epistemologically and not in a desperate search to find a rationalization for that which serves your convenience.
if sperm is not human until it is linked with an egg then what makes other cells in the body human
so answer this what is human about a cell is it its dna or is it cuz it is part of a human
if it is its dna them my sperm arugment holds but if it is cuz it is part of the human then does cells all of a sudden not become human once taken from the person
Answer this question: On what day - down to the hour, minute, second - of gestation does the baby become human? Be absolutely specific.- the baby becomes human when it gains consciousness or it would be no different than cell in the body as both carry human dna
Answer this question: How is the baby different before that day that makes it not human?- as it has gained consciousness
Answer this question: What if you are wrong about the day you pick - and pick a day that is too late? then it would be murder as you are killing something with consciousness take a tree or a plant they have dna but we not class ripping or cutting them down as murder do we but they are alive as they grow and change like us so why is one murder and one is not
you are not the only one with kids you know i have two girls that are young
and more to your point if it is only human after cells replicate and divide once egg and sperm are joined then it cannot be human cuz of dna
so what else would you class as human as by your logic we are not human as dna does not class us as human as if as you say it is only human once egg and sperm are joined then if we follow that to the end the end result you would get a human which means cells are human which fellow on to sperm cells and egg cells which will be human due to their dna
or are we defining being human as having consciousness in which case dna cells would not be human which would fellow on with a baby before six months would not be human as it would not have consciousness
ok sure then if i was to put a day and time on it then i would say that it would be human when it gained consciousness which would be in the six month gestation which would be the 23-27 weeks so about then would do it but if you want the second then i would say the second the clock ticked 27 weeks pregnant
but you have not given any answers to what makes a human a human as you say dna which cannot be true by your own logic so it must be consciousness which would only make it human after 27 weeks
like i said it is human when it has consciousness and there has been studys on this and another thing The cortex, the epicenter of human consciousness, starts to form by six months gestation so the baby has consciousness by six months and that has been proved by studys
so again is it dna or consciousness that make us human
and by your logic it cannot be dna as dna is in every cell of our body and if we take it out of the body it dose not stop being human dose it plus when a sperm and egg meet they make human dna which would fellow in making a human with human dna which then woud make sperm or egg cells which again would be human dna
so it must be consciousness which we only have at six months gestation
so what is the difference between a cell and a fetus that would be consciousness which we only have at six months gestation
so it cannot be murder if we base being human on consciousness as cells do not have consciousness so we can still kill them without it being murder but they have human dna like a fetus
so who do you say are we are human due to our dna or our consciousness
if dna make us human every time you kill a cell you are committing murder but if it is consciousness then how can it be murder before the fetus gains consciousness
You still did not answer the question. The point being that if you are off by one second, you will have committed murder. Moreover, there is no way for you to know, in any given case, when consciousness begins - and you run the risk of tilting the balance toward infanticide.
Beyond all this, there is no empirical reason why consciousness should be decisive. After all, to repeat, a newborn baby has no definitive sense of its own identity - of where it ends and its environment begins. Oh, and of course, there is that man in a coma.
Beyond all that, of course, there is no reason why consciousness should be considered definitive of humanity. After all, animals have consciousness as well. So then you must either point to something distinctive about human consciousness to make it definitive of a human being - in which case you may find yourself aborting a one year old. Alternatively, you must define consciousness so broadly as you end up with a definition that does not define.
All of this then settling on the central problem. That being that you have simply picked an arbitrary point that is more about your convenience than it is of any objective definition of consciousness. That way, as noted before, is the way to a whole parcel of rather bad history.
In any case, all of this is far afield of the question of fairness. Which, suffice to say, is an illusion in terms of this question. What you are lest with is a test of wills with one side or the other having a greater capacity to exercise that will.
The only thing you can be sure of is that there is no issue of fairness, because there is no objective standard for determining where right exists. The only thing being who will be absolved from the consequences of their actions - the very absence of justice and hence fairness.
With apologies, type-o, second to last paragraph, last sentence in that paragraph. This sentence: "What you are lest with is a test of wills with one side or the other having a greater capacity to exercise that will. "
Should read: "What you are LEFT with is a test of wills, with one side or the other having a greater capacity to exercise that will. "
answer me this what makes us human is it dna, consciousness or our legal status that states we are a person so i will start with dna
every cell in the body is dna just like a zygote yet we can kill our cells without it being murder yet you state killing a zygote is murder so it cannot be dna as if it was every time we spit or pull out hair we comit murder
so it follows that it has to be consciousness which we only have at six months gestation like i have said so before then it is not murder as cells have dna yet lack consciousness so if it is not dna or consciousness
then it must be our legal status that makes us human but a unborn baby has no legal status until born and has a birth certificate filled and filed so how can you murder someone who is not legally a person
untill you can counter what i have stated and can prove it is murder to kill an unborn you have nothing to stand on to debate from
Your question is a non sequitur. An arm is not a person. An egg and a sperm is not a person. A person exists in his or her totality.
Moreover, consciousness is problematic. A person in a coma, by your definition, is not a person. Be careful. You will be pulling plugs right and left. Not sure you want to go there.
Answer these questions: At what moment does the zygote become human? Right down to the very second. What is the difference - scientific and moral - one second before that moment and one second after that moment? Define that difference and again - be specific.
Moreover, what is the moral and legal status of the person who kills the zygote before that precise second?
You see the problem. You are left with an arbitrary judgment defined according to your convenience rather than by any objective standard. The burden - moral and legal - being on the person who wishes to define that moment.
This then conduces no to a moral or legal judgment, but a mere exercise of power. The one doing the defining being able to do so not based on any objective standard, but merely because they have the power to do so.
This then, is the problem. We have seen what societies look like where the definition of humanity is left to those who have the power to make the definition according to their own estimation. It has not been, suffice to say, a pretty history.
i have answerd that question many times yet you still fail to answer mine how do we define someone as human pick one is it dna, consciousness or legal status
i have given you many explanations of all 3 of them yet you fail to see plus the arm things is wrong as the arm will still be human after it has been cut from the body if you claim dna makes us human
but if you make the claim that it is consciousness that makes us human then we are not human till we gain it and people in comas are still consciousness by the way as they are not brain dead
so what is left oh yeah legal status which i have already explained to you
No, you have not answered the question. Define the exact moment and what are its specific characteristics and how they differ from the moment before that.
In that connection I do NOT accept that consciousness is the defining attribute as we find that in other creatures. (This leaving aside the definition of consciousness.)
We will get to the question of legality after you have solved the prior question. That question must logically come before the question of legality. Failure to answer that question before we come to the question of legality merely, as I noted, then conduces to a contest of willfulness, which of its nature is subjective.
i have awnswed your question as i have stated that consciousness is only achieved after six months gestation what part of that do you not understand
so if you do not accept that consciousness is the defining attribute then it must be dna which i have stated many times over and over again that if it is dna what is the diffrence between a call in the body and a zygote
Your last question is pertinent. There is no difference, is there? It is simply a human being at a different point of development. That then begins to take you down a different legal path since any dividing line between zygote and fully formed body is merely a point in a continuum and not a distinction between two different things.
Now, you're catching on and there begins your philosophical problem.
but there is a diffrence lol you just refuse to see it
call in body- human dna but without consciousness so ok to kill
zygote-human dna but with consciousness - not ok to kill
zygote-human dna but without consciousness -ok to kill
do you see the diffence now that is why we do not kill people in comas as they have consciousness but we can kill braindead people as they do not have consciousness
Okay, so human egg and human sperm become zygote, becomes fetus, becomes baby, becomes child, becomes teen, becomes man. At what point in that continuum will it become a dog?
Again, consciousness is not the defining attribute of humanity, or if it is, you are free to kill coma victims or heck, even sleeping people. All you are doing is drawing an artificial line to serve your own convenience.
If we stipulate in law that the value of life is determined not upon its humanity but upon some subset of its humanity, you open up some serious moral, and hence legal, problems. As I say, we have seen what history looks like when that happens - and it is not pretty.
so if is not consciousness then it must be dna so how can you justify say cutting your hair as that has human dna just like a zygote and killing a zygote is murder accouding to you so how is cutting your hair any diffirent
The point is that consciousness is not a defining characteristic of a human being. Other beings have it. Else, for example, there would be no need to have laws forbidding cruelty to animals.
By definition, you cannot be cruel to a thing that lacks consciousness. So then to define a human being by something not unique to humans is a logical incongruity.
What makes a human being unique is his humanity. In the whole continuum from conception to death, a human cannot be other than what it is in its totality. As I say, at no point from conception does the potential exist for the zygote to become a dog.
So, then, any moral definition that does not start by recognizing the uniqueness of the human person places the law on very sandy - and dangerous - moral soil.
Sorry that does not work. An infant has no conception of humanity either. By your logic, infanticide is then justifiable.
Indeed, you have just illustrated my previous point. By rejecting the notion of a being's humanity from the moment of conception, you have just placed moral philosophy - and thence the law - on very sandy soil.
You are left casting about for a rationalization not for what is, but rather to get to the conclusion you want for reasons unrelated to the moral definition of humanity. To repeat, we have seen that in history and it is not pretty.
and you refuse to see my points as you have not contered them at all you have done is deflect and avoid asnwering my questions plus there is one thing we failed to see is a person should have the right to stop another person from using there body
No, I am not refusing to see your points. Rather, I am saying that, as an intellectual and logical argument, my point comes before your points. You must logically address my question before we get to yours.
After all, if your humanity is a subjective point in a continuum, there is no logical reason for me to give regard you and your body as any more worthy of consideration than you would give the zygote. Thus, you find yourself in a moral hall of mirrors.
If we accept your humanity as an objective fact - and thence must also accept the humanity of the child from the moment of conception - we must then define rights accordingly and with reference to obligations. (No right comes without corresponding obligations. If you have a right to free speech, I must respect that right.)
Thus your right to control your body is confined with reference to your obligation to another human being. Specifically another human being whose act of creation you have moral culpability. You therefore cannot shed that obligation for the sake of any secondary values. No matter how important they may be to you.
Either the law reflects and defines that superseding ethic, or we go down a very slippery slope. If the definition of humanity is something less than its very humanity, we are left with nothing but the ethic of power to define where we draw the line.
Within certain parameters, yes. We give blood. We donate organs. If you can define a situation whereby my life is absolutely and unconditionally dependent on yours, we can explore that.
Of course, that is the fallacy of the false alternative. The man has options. The baby has none - and you have a corresponding moral obligation to take on the responsibility of your actions. That last point being the most pertinent.
say we where both in a car crash but we lived but i was worst of than you so therefor for me to stay alive i had to be conected to your body via tubes as you where the closest with a matching blood type so my body could get the blood needed to live and we had to have that tube in at all times
would you say my right to live surpasses your right to not use your body to keep me alive
Under those circumstances - highly unlikely - yes, you can be, in law, right now, compelled to sustain the other person until such time as alternatives are available.
Note a few related examples. Mandatory innoculations. (NYC is right now requiring that all residents get measles shots. Your life is being subjected to the sustenance of other lives.) A soldier abandons his comrades on the battlefield - he is held culpable for their lives. In a related way, you cannot use illegal drugs. You cannot engage in prostitution.
Of course, your hypothetical is just that - a hypothetical. By contrast, we have the actual fact of the baby and the mother and, as noted, there is ample precedent in law that you do NOT have full autonomy over your own body. See above.
Just as hypothetically is there was a way to remove the baby at the moment of conception and sustain it to full development, you would be absolved of any moral obligation. The difference is that we are constrained in moral action by practical fact.
Your scenario is hypothetical. The unborn baby is very real and it is from the fact that we extrapolate the guiding principle.
P. S. As an aside, the problem is that you are trying to define the rule by the exception to the rule. That is now how it works.
Even if we take as a given the value of human life from conception, we make a "self-defense" exception for the life of the mother, for example. Your problem is that you take an improbability and try to extract from that an absolute. That is, to say no more, putting the cart before the horse.
but my hypothetically circumstances are like pregnancy to people get in a car (agree to have sex) the car crashs into a child (unplanned pregnancy) then the women has to use her baby to keep the child alive (pregnanacy) the man has to pay for child for the next 18 years in compensation (child support)
but in my hypothetically circumstances the women would have the right to refuse to keep the child alive but why dose she need to use her body to keep an unborn child alive as they are both human and both need someone to keep them alive so why is one diffrnet than the other
Yes, and there have been situations where one injured party in an accident is medically linked to another until such time as alternatives are available. That is not unknown.
However, again we define the rule and then we define exceptions to the rule. Moreover, typically, the adult in the accident has options. The child has no options and there is a corresponding moral obligation on the mother to take on the responsibilities that flow from her actions and choices.
Those are the essential differences. Indeed, if you abandon your two month old and he dies, you are held culpable. You are no more independent of the child at two months than you are at two days. The form may change somewhat, but the substance is consistent.
No, because there the question of responsibility comes into play. We are held to account for the consequences of our actions. As with the puncher, so with the woman. The principle is the same.
Really, at this point you are just chasing your intellectual tail.
You are confusing form with principle. The obligation of the puncher is to repay the punched. The obligation of the mother is to sustain the child. If you reject the latter, you can just as easily justify infanticide.
Seriously, unless and until you can find a standing principle that relativizes the value of human life, you are just in an intellectual loop-the-loop. The problem, of course, that if you do relativize the value of human life, you open up the gates to all sorts of bad things.
Your twists and turns in this discussion have all really amounted to just one thing. An effort to rationalize will in place of principle and then by an intellectual sleight of hand to call that principle. It leaves you in a moral hall of mirrors.
but why does the mother have an obligation to sustain the child with her body as in no other case can we force someone to do something with there body can we also force her to breastfeed no as the child has no right to her breast or milk so why dose the child have a right to use her body in such a way that it turns her into a slave to the unborn child plus infanticide is the killing of a baby that dose not need to use the mothers body to live
Because the baby has no choice. His life is of inherent value and his existence - intended or not - is the consequence of the mother's actions.
If the mother is a responsible being and the child's life is of inherent value, and with no viable alternatives, the obligation falls to the mother. The principle is not altered by the relevant facts of the case.
The mother's autonomy is not absolute. No more than if she wanted to be a prostitute.
No, that does not even make sense. The forms of obligation do not negate the obligation itself. There are alternatives to breast milk. The baby has no option pre-viability but to rely on the mother. There are no alternatives.
Really, at this point you are just rationalizing. Honestly, all you are doing, as I said, is simply trying to justify willfullness. That will end you up in a very bad place.
and all you are doing is deflecting at this point as we will have mothers killing themselfs and using illegal meant to get rid of the baby and then where will we be as look back when abortion was illegal mothers would kill themselfs or look to more less legal means to get one do you want that women dying cuz you want to force them to use there body to keep a baby alive against there will
No, I have laid out a consistent philosophical principle. Which I have substantiated with scientifically provable points. (Example, the zygote will not become a dog, hence it cannot be anything other than human.)
On the other hand, you desperately throw out hypotheticals on the dubious proposition that the exception to the rule might in some way define the rule. That, of course, is a logical incongruity as I have noted.
As to deflection, then, "Physician, heal thyself."
or you are so stuck up in your philosophical principle that you are ok with women killing themself to get rid of the baby which in turn makes you the monster in this story as your philosophical principle will be the reason women are dead
You see, here we go. You are now at the point of ad hominems.
The law cannot protect those who stray from under its shield. It is the flip side of the argument about moral actors being culpable for their actions. If a woman dies pursuing an illegal abortion, it logically follows that the responsibility accrues to the woman.
Besides, your compassion - if such it can be called - is misapplied. You feel for the person capable of exerting their will and making choices. For the individual who has no comparable shield... eh... mere casualty of war.
not really as the law is meant to protect which in your logic is women killing themselfs which in is self is not just is it so how can you justfy the women killing them self just so you can have a just system when the lesseer of 2 evils is just to let the women decide what to do with her body
No, the law protects those who operate within its ambit. If you deal in illegal drugs and are injured, the law will not protect you. You take the consequences of your choices.
This is not a question of two evils. You have one individual capable of making choices, the other individual is the subject of those choices with no options of its own. In this then, you are merely cloaking the law of the jungle - survival of the fittest - in a patina of alleged fairness.
Fairness, of course, cannot exist absent justice. Where, indeed, in where we began this conversation.
P. S. At this point you are merely repeating yourself. Beyond that, please try to write in proper English with appropriate punctuation, grammar, spelling, sentence and paragraph structure. You are becoming increasingly hard to read - or perhaps I should say, de-code.
sorry i have been using my phone to reply which is as it stands not very good and we can pick this debate up later and for the record i like debating with you very much and we must debate other topics sometime
Could not agree more. While I cannot agree with all that you say, you are exceptionally well spoken - allowing for phone difficulties. (That was a joke.) It has been a pleasure.
thanks and i know we do not agree but not every will agree but that does not mean we cannot talk and debate in a friendly way and we sure will debate some more you can count on it and yeah my phone is just junk at this point lol
Don't want to have fatherhood "forced" upon you? Then don't have sex. Even with a condom on, there's still a chance a man might impregnate a woman. So, as a man, if you don't want to have fatherhood "forced" upon you, then don't have sex. Plain and simple.
If you go ahead and have sex anyway, then you go into an arrangement where you might end up being an unwilling father.
Knowing this, why have sex in the first place? If you're a smart man, you know that Penis going into Vagina has the risk of making you a father. So if you don't want that risk, don't have penetrative sex. Simple.
If you DO go ahead and have sex anyway, you go into it fully knowing that if the woman gets impregnated and she ends up wanting the baby - and the decision is hers to make, as she is the one carrying the baby to terms, insider her body - then you will have to be the father.
Don't want to be a father, don't have penetrative sex.
This isn't rocket science. You don't need to be Einstein to figure this out.
@sasukeuchiha7 We are all adults here. You are free to have sex. No one is stopping you. But be smart enough as an adult to realize that even if you use spermicide, even if you use a condom, there's still going to be a chance the woman might be impregnated.
This is why it is very important for sex partners to communicate with each other, to get to know one another, so that you know where each party stands if the unthinkable happens - and even what you will do if the other party backtracks on their words.
Adult life isn't as simple as saying: "I need this. Therefore I absolve myself of all responsibility for my actions if X leads to Y." As an adult, you have to take into account of Y happening.
Ok that I agree. In my case I wouldn't have sex with a woman who wanted kids. I'm gonna look for a woman who doesn't want kids like me, so in case of an accident, we're both okay with an abortion.
@sasukeuchiha7 Even if you do meet a woman who doesn't want a baby, you should take into account the fact that there is a risk, no matter how small, that she will backtrack on her word if she gets pregnant. Obviously, the chances of that happening are much smaller than if you impregnated a woman who WANTS to have a baby. Humans are flawed creations, and people DO go back on their words - it's called a change of heart. So, take that into account.
I'm not gonna date a woman unless she's a 100 percent sure about not wanting kids. If she has a change of heart, I'll pay for the child but I won't help raise it.
@sasukeuchiha7 Also, not everyone is okay with Abortion. Many believe abortion is killing a child. So even if she doesn’t want a kid, she may not be willing to abort. Also, adoption is still an option.
Or they can both use protection, not just one of them. They should share responsibility. She the pill, him a condom. Why should it just be the woman who has to take the responsibility of not getting pregnant?
Parenthood in general should be a mutually agreed upon decision... if a woman gets pregnant against her will you may class that as rape, yet in some ways it is... other ways it is is a grey area, meaning you both consented to sex but due to misleading or not bothering or even simply not using protection or not pulling out when otherwise requested... it can be borderline... it is wrong when there is no consent
same goes for fatherhood, some women/girls out there crave having babies, they are willing to pull a guy in a bar/club etc and have sex purely with the intent of getting pregnant, but instead of telling them they make out they are on birth control, or sabotage the condoms, I have known this to happen a fair few times... but if both party's involved are not consensual and if certain things have been done to ensure the guy is misled... "sure I'm on the pill i promise" then find out they are not... then the guy is hounded for child support...
if it was consensual then he left... after knowing the situation (unless he was merely a knowing sperm donor and nothing more) then she should not be able to chase the guy for payments...
If a man is voluntarily having sex with a woman he must be aware that even after using birth control there is always chance of pregnancy and he should be responsible for any possible pregnancy occurring that way. But if he ejaculated inside her, then there is no reason why he shouldn't be responsible for this, he chose to do this by himself and then you can't say that fatherhood is forced on him.
Moral of the story, don't have vaginal sex until you are prepared to be responsible... Seriously, don't.
Well yee, just dont scream that abort becomes illegal, female is as responsible for child as male. Thus should share equal responsibility. If female is allowed to escape from bearing child via abort, than it should be only fair that male can refuse to be father to child and do nothing about it. "Well you said your on pils, or will take them. Why should i be responsible for child? I want no part of it" should be fairly reasonable answer.
@Janncis lol nope. When you have sex, even if you use birth control, you should be aware that absolutely no birth control is 100% effective and you should still be conscious about that nonetheless.
no they are not at by getting an abortion the women has made the choice to not be a parent post sex so therefor the man not paying support for a child is choiceing to not be a parent post sex so yes thay achieve the same effect in different ways
but that is still a choice the mother has that the father does not see the problem the mother gets 3 ways out of parenthood post sex but the father is forced to pay for her choice which is wrong
@CubsterShura shure blame man for everything, no wonder there is glass cealing to woman. Why do you think you can get responsible job if you somehow can be responsible with keeping your legs closed? Yes accidents tends to happen, im not talikng about it. Im talking about forcing man into parenthood, by lying that ur safe. Have an unprotected sex, well sucks to be you, having protected sex, or making other think its protected, well man should have a choice if he wants child. Its not only man responsibility to be safe, if you can't be responsible, what makes you think you can be responsible leading multi bilyon company?
so no abortion then for women as they knew they could get pregnant when they had sex come on we can go round and round until u are blue in the face but you will not be able to justify forceing me to pay for an unwanted child until you get rid of abortion for women
I'm pro life and agree with you @CubsterShura and that's why i always encourage sex after marriage, if the woman is a housewife and her man makes her pregnant, there will be no your fault or mine or spread your legs or ejaculating inside argument, they will celebrate the pregnancy and be very happy thay god gave them the seed of their love... that's how it works, at least for me if i get married one day.
If women have the right to get out of pregnancy if she chooses then a man should be able to a well as long as he makes that clear that he doesn't want a child before sex and he let's it be known the minute he finds out about the pregnancy that he doesn't want that child. I just learned that in Illinois as long as u can prove u don't want the child or anything to do with the child u can give up parental rights and they don't put u on the birth certificate when the baby I born. I don't know what the exact process is but I had a friend that did it a couple years ago. They legally can't put u on child support after and well u can't be in contact with the kid either.
0
3 Reply
Asker
+1 y
but dont the mother have to agree for that to happen?
No one can't force anyone to sign a birth certificate or claim a child. When mother's put their baby up for adoption the process is pretty much u give birth and u don't even get to hold the baby because once u say u don't want the child and u sign those papers then it's not ur kid any more. And no the mother doesn't have to agree for the father to forfeit rights. I mean technically the guy can just not even show up when they kid is born and not sign nothing. It's not like they r gonna forge his name on it.
Actually you’re right legally speaking. True each individual has autonomy and only clauses well researched may be used to defend that case.
However if the mother has said she will go through with the pregnancy then that’s also her autonomy being excercised rightfully too.
So this can be status quo as it is , the only way to get out of it is for the father to prove to court he cannot make ends meet. That is contentious as it affects other credibilities of your financial future. It’s best you write over full legal and physical custody with termination of all parental rights to the parent who is willing to take proper care of the child, upon its birth.
0
3 Reply
Asker
+1 y
i am all for women having control over their body just against forceing men in parenthood when women get 3 choices post sex but men do not
i know i was just making my point a bit more clear and some off the womon on here think it is fair to give women 3 options post sex but force the man into parenthood
I don’t see how it’s forced, unless he slept with a liar. Any responsible man knows that there’s a possibility of pregnancy with sex, even if they use birth control and contraception. If he doesn’t want to be a father or pay child support he either shouldn’t have sex or he should have an understanding with his partner that she’ll get an abortion or make sure she can raise the kid without him. If men don’t want to end up in situations like these they should be more careful about who they sleep with.
0
35 Reply
Asker
+1 y
it is forced becouse they both consented to sex but the only one who consent to parenthood was the mother as she choose to carry on the pregnancy agasint the mans will and funny u say If he doesn’t want to be a father or pay child support he shouldn’t have sex we can say the same about the women If she doesn’t want to be a mother or give birth to a child she shouldn’t have sex
By consenting to sex, he consented to the possibility of parenthood. He knows that he can’t force her to abort or not abort and parenthood is always on the table unless one of them is sterile. And yeah, the same goes for women. No one is forced into parenthood unless they’re raped and can’t get an abortion.
i have nothing against the women having full say on if to get an abortion or not but what i am against is the father having to pay for a choice the women made that he was against like say you get pregnant and the father does not want to be a parent and asked you to get an abortion but you refuse but then turn around and demand he pay for the baby you choice to have against his will
I think that’s morally wrong too, but it’s a risk men take when they have sex without a prior agreement on how they’ll handle an unplanned pregnancy. If he sleeps with an irresponsible woman who will have a kid she can’t afford and ask him for child support, that’s on him too for not thoroughly vetting his partners.
why does only the father have to vet his partnars but the women does not seems unfair but u fail to see how the system is highly unfair to men as it will punish him for having sex but rewards women for having sex so i state again why is consent to sex consent to parenthood for men only
Obviously women should be responsible too (which I’ve already said) but we’re talking about men’s responsibilities right now. Every man knows that pregnancy is a possibility when he has sex with a woman. He knows he can’t force the woman to abort or not abort because she’s the pregnant one and he isn’t. He knows he might become a father and have to pay child support. When he knows all that and still chooses to sleep with a woman he can’t trust to make responsible decisions in case of accidental pregnancy, I have no sympathy for him. He knew the risks and went ahead and consented to the possibility of pregnancy.
god sake women so did the mother she knew the risks and went ahead and consented to the possibility of pregnancy but she still get a choice of an out of them responsibilities but the father has to follow whatever SHE choices to do so i ask again why is consent to sex consent to parenthood for men only until u can asnwer that without giving the women all the say and choice but force the man to pay for her choice then you have no case or room to debate as they both consent to sex but only one consent to parenthood which is the mother when she decides to make that sex end in a baby not the men as he got no choice post sex but the women got 3 options
Women are the ones who get pregnant so they are the ones who decide to abort or not. In situations where they disagree, it’s not fair, but that’s how humans developed and men know it.
i never said he got a say if she got an abortion or not i know the women has full say on that all i am saying is the man should get the same choice post sex the mother does so say he can say no to parenthood in the time frame the mother can get an abortion so if the mother carrys on the pregnancy she cannot get any money from the father but the father has no rights to the baby but if the father says yes to being a parent then sure make him pay cannot say yes then not pay but just that he had that choice like the mother does
He is partially responsible for the child’s existence and both parents should contribute to their upbringing. The child shouldn’t suffer because the mother had poor judgement and had a kid she can’t afford alone. If she needs financial help he should pay, but if she had the option of abortion, knew he didn’t want or couldn’t afford a child, and had the child anyway, she should pay him back plus interest once the kid is 18.
if both are partially responsible for the child’s existence and both parents should contribute to their upbringing then why does the women get a choice post sex but the man dose not plus you still have not answered my queston why is consent to sex consent to parenthood for the man only
i have read every one of your post and no u have not all u have said is the women gets a choice but the man pays for that choice u have not answered my question at all
plus you say he consent to the possibility of parenthood so why does only he consent to it why not the women so If women's partial responsibility for pregnancy does not obligate them to support a fetus, then men's partial responsibility for pregnancy does not obligate them to support a resulting child. If women can opt out of motherhood when an accidental pregnancy occurs by getting an abortion then men should have a choice too and be able to opt out of fatherhood and any rights, privileges, and responsibilities toward the child
They both pay for the woman’s choice because if the woman decides to have the child she had to help raise it and pay for it, just like the man. They both consent to the possibility of pregnancy because sex can result in pregnancy, but the man consents to the possibility of parenthood because he knows he can’t force the woman to abort. In cases where the woman is anti-abortion or can’t get an abortion for some reason, they both consent to the possibility of parenthood. In cases where a woman wants an abortion or a man doesn’t want to be involved in his child’s upbringing, they each know that for whatever reason they are not fit to be parents. When a woman gets an abortion, she is making the responsible choice and not forcing a child to grow up in a home where it doesn’t have adequate resources. When a man doesn’t pay child support or doesn’t want to help raise his child, he’s being irresponsible and forcing a child to grow up without adequate resources. One is a way to be hold oneself accountable and the other isn’t. See the difference?
and again you are forceing him to pay for her choice what part of that do u not understand as by your own words both pay for the woman’s choice and you say the man is irresponsible and forcing a child to grow up without adequate resources which is unture as he did not choice to have that child like the women did plus where in the law does it say a child has the right to be cared for by their parents hint they dont cuz if they did adoption and safe haven laws would be illegal plus you again give the women all the say post sex but force the man to pay for a choice he has no say in so basically your whole argument is women gets to choice but man consent to follow the women choice when he has sex how hypocritical can you get as i repeat if conset to sex is consent to parenthood for men if should be the same for women but in your mind the women get all the say then pushs her choice on an unwilling man
The problem with your argument is that you don’t consider the child’s wellbeing. Regardless of how the mother and father feel about it, they both made choices that resulted in a kid. She slept with a man who’s not prepared to be a dad and kept his child anyway while he slept with a woman who can’t be trusted to make responsible decisions about an accidental pregnancy. Both parents are unfit, but the children shouldn’t be deprived because of their mistakes and they’re the only innocent ones in this situation. Why should the kids suffer because the mother and father weren’t careful enough?
why should the man suffer for a choice of another which he had not say in yet the women gets 3 opitons but he gets zero plus u have not aswerd my questions i asked you to tell me where in the law does it state a child has the right to be cared for by its parents? and on a side note it is the mother making the child suffer not the man as she choose to carry on the pregnnancy agaist the mans will so she choose to have a child that would not be cared for by the father as if you cannot force motherhood on a women you should not be able to force father hood on a man
Because the man is not the only person who matters here and he landed himself in this situation when he should have known better than to sleep with an irresponsible woman, yet he did it anyway. And yes, the woman is irresponsible too and should have been abstinent, aborted, or given up the baby for adoption before you accuse me of overlooking her again. I know it’s not a law but I believe both parents have a moral obligation to help care for their child if they’re not responsible enough to abort or give it up for adoption. Yes, she also makes the child suffer when she has it and can’t afford it. She should not do that. But she at least is willing to contribute and ask the father to contribute too. She’s irresponsible when she keeps the kid but she claims a little responsibility back by raising it. He is responsible if he asks her to choose abortion or adoption, but he loses some of that responsibility when he doesn’t pitch in.
i am ok with the guy paying if the women also has to pay and cannot just say nope i want it to be fair so i am ok with abortion being the women choice only if the man gets to choose not to pay so it is fair so if abortion was illlegal then sure make then both pay my problem is the women gets to choice if she wants to be a parent post sex but the man cannot
So you want the woman to raise the child alone, even if she can’t afford it, which is unfair to the child? Or ask for government assistance, which is unfair to taxpayers who have nothing to do with her problems and get roped in anyway? Or give the child up for adoption, straining an already underequipped system? Are those really better than getting the child’s father to contribute?
so you want to force another persons choice on to an unwilling man which could make him broke or force him into poverty but oh poor women has to look after a child on her own which she choice to and consent to when she refused to get an abortion so you extort money from the man who have no choice or say post sex but you force him to just go along with what ever the women wants even when it would ruin his like so i ask why is consent to sex consent to parenthood only in the mans case
plus why do give them options to the women but not the man seems unfair and i ask you this where in the law dose it say a child has the right to be cared for by its parents hint it dose not as if it did adoption and save haven laws would not be a thing and why do you cling on to the idea of givng women the freedom not only to choice to be parents or not but alos force it onto another person against there will
In the first case my sympathy is for the child, not the mother. I never said she was a victim here. When a man consents to sex, he consents to an activity that could result in pregnancy, knowing he cannot control what will happen to the pregnancy or what the mother will do with the baby. Even if he doesn’t want to be a father or can’t afford it, he knows it could happen and he has sex anyway. He is not forced into fatherhood when he does something that he knows could end in it.
that is the biggest load of hypocritical bs i have ever read as yet again you give all the say to the women yet force the man into against his will why can you not understand that as you seem to only give the women a choice post sex but yet agait you fail to see that consent to sex is not consent to parenthood for women only which is what the problem is as they both consent to sex but only one consent to parenthood which was the women when she choice to carry on the pregnancy against the mans will so he did not consent to parenthood and you can shout and screem all you want and we can go round and round until you are blue in the face but you cannot justify forceing men into parenthood until you get rid of abortion adoption and safe haven laws so it is fair cuz if consent to sex is consent parenthood for men it should be the same for women
my stance is for fairness between both parents this is how my system would work 1-if the mother wants the baby but the father does not then he does not pay anything plus gets no rights 2- if they both do not want the baby they both pay half the abortion cost 3- if the mother dose not want the baby but father does they both pay half the abortion cost plus the mother paying for any therapy for him if he needs it 4-if both want the baby then they both get rights to the pregnancy and birth but if the mother does not let him be at any of it then she loses any surpport payments but if the mother lets him be at it all but he does not go to them he loses his rights to the child giving both the mother and father incentives as it gives the mother an incentive to invole the father in the pregnancy and birth plus gives the father incentive to surpport the mother durring the pregnancy 5-if any abuse is proved by any parent with proof of it then the abuse parent loses all rights upon the birth of the child 6-if any parent is proved to break an court order then they will have a minimum of a fine paid to the other parent to compensate for any lost time with the child (this goes both ways so if the father does not turn up the mother can get him fined)
2-6 I agree with, but not 1. I think the father should pay because the child shouldn’t suffer because the parents were irresponsible. The mother should have to pay him back later though, because she should have chosen abortion or adoption if she couldn’t give the child a good life by herself.
so you are saying make child surpport a loan from the father to the mother and when the child is 18 or what ever age is an adult in your country the mother has to pay the child support back to the father i am right or did u mean something else
It makes [Two] human beings [male and female] to make a baby. Therefore, both of them must have a say in whether keep or abort the baby. They are the parents and they must have equal rights and opportunity to state their opinion. With that said, it's the responsibility of the both sides to maturely discuss and reach agreements regarding this subject before they establish intercourse. And by any means, you can not force anyone to have/keep a children. No one has the right to force someone through motherhood and fatherhood.
I don't understand why you need to necessarily abort the baby if you don't want it. First of all, if you didn't want a baby, you should've use maximum protection or never have sex from the first place and now that you have the baby anyway and you don't want to keep it for whatever reason, give birth but then give it up for adaption. Give that baby and those who wants a baby and can't have a good chance to make a life.
0
25 Reply
Asker
+1 y
i only disagree with with the whole the mother gets all the say to choice but the father only has to do what the mother wants i just want to start a nice friendly debate and maybe talk about some ways that it could be more fair
I agree with you. The mother should not have all the says. How's that fair and what gives a woman to have all the rights? she didn't make the baby alone to decide everything alone.
A man and a father is not made of potato. They feel love and responsibility for the kids too. So if a woman wants to abort the baby, the father must have an agreement on it as well.
There is no full control. That's what people should understand.
Because this is not about body controlling to begin with. The major point of discussion is a human baby not the woman's body. If you want your body to remain untouched, don't have sex or make sure you never get pregnant, once you become pregnant, there has to be a mutual agreement. A two sided decision about what to do with the baby. Period.
you will never know what being pregant is like and you will never have to go through pregnancy and childbirth but saying that the baby is half the mans so you are allowed an oppion and voice in the debate and i am not just going to dismiss your oppion just cuz you are male that is just wrong to do that we are all human here and we can have a nice friendly debate male or female
We are having a friendly debate. You are obsessed with mentioning it as i am behaving otherwise which is starting to annoy me.
And how can you actually have a friendly debate when you are clearly judging me based on my gender. I don't have to know about the experience of pregnancy. I am using logic.
Nothing can justify to give women 100 % right to decide. That man who is 50 % part of the making the baby is not potato. He's a human being with emotions and he was there when the baby was created. He has every right to have a say.
And the whole [body controlling] is entirely illogical to me. When you are having sex and get pregnant, everything becomes about a human baby, a baby the same woman attend to create by having sex willingly. So first and foremost, putting her own body over the baby's life is purely selfish and disgusting. Secondly, using that body logic to remove men's decision out of it, is also illogical and wrong.
Two people make the baby, two make the decisions. Simple. If the woman is too concerned about governing their own body, they should never have sex. Because when you do and become pregnant, it's about the baby from then not the body. And for that human, two guardians are responsible not just one. Therefore both guardians must have a say.
you have some good points but you forget the baby is not a legal person until the birth cerificate is filled out and filed right so therefor it does not have the legal rights of a person as it is not seen as one by the law so as far as the law cares the unborn baby is just some cells which the mother as a legal person has the right to remove from their body
Since when we allow law to make our moral decisions? it's a human being, alive with a heartbeat. Is that what the whole governing the body is? i apologize for using this language, but; spreading your legs carelessly, then ignore the rights of the other person who made that baby with you and then kill the baby heartlessly just because you don't want it? as i've said, it's selfish and now with the description you have made, i have to add inhuman as well. I wouldn't respect a woman who look at the subject this selfishly specially with taking pride of governing her own body.
Just because you have a right/freedom to do something, it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Sometimes our values, principles and moral codes says a a lot about who we are as a human being.
i never said it was the right thing just that it was legal and women should not need the consent of another person to get a medical procedure done cuz that is what abortion is a medical procedure plus abortion can be seen as a parenting choice by the mother
just to clear something up yes i would talk to the baby's dad about keeping or not but legally it is up to me to make the choice plus you have to be a legal person for it to be murder
And i don't care about law. My morality tells me it's murder. It's interesting how some people can rely their own moralities solely on what law is telling them to do. It's a human baby with a heartbeat and feelings, you want to be inhuman and heartless to ignore that over a few paragraphs of law, be it. But the truth remains the same. It can't be ignored unless you close your eyes to it.
if you want to talk morality then yes i see it as murder and i would never have an abortion unless it was medically adivesd to save my life but the law does not see it as murder
I could maybe agree in cases where they already know the baby will be born with some medical condition and need special care their entire life, yet the woman still decides to proceed with pregnancy even though the father clearly stated he's against it.
On the other hand, the taxpayers will be the ones biting the bullet in the end. Should we force women to abort in such cases and in every case where it becomes clear the mother is alone and won't be able to financially support the child by herself? Because that's the alternative to "forced fatherhood".
Whether they're willing to deal with it or not, it's their child. Not mine nor anyone else's.
If you have sex with a girl, even with protection, pregnancy is always a possibility. If the girl gets pregnant, and chooses to keep the baby, that is her choice. It is not forcing a guy to be a father. It's just the normal outcome of having sex. If you don't want to be a father, then don't have sex, as that is the only absolutely sure way not to be a father.
2
7 Reply
Asker
+1 y
same can be said about the women then she choice to be a mother the moment she had sex so no abortions for women then
no it is not as it is still a choice the women can make post sex but she also gets save haven laws and adoption but still the man gets zero option or than to be forced into paying for her choice and if conset to sex is consent to parenthood why dose that only appile to men but not women
You talk foolishness, as it the woman, when she get pregnant, doesn't have any skin in the game. It happens to be her body that the baby grows in, and her body that goes through a lot of change, and some very uncomfortable changes at that. And of course, there is the care of the baby.
Asker: Allowing men to walk away from being a parent would be a scourge on society, as it would leave many more children in poverty, than already exist. I don't think you can even call yourself a man, if you refuse to help support your children. And no, I don't believe the same with women who have abortions, as that is a much more complex situation, that men will never have to face.
i am not a men but you are ok with giving women choices at the cost of a mans freedom so let me ask you this are you ok with slaves as what you are basicly saying is you are ok with turing men into slaves of women as you strip them of their freedom to choice post sex like a women can infact she get 3 options where as he gets none how fair is that and another thing why is consent to sex consent to parenthood for men only as you cannot justify forcing parenthood onto men against his will unless you do the same to women any thingelse is unjust
It definitely is BS that the father has absolutely no say the guy could end up in jail for no fault of his own if the economy is weak and he is down on his luck and cannot pay support he will get thrown in jail and sure you can say well he made the baby it is his fault but really it is the fault of the girl too and she is never going to see jail for neglecting the kid at worst they will take the kid away but the guy always has that hanging over his head they tossed my friend in jail numerous times he had a job and still got tossed in there because he fell behind and owed support to 3 girls
Accidents happen and cruel/selfish intentions exist, so men should be able to legally abort their ownership and financial obligation of a child. Women should always be able to abort and they should know before hand that they face raising a child alone, if they go through with it without the mans consent.
I have autisme and I have often thought about how and if I coulf help a child with autisme. I'm not a expert handler of other autist just because I have it too. It takes a larger and calmer soul to deal with me.
Plenty of women down the thread that are willing to take away a man’s rights but they never mention releasing him of his responsibilities. That’s the typical position. A man always has to bear the responsibility but can be stripped of his rights, while a women ever wants to take full responsibility or lose her rights. Little tyrants with no moral compass...
i agree if you have no rights you have no responsiblities they just cannot see that with the choicse they have like abortion, adoption and save haven laws makes consent to sex not conset to parenthood for women only
He made a conscious decision to have intercourse without protection. People in today's society have this sense of entitlement that if the person they had intercourse with failed to protect themselves from a potential pregnancy, then they should be able to escape all ramifications that come with having a child. It doesn't work like that even though people constantly fight for it to. It takes two sex cells to create a gamete. If your sex cell permeates an egg cell, you are just as responsible for the growth of the gamete as the female is... Case closed.
If you think she's going to just do whatever she wants, then it'd be wise to have an honest conversation with her about kids before becoming physically intimate. Make sure you both are on the same page. This is more about having a healthy relationship than anything else. As long you both have decided you do not want children, accidents do happen though, and abortion is always an option
@pooper89 Well the reality is that people tend to have sex with one another generally while dating, if things work well then maybe they get into a solid relationship and if it holds up over time maybe they get married, and if the marriage is going good for several years and the economy is right then maybe they feel ready for a child. So unless you plan to marry a guy and not have sex with him for like 3 years after the marriage, good luck with that strategy. In the real world things tend to be a little more in the grey.
"Well the reality is that people tend to have sex with one another generally while dating" Good for them. And as soon as they choose to do this, they are also choosing to deal with any and all possible ramifications. There is no EASY route. As for me, of course I wait until we're in a committed relationship before becoming physically intimate. I also am transparent about the fact that I don't want a child out of wedlock. If something happened before that, I may or may not get an abortion depending on how we both felt about it. As for waiting 3 years after marriage... I don't see what that has to do with anything so far. As long as we're married and we both know we want children, it can happen at any time. Sooner the better as I don't want to be an older parent.
@pooper89 she made a conscious decision to have intercourse without protection to you know but in this world of female entitlement who think they should be able to escape all ramifications that come with having a child and If takes two sex cells to create a gamete then why are men only held to be responsible for the child but the women get many ways to rid herself of having the child yet men are force into it as i will say sex is not cosent to parenthood
@pooper89 The reason it matters is because most marriages that fail, do so in the first five years. It’s a big life change for anyone and all the sudden you’re living with someone day in and day out and you have to to compromise. Not everyone makes it… Thus knowing that, a lot of people try to see how it goes to assure themselves it’s true love and all that before they drag their soon to be children into the middle of it.
So seeing as how marriage is simply some court documents and a change in how you do your taxes, I don't see why two people can't live together before marriage. The majority of couples do this anyway. My own parents lived together before marriage and (while correlation does not imply causation), they're still married.
@pooper89 dont really a choice is it jail or pay or not have sex but women get not have sex, use the pill or get an abortion put baby up for adoption or use save haven laws in all the choices the women get the freedom to say nope dont want this baby but the man get FORCED into it
@pooper89 They can, I never implied they couldn’t. Not that everyone does it full time though. Sometimes people live full time together before marriage. Sometimes they’ve never lived together. A lot of times they both have their own place, but one or the other is at the other persons house most of the week but they can still retreat to their own house if someone is moody or they have something uncomfortable to deal with like in-laws coming in from out of town without imposing on their partners life.
No its not the same. A woman has to physically carry a child which will alter her body and her capabilities during her pregnancy. A big thing about the choice to carry a child is that it is literally inside lf a womans body. Men dont have that burden. Therefore, any mans best bet at avoiding having to take care of a child would be to take precautions to NOT be a father. There are contraceptives andmany ways to avoid impregnating a woman but actions do have consequences and any man with sense knows that he can get a woman pregnant and should avoid that happening if he doesn't want to be a father
1
1 Reply
Asker
+1 y
so she also has adoption and save haven laws so she has them too and u cannot use the she is the one pregnant to force parenthood on an unwilling father as last time i checked they both consented to sex but only she consented to parenthood not the man
Forced fatherhood isn't coming from the nowhere. It is consequential. Even if in this situation one can see as women has less responsibility or more freedom it is requires equal prevision from both sex to avoid the situation. It isn't rocket science to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. I cannot really consider people as future prospects who aren't able to make simple decision like using a fucking condom.
It takes two to tango, if he don't want a kid he should have thought about sleeping with the girl in the first place. Men should have to take just as much responsibility as the mother, walking out is the cowardly thing to do but on the other hand what kinda father he gonna be if he doesn't even want the child
1
27 Reply
Asker
+1 y
can say the same about the women if she did not want a child then she sould have thought about sleeping with the guy in the first place and having an abortion is a cowardly thing to do
Depending on the situation.. Yes, I personally don't agree with a abortion but I don't blame a woman if she was desperate, confused and had no support for doing it. I just see it as killing a potential life, what about that unborn childs rights, just because it may have a difficult start in life doesn't mean they can't better themselves and become something greater
you say the unborn baby has rights then you cannot support abortion then as that would be a violation of the unborn baby's rights to live so to support abortion you need to support no rights for an unborn baby so therefor the baby is not a legal person so has not such right to he/her father time or money as he can revoke is rights and responsibilities and cuz the unborn baby has not rights or legal status under the law they are not afforded any protection under the law so he would not be violation of anyones rights
why answer the qustion if you cannot handle a debate and i am allowed my oppion just cuz i do not agree with you does not give you the right to say i am argueing with you
Well I think your the girl who always asks these type of question who actually doesn't want a answer, I didn't comment for a debate and I have better things to do. It's my opinion take it or leave it
i kind of do lol i know u are pregnant from the question you asked some days ago plus i know the father is your co worker but it all turned out to be an April fools so that tells me u are willing to mess with peoples emotions to get the reaction you want plus i know by how you defend the womens choice but throw the man under the bus tells me u dont like men that much as well as your stance of me argueing with you cuz my oppion differs from yours shows you cannot handle people having diffrent oppions than you am i close
Please block me whilst your at it because I'm sick of getting your questions and you constantly trying to fight with people who don't want to fight with you.
i dont want to fight with you and you are the one being salty as you just cannot handle me having a an oppion that differs from you're plus i know it was an aprils fools as i said it turned out to be an April fools so there is another thing about u does not read properly and unable to comprehend simple facts too
Well I just think its stupid to get upset over a joke. I find it uncomfortable so many people got salty over it's like you don't even know me, it doesn't effect your life at all, it not like I was getting people buying a freaking crib for me was it. why the fuck do people get so emotional over people they barely know.
I appreciate you have a opinion, never doubt it either. Your the one getting personal about it, I just don't want a to argue with it. It 20 to 2 in the morning in my country, I've got work tomorrow and I have better things going on in my life to feel the need to debate over some dumb shit on the Internet what gonna change nothing. Were not political activists for god sake
i am not upset over it what i am upset over is u think i am argeing with you just cuz i have a diffrent oppion to u which says a lot about you sorry to say plus by your replys and questions u have asked and ur reactions to some things yes people can put togther what type of person you are i like just did it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what type of person you are based on your language literature and linguistics style
yes i do but this is kind of a pass time u know plus i wanted to see how people would react if posed this question and i got my asnwer women are against it as they like the benefits of the system but men are for it as they do not like being forced into parenthood when women are not
the women carrying the baby is not a reason to force parenthood on a man against his will as men did not make it that way they had no control over it it was nature that did that so that line of thought is wrong until men get the same choices or equal choices post sex then it is unfair simple as that
So he gets to walk away just like she does then? I mean 1.2 billion abortions are performed a year, that's 1.2 billion women who just walk away from that responsibility. So your saying that its okay for men to do this as well?
@hellionthesagereborn yeah if it means not forceing parenthood onto a person against there will or are you ok with men being forced into parenthood against his will cuz of the choice of another as that is wrong
@Asker I was directing my comment towards @Alice2398 however in my view both should be forced to shoulder the burden of parenthood as the child exists only because of them. However if she is going to get a free pass then the only nonsexist and non discriminatory thing to do is to also give him a free pass. Its one or the other, its wrong to claim women should be given a free pass while simultaneously claiming that only men should take responsibility. Either they both are responsible for the same action, or neither of them are.
Not if forced motherhood is considered not fair. Personally I think both parties are equally responsible for the act of creating life (barring rape of course) and as such both should be forced to take on that responsibility. However if women are allowed a free pass then so to should men. Doing anything else is not only sexist but also demeaning towards women as it implicitly states that women are not mentally capable of being held accountable for their actions as men are.
Men do get a free pass if the woman has an abortion. And how many of those abortions are done because of pressure from the father because he doesn't want his life complicated or to pay child support for 18 years?
@EclipseoftheHeart How do they get a free pass? She got the free pass, he had no say in the matter. Many men WANT to have kids, despite how so many women, seemingly like yourself, want to portray men we are not all evil pieces of shit incapable of love. Most men do not want their child aborted yet they have NO say in the matter. As for "pressure" that is purely subjective, you can no more determine the probability of that then I can and is again, an attempt to dehumanize men by portraying us as essentially evil vile creatures who cannot think about any one but ourselves. I'd explain to you why that's incredibly sexist but lets be honest, you would not grasp it because you clearly don't see men as human beings. www.usccb.org/.../...trauma-following-abortion.cfm https://ejcop.psychopen.eu/article/view/54/html
@EclipseoftheHeart You know I have to ask, what kind of person would look at half the population and decide that they where not human? What kind of person would just immediately disregard them, treat them as if they where less then shit so readily? How do you do it? How do you look at men and not even see us as human? I know this doesn't matter, its not going to change your mind, your not going to think about how it feels to be a man who is forced to sit by and do nothing while his child is murdered with no one ever giving two fucks about what that does to him, I understand that you will not stop looking at us like we are subhuman, but I need to know. How the fuck did you get to that point? Men are built to protect, its LITERALLY why we exist. Testosterone creates the protective drive in men, its what causes men to run into burning buildings, its what causes them to use their own bodies as shields against harm, so how the fuck did you get this idea that we just are completely and totally incapable of human emotion? That is just unbelievably disgusting. I hope to god your single and never going to have any male children, I cannot imagine the pain of having the person that is suppose to care about you looking at you like your just some unfeeling thing.
I'm totally against abortion except under certain circumstances. I guess these people who create a pregnancy should discuss what is going to happen if a pregnancy results from having sex, before they have sex, not after. But people don't, all they want is to screw like rabbits and not with any responsibility or thought of consequences. A lot of people who are irresponsible go to jail - drunk drivers, bad parents to name a few. I think people who are irresponsible with sex should have some consequences too - like paying the child support if the mother is against abortion and wants to keep the child. If you can't handle it, go off and fap in a corner and leave sex to those who face their responsibilities instead of crying over it.
@EclipseoftheHeart Your not getting it are you? I absolutely 100% believe that PEOPLE need to take responsibility for their actions. The problem is, only HALF the population is expected to do so. Just because you have a vagina doesn't mean you get to weasel your way out of responsibility. You don't give a fuck about responsibility or you would be talking just as much shit to those women who abort their child as to the men who don't want to pay up, but your not. Why is that? Oh that's right, because you don't give a solitary fuck about responsibility, you just care about escaping it. You want you and every other woman to be able to run away from the problems THEY CREATED, because its easier then owning it, its easier then acknowledging agency. Its always the mans fault isn't it? Poor helpless women, it was his fault after all, its not as if she consented to sex, not like she agreed to perform a reproductive act right? So not only do you despise men but you think that women are so utterly worthless that they cannot be held accountable for their actions? How fucked up is that? You've got some serious issues you need to work out. Here is what I propose, EVERYONE regardless of whether or not you have a penis OR vagina, should be held accountable for their actions rather then just giving the person with a vagina exemption from any and all responsibility. But that's just me, call me "progressive" I just think that women are capable of making their own decisions and thus being responsible for their own decisions. Crazy right?
Well I spoke to my partner about it and he said it’s totally my decision but he’d prefer it be best we not have one right now especially when I’m moving closer to him. He’s not against it but if it was up to him he wouldn’t want to bring a kid into the world with us struggling and not being close to each other
0
1 Reply
Asker
+1 y
but the truth of the matter is only you would have consented to parenthood not him as you say it would be your decision so in making that decision you are forceing him to be a parent against his will
Execute a helpless human because of career aspirations. What is the question? The 3rd person shoild have a supportive mother and father. Its the challenge of being responsible for the life they boyh made. wasn't long ago people would throw their babies to the dogs... literally. What other species does this? Big cats? Help...
Well, its a tricky thing. Some people suggested that there should be financial abortion for the father. But I am not too fond of it, because the majority of "failures" in society come from single-parent households. Criminals, drug-addicts, suicidal people, etc.
So I am not sure what the solution is, if people want to keep abortion legal. Personally I don't, so that's my solution.
1
1 Reply
Asker
+1 y
i would have not problem with forceing the man to pay if the women also did not have a choice but with a abortion you give her an out which is by is very nature unfair to men until they also get an out with financial aborton
It has been researched that employers see fathers as ‘better, more stable employees’. In the 70s, the was very little government support, and women receive HALF the wage of a man. Women couldn’t afford to be single mother. Abortion gave them a way out of a tough situation.
No, it's not fair, but it's not like the guy didn't make his own mistakes to get into that situation to begin with. I get a little bit tired and frustrated with women (really just people in general) trying to act like abortion is something any guy would take lightly. The guy doesn't exactly like throwing the idea of abortion into the conversation either, even if he isn't the one who is undergoing the procedure.
1
3 Reply
Asker
+1 y
but the problem is consent to sex is not consent to parenthood for women only as only they get the choics of abortion, adoption and save haven laws not the man
Oh I know! Part of the problem is that women don't realize that because of their role in reproduction, consenting to have sex, in a way, is also consenting to having children. Once they have children, they reason that it was also the guy's implied consent, but it's just not the same thing.
i know and i am female as all sex does is make a zygote but it is the mother choice to make that into a baby so there consent to parenthood is then so where is the fathers consent as the mother made the baby agasit his will
No one forces you to have unprotected sex with a female. How were you FORCED into being a father? Sounds like a choice that you made.
3
34 Reply
Asker
+1 y
but the women had a choice at sex too but she gets 3 options post sex to get out of being a parent but he man gets zero so yes it is forced as you are forceing the choice of another onto an unwilling person just so they can get their way can answer me this why is consent to sex consent to parenthood only in the case of the man
You know all of that before you have sex with the girl and you should take all of that into account. You want to be treated exactly like a woman? You want your momma to take you shopping for a training bra?
ok you support an unfair and unjust system that is highly anti male which hates men as it forces them into choice against their will and also forces and punishs them for a choice someone else made ok got it you hate your own gender and freedom of choice for men
no but forceing parenthood onto men using the saying consent to sex is consent to parenthood is wrong unless you apply it to women too so until abortion and adoption and safe haven laws are against the law only then can you justify forcing men into parenthood against their will
you do realize i am a women but that is beside the point women also can use birth control too but they still get choices post sex but men do not that is what i find unfair
Sorry for the gender confusion. Women and men are different biologically and that results in many differences in our lives. Would it be more fair if somehow, biologically, you could give guys the same range of choices that women have? Of course it would. but that is not the real world.
Do you want to focus on just this one difference or are we going to even out all of the other differences? Let's start with combat duty in the military, then we can talk about making men suffer just as much as women suffer in childbirth, then we'll go on to talk about how it is unfair that women get to breastfeed and men don't, so kids bond more closely with their mothers.
It's all a package deal. You can jost correct one perceived injustice without addressing all the others.
Two people have sex and the woman gets pregnant. They both knew thew risk and hads means of preventing pregnancies. They took a chance and lost. The one innocent person in this situation is the child. Why should the child suffer the consequences of not having two parents loving and supporting them?
i am all for giving women full say on abortion what i am not for is forcing that choice on to an unwilling man as yes they both consented to sex but only the women consented to parenthood as they have 3 options post birth abortion adoption and safe haven laws where as the man has zero options or choice and if he does not do what the women wants he gets jail time so how fair is that and on a side note i am all for having women go into the military if men have too so do women
So you are okay with a child being raised with potentially marginal financial support because his father did not want to take responsibility for his actions.
but it was not the fathers fault was it it was the mothers as only she consented to have that baby by refusting to get an abortion so you cannot say men has responsibility with out the right to choice as that would be slavery but you are ok with women not taking responsibility for her actions infact you give her 3 options post sex to get out of that responsibility so yes it is the womens fault not the mans
Deciding whether a child should have support is not a decision about punishment. That is the problem with this area. You look at the decision as a punishment of the father, and I understand that perspective. However, have you thought about how letting dad off the hook punishes the child?
Also, if the rule is that a guy can renounce fatherhood and have no responsibility, then what incentive does a guy have to be responsible about his sexual behavior? If he gets the girl pregnant, so what? It's not going to cost him anything.
kind of like women nowsdays who have nothing to pay unless they cansent to it so It's not going to cost her anything is it unless she consents to it but the man on the other hand is forced into to as yes punishment for a choice made by another why can you not see that
but i have counter everyone of your arguments yet you still put all the blame on the man and strip him of his freedom to choice why at the same time giving women the freedom to choice but push that choice onto the man and until you can justify conset to sex is consent to parenthood for men only you have no leg to stand on so no reason for debateing with you as you just go over the same things in a vain attempt to justify your unfair and unjust views which by the way are sexist and anit male
no you just cannot see your hypocrisy i will outline it 1. both man and women consent to sex 2. women refuses to get abortion thereby consenting to be a parent unless she give baby up to adoption or uses safe haven laws 3. man dose not consent to being a parent but is forced into it by women who kept baby 4. if man does not pay he goes to jail 5. women can force her choice onto the man but he cannot do the same 6. mans freedom to choice is striped from him yet womens freedom to choice is protected by law so yes you cannot see your own hypocrisy which is sad as you give women all the say and choics post sex yet force the man into her choice so again i ask why is consent to sex consent to parenthood for men only until you can justfity that you have not leg to stand on and are just showing your hypocrisy
lol as you have no argument to counter mine as u know i am right as u have not been able to justify why consent to sex is consent to parenthood for men only so you run but whatever later man hater
I have to disagree with you to an extent. I know women that get pregnant knowing that guy does not want kids so they sabotage birth control and protection or take pills to enhance pregnancy rate out of spite because the feel like they can use "well now we have a child" as collateral for why they can't leave the relationship and criple them financially. I agree that child support is NOT a punishment. It's for the child but most men that wanted the baby do the right thing and take care of their kid no matter what. My whole take on the situation is that it is fair to order either gender to pay child support for a child they BOTH wanted once the relationship is over and the child is living with one of the parents. I do no think it's fair for let's say "Karen" to ask for child support from Daren who chearly stated he doesn't want kids and can prove that he did take measures to prevent a pregnancy. Because at the end of the day pregnancy can only be avoided if EVERYONE stopped having sex. Will that happen? No. Child support should be used like a punishment because cumming feels good. I don't know about other countries but in the US abortion is legal and getting various forms of birth control is free. So accidents should not be happening. If a woman has a baby... It's caz she wanted that baby.
@zed-789 Child support is calculated on the assumption that both parents should be contributing financially to a child's support, regardless of who has custody of the child. The support the father is ordered to pay is not an amount sufficient, by itself, to take care of a child. Additionally, as the father gets increasingly involved and spends more overnights with a child, their child support obligation reduces. It is not unusual for an involved father to pay only $200 per month child support.
but you forget yet again only one person choose to have the child go man listen to yourself no where in the law dose it say a child has the right to be cared for by its parents so in that vain why can a man be forced into paying for a child he did not want lets go over your agruments then
1-you say he consent when he had sex but do the women not consent too so why should that consent not oblige her to carry a pregnancy to term if it obliges the man to pay
2-only the women is pregnant so why should the man pay for a function of someone else body against his will when he had no say in that function and in any other situation that would be wrong so why not here
3-you say a child needs support from its parant why that is true nowhere in laws does it say that so again where in law dose it say that
4-you say live is not fair but you only say that to men but if it was unfair to women you would bend over backwards to make it more fair why is that
5-yes child support IS a punishment as you are making him pay a fine for having sex with a women then her not choosing to get an abortion it really confuses me that you cannot see that as say he was speeding he would have to pay a fine as it is a crime so by making him pay support for having sex is making it into a crime which the mother as the opiton to get out off which would be discrimination under the law which is wrong plus by forcing him into it agasint his will when it is not classed as a crime like you say is slavery as you are making him work for the benfit of another under threat of jail time if not meet so yep slavery
or you have no counter for them and if children had a right to be cared for by their parents then adopton and safe haven laws would be illegal now would they not so until you can justify forcing someone to pay for anothers choice than you are just making slaves out of men to give women freedom and it is sick that you do not see that
Yes, I am a licensed and practicing attorney in the state of Florida. At the moment, I am on duty in my clerk's office advising indigent parties on family law matters.
Child support is a matter of state law. Tell me what state you are in and I will find a citation to the law for that state.
No. If women's partial responsibility for pregnancy does not obligate them to support a fetus, then men's partial responsibility for pregnancy does not obligate them to support a resulting child. If women can opt out of motherhood when an accidental pregnancy occurs by getting an abortion then men should have a choice too and be able to opt out of fatherhood and any rights, privileges, and responsibilities toward the child.
I really don’t even see that there’s a debate there. The mother having the ability to make a wrong choice doesn’t entitle the father to make one also. Further , there will never be a day that fathers will be given the choice to opt out of fatherhood post impregnation.
It’s really p damn simple. That thing in between the legs makes babies if I put my dick in it. If I don’t put my dick in it , it won’t make a baby. Choose to be a father or not. That is how it’s done.
but then you have an unfair system that discriminates against the male gender as you are treating them diffrent under the law which by the laws own admisison is illegal as you are giving speical rights to one group of people based on there gender why at at the same time extorting money out of an unwilling party to pay for the choice of another by threat of jail time or sanctions on their freedom which under the law is slavery
i know there are three but if we are to invole person number three then we have to face the fact that it could place limits on if the mother can get an abortion as that would affect person number three would it not so before we carry on what is your stacne on abortion
but i am not trying to start an argument against abortion as i see nothing wrong with it but u are the one who dragged the person 3 in into this and if person three has rights like u say then the mother cannot get an abortion as it would violate person 3's rights but if person 3 dose not have rights then yes the mother can get an abortion but the father can also revoke his rights and responsibilities towards person 3 as they have no rights to violate at the current moment so the father would not be violateing or taken anything away from anyone in scenario as the person 3 would not have any right to his money or time if he revoked it before person 3 becomes a legal person with rights
If you are a guy that doesn't want a child and doesn't want to be lumbered with child support then he has to do his upmost to make sure it never happens, wear 10 condoms if need be. A woman who has her heart set on having a child will do whatever she can to make it happen regardless on what the guy says.
0
1 Reply
Asker
+1 y
but just as the father should make sure to use birth control so should the mother but the big diffrence is that the mother gets a choice after the fact with abortion, adoption and save haven laws so why does the father have to be forced into what the mother wants
I mean if the man ends up with the child, woman pays chuld support. If the woman ends up with the child, man pays child support. It's not hair and it's fair to make the other party pay considering it's both of their faults they have a kid
1
3 Reply
Asker
+1 y
then no abortion for women to make it fair plus not adoption and save haven laws for women then to make it fair
One, she still has the right to abort the child (or abandon it or give it up for adoption all of which she can do without the fathers consent) if she doesn't want it, if she does want to keep it she can just get child support (which she can get without the fathers consent (seeing a trend here?)). As for the "getting the child" that really only applies in divorce and women almost never pay child support. 20% of the time women are expected to pay child support and out of that number less then 30% actually do (unlike men who are expected to pay 80% of the time and actually pay it 80% of the time (despite the fact that they are the ones labeled as dead beats)).
Of course it's not fair. And it's normal that women can't see the problem. One day they will, many do already. Or maybe feminazi will simply extinguish white men 🤷♂️
I guess your solution of being a pink anon was useless. Hate comes regardless of gender.
I think teenage pregnancies are much trickier, because teenagers may not fully be able to acknowledge the consequences of intercourse, but if your an adult, you need to take responsibility for your actions. If you made a life you are obligated to take care of it.
Yes, a women has a right to her body and whether she carries the child to term. However, a man has a right to decline fatherhood. She can't force him to be a parent just as he can't force her to have an abortion. It's the only fair way.
The baby is the responsibility of the adults who care for it. It has no autonomy outside of the parents, which is why the mother should consider very carefully if she should have a child without the father.
He doesn't have to be a parent, just help to support the child which can cost $300,000 from infancy to age 18. The mother should not have to bear this burden alone since it took two to do the tango.
@EclipseoftheHeart If she doesn't want that burden she can abort. Easy. If she wants to keep the child the father should have the right to deny fatherhood.
She can deny the man fatherhood even if he wants the child, and she can decide to make him a father even if he doesn't want to. It's all on her terms. Where's the fairness in that? The man can't deny her motherhood or make her carry it to term.
i agree it is highly unfair now dont get me wrong i am 100% in the women gets full say in abortion camp but i also do not think men should be forced to be a parent against his will
No it isn't fair but it is also a very tough issues because the baby is ultimately with the mother and despite what society says and not to be sexist or sterotypical but the mother will have to deal with it the most
1
2 Reply
Asker
+1 y
but the baby has no rights before birth so say a father drevoke his rights and responsibilities towards the unborn baby as they have no rights to violate at the current moment so the father would not be violateing or taken anything away from anyone in as the baby would not have any right to his money or time if he revoked it before the baby becomes a legal person with rights
If it was an accident and the man had previously stated that he didn't want children, he shouldn't have to support them. If he wished to support them, well and good but if he doesn't then you can't force him.
For all the people, who say if you don't want children, don't have sex. That's stupid. Humans require to have sex for a healthy life, so you can't just not do it cause you don't want children. Contraceptives are effective but there still might be a risk. In that case, if one party wants to keep it, the other party shouldn't have to be involved.
Then both parties should use protection - she the pill and him a condom. Double protection is better than one, which could fail. Always good to have a back up.
It takes two to tango (except for in rape situations) they're both equally responsible for the child that was created. Don't have sex or use protection if you're not ready for that risk and responsibility.
2
2 Reply
Opinion Owner
+1 y
To be fair, I don't support women being able to opt out of Parenthood either via abortion.
If he didn't want the child, he shouldn't be forced into it. The same way that when a woman doesn't want the child, she doesn't have to have it. Call it a "legal abortion".
I also think a paternity test should be required before a man is put on the birth certificate or when a child support claim is filed. No exceptions. If he isn't the father, he can still opt to have his name on it or pay child support voluntarily.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
of course it's not fair, but you're talking about a society that also is trying to make paternity tests illegal so the man has no idea if the child he's paying child support is even his in the first place. This feminist crap has already gone too far. I wonder how much more our society will tolerate before fighting back. Giving women all the choices, and men none is not the way to bring "equality".
@Reach500 yeah. I was thinking in France. They've made them illegal there without both people consenting to them. So if the woman doesn't want the man to know she cheated on him and got knocked up by some random dude, it's illegal for the man to find out the truth, but he's still responsible to pay child support.
Grew up without a father and it sucked, but if he isn’t going to be a adult and take care of his kid he should leave and pay child support. I know I don’t want my biological raising me, and no one should keep around a potentially shit father.
1
1 Reply
Asker
+1 y
why if the mother gets a choice so should the father or are you ok forecing parenthood onto a man who did not ask for it against his will cuz of the choice of a another so if consent to sex is consent to parenthood then why can women get an abortion then
I just wish we could avoid unwanted pregnancy. The one that loses everytime in these topics is the possible child. Either mom doesn’t want them or dad. It’s sad
FUCK YES , we inserted the coin , its fair , old enough to have sex , old enough to be a dad , i told my girl that if she gets pregnant i would accept to keep it or remove it , to me it doesn't matter , ill stay no matter what
I think if the woman gets pregnant it is what it is it was meant to be. If she gets pregnant the father's responsible to take care of the child for life I'm not going to tell her get an abortion if she gets pregnant. I'm pro-life anyway
1
25 Reply
Asker
+1 y
i agree with abortion but i disagree with the father having no choice but to pay i think the father should be able to say no to parenthood like the mother by being able to say no to paying any surpport for the child but in doing so loses any rights to the child what do you think
That's the father's responsibility no matter what to take care of the child he has to pay besides that Its his child he should want to pay and who would be that selfish not to pay and you would lose your child for not paying and it would be frowned upon by everybody you meet looking at you as the ultimate A hole. Besides if you don't pay the court can dock your wages and you could do jail time. Thanks for the down vote it's greatly appreciated
but women get many ways out but men do not so why should women get a choices like abortion, adoption and save haven laws but the male has to just go along with the wants and choice of the mother
I agree with you on everything you just said here 100% on your last post. Its not right and I won't put up with that on my relationship with the female. But if the girl gets pregnant it was meant to be and Its my responsibility to take to take care of the child the same thing as the mother she has to pay as well not just me
i agree i just want a nice friendly debate and maybe talk about some ways it can be more fair as i do not see why people need to shout or call people names in a debate anyway but in my system as detailed below would be like this 1-if the mother wants the baby but the father does not then he does not pay anything plus gets no rights 2- if they both do not want the baby they both pay half the abortion cost 3- if the mother dose not want the baby but father does they both pay half the abortion cost plus the mother paying for any therapy for him if he needs it 4-if both want the baby then they both get rights to the pregnancy and birth but if the mother does not let him be at any of it then she loses any surpport payments but if the mother lets him be at it all but he does not go to them he loses his rights to the child giving both the mother and father incentives as it gives the mother an incentive to invole the father in the pregnancy and birth plus gives the father incentive to surpport the mother durring the pregnancy 5-if any abuse is proved by any parent with proof of it then the abuse parent loses all rights upon the birth of the child 6-if any parent is proved to break ant court order then they will have a minimum of a fine paid to the other parent to compensate for any lost time with the child (this goes both ways so the father does not turn up the mother can get him fined)
I disagree with this, I don't believe in abortion on any given level and the father should have to pay no matter what If the girl gets pregnant. You don't want to be a responsible father then keep your pants on and dont have fun in the sack, he should know better. Pregnancies happen all the time
if think women should not be able to get an abortion unless for medical reasons then uses i agree the man should pay but if the women can get an abortion for any reason then the man should get a choice too
It's a man's responsibility to try and stop the woman from getting an abortion, he might even be able to take this to court if possible. I'm not familiar with Stopping an abortion law in the USA
you cannot stop it as it is classed as peronal matter of the females so legally it has nothing to do with the man until the baby is born so you would have no case
Are you asking if men should be able to leave a woman he got pregnant to financially raise the baby alone? Yikes.
1
10 Reply
Asker
+1 y
why women have many choice to get out of finacially surrpport a baby like abortion, adoption and save haven laws but the man gets not such choice and if consent to sex is consent to parenthood for the man then it should be the same for the women too
Abortion would mean neither the father or mother would have to take care of the baby. Same with adoption. Just one person opting out while the child is still in the picture is far different. She alone would be taking care of the child.
I mean... they both consented to have sex, and a consequence of sex is sometimes pregnancy. If the woman didn’t plan to have a child, but got pregnant, then technically she is also forced into parenthood...
No because she is allowed to abort the child by law, the man on the other hand has no say what so ever whether that be in the abortion or him being forced at the womans choosing to care for that child. So only men are forced into parenthood, never women.
mmmm, i mean... that depends on where the woman lives. Also, just because there is the option of abortion, doesn’t mean a woman still isn’t forced to take on a role she otherwise wouldn’t want to...
Also, perhaps the woman doesn’t believe in abortion, cannot afford it, and as i stated before, doesn’t live where abortion is an option. Also, if those factors ensue, then it is fair for both the man and woman to take on a parental role. Both of them contributed to making the child.
In 90% of countries abortion is legal under most circumstances, in the west in nearly all circumstances. So that's not really a valid point since your arguing the exception not the rule. As for her being "forced", that's inaccurate as she is no more forced to have consensual sex then the man is. As for her not "believing" in abortion, that is not factored in when a man wants to keep the child and the woman doesn't so why would the inverse be valid? Its either one or the other, either she has the freedom to abandon her responsibility and he does as well OR they both have to take responsibility for their actions. that's the issue and that's the exact opposite of what we see. Men have to take responsibility for their actions (and in most western nations are forced to take responsibility irrespective of their involvement in the situation (paternity fraud is legal and in some nations (like France and New Zealand) getting a paternity test without the mothers consent is illegal thus preventing a man from even contesting the claim to begin with. On top of that in the US thanks to Hermsmann vs seyer it was determined that no matter the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy the male is always responsible for child support (in this case it was a 12 year old boy who was raped by his babysitter). Meanwhile again, a woman can abort the child without the fathers consent or steal the fathers money without his consent, she can keep the child or abandon it (safe haven laws) or give it up for adoption all without ever having to get the consent of the father i. e. she is free to abandon any and all responsibility HOWEVER he has no say no matter the circumstance ergo he is forced with ALL the responsibility again, irrespective of his involvement. This is clearly and unarguably unfair and sexist. The only argument for allowing this is to give women special privileges at the expense of men because otherwise he would have just as much of a right to abandon the child as the woman does.
But men aren’t always expected to take responsibility. Have you ever heard the term “boys will be boys?” There is no such thing as “girls will be girls”. Men aren’t expected to take responsibility, or ownership of much things. They lack accountability. This post shows how brainwashed the asker is.
My point is, if BOTH people consent to have sex, one of the consequences is pregnancy! The woman doesn’t have to go through abortion, it is t that simple of a procedure. It’s very emotionally and physically devastating for a woman. Why do men have to be selfish? If you wanted to have sex, you have to understand the consequences. And if you don’t like them, then don’t have sex. It’s not that hard of a concept.
Also, in many countries, there are very strict abortion laws. So, a woman cannot just “go” and get an abortion unless there are serious consequences of her doing so (i. e., health complications, death, disease, etc).
Absolutely boys are expected to take responsibility, I gave you legal standings that show that point. Again, we know this for a fact, their is no arguing it (from a legal standpoint and from a social stand point women are given free reign, they can do pretty much what ever they want with little to no ramifications. This actually even holds true in the middle east which is often cited as being "sexist" yet if you look at how they treat men vs. women it becomes very apparent that women are given a lot of leeway (legally in the middle east for instance, women are not responsible for their childrens well being. A mother is legally allowed to let her children starve as the law demands that the man be responsible for providing for the family (which is also why male child prostitution is so common in middle eastern nations (bacha bazi in afganistan for instance), the eldest male is always responsible for providing for the women even if its a nine year old boy providing for his fully able bodied mother.)).
As for your "point", no that's not your point. Your point is that women shouldn't have to do anything and men should have to do everything. If your point was that they have to own the consequences of their actions then you would be arguing AGAINST abortion and for child support, you would not be arguing that a woman should have the right to walk away from her responsibilities but the man absolutely cannot. It would be one or the other, you however have argued that you want the "best of both worlds" to be free to abandon your responsibility while demanding he take up his if it benefits YOU to do so. As for abortions affects, do you think men like it that their children can be murdered and they are legally forced to stand their and do nothing? They don't bother doing any research on it, but what little we have has shown that its absolutely devastating to men yet men still have no say in it, only women do i. e. she chooses the suffering, for the man its forced on him by her.
So ask yourself, why is your " If you wanted to have sex, you have to understand the consequences. And if you don’t like them, then don’t have sex. It’s not that hard of a concept." only apply to men? That's the problem here, your saying that men have to understand that their are consequences to sex (and I agree) BUT women don't. Women can do what ever they want when ever they want and be as irresponsible as they want with no consequence to them. So he makes a mistake and he has to shoulder that responsibility but she makes the same mistake and we have to pity her and try as hard as possible to prevent her from having to take responsibility? So are you saying you don't think women are equal to men? If so, then why would we let women make these kinds of decisions if they are not mentally capable of handling the consequences? By your rational, you are arguing that we as a society should restrict women's choices because they are not mentally able to handle them. That's really messed up.
As for the prominence of abortion, the overwhelming majority of countries allow some form of abortion, almost the entire northern hemisphere allow it on demand i. e. with no restrictions:
I never said it doesn’t apply to women... where did I say that? Often times, women are left to care for a child when the biological father doesn’t want to care for them. A lot of times, men get away freely without being there to support the child. I never said women weren’t aware of the consequences, and if they are/aren’t aware, they are still stuck with being pregnant. So, therefore, both should obviously accept the consequences. Now, whether that be abortion or not, is up to the two parties. But, both should be aware the mother may not want an abortion, etc.
If your arguing that women should have a right to abort the child but the man doesn't have a right to not pay for the child, then your arguing that women shouldn't have responsibility and men should. How is it anything else? Your saying she gets to choose and he absolutely NEVER gets to choose. He has no say in whether or not the child lives or dies, he has no right in whether or not he gets to be involved, that in both situations its up to the woman to choose and the man has no agency, not ability to alter the scenario or have a say in it. So again, YES you absolutely are arguing that women shouldn't have to be responsible for their actions because they are equally responsible for getting pregnant but they are not equally responsible for the consequences according to you.
As for your claim that men get to get away with what have you, that's patently false. Not only do the overwhelming majority of men pay child support (80% of all child support is paid by men and out of the men who are required to pay over 80% do (even though in many cases they are expected to pay far more then they can actually afford) meanwhile out of the 20% of women who are expected to pay child support only about 30% actually do). As for your claim of women being treated unfairly in all societies, that's also patently false. Women are better off in all societies bar none. Not a single one does not treat women better then men (not even in the middle east). The only way you can come to that conclusion is ironically because society treats women so much better to the point where any inconvience to women is viewed as oppressive while all the actual horrible things men go through are completely ignored (like how 80% of suicides are men, or 80% of homeless are men, or 97% of all workplace accidents are men, or how 98% of all combat deaths are male (this goes for civilian deaths as well), or how 80% of all violent crime victims are male (and the more violent the crime the more likely the victim is to be male), or how males get three times the severity in prison sentencing compared to women who commit the same crimes (when the women are punished at all (which is also less likely to occur), or how 70% of domestic violence victims are actually male, or how its illegal in the US to circumcise a woman yet its perfectly legal to do so to a male infant, or how men only get the right to vote if they sign up for selective services (and the right to get a license, access to state and federal grants and loans (like student loans) etc.) while women get all of these things for free, etc. etc. etc.).
A woman can also place a kid for adoption. I haven't heard of no guy being able to put a kid up for adoption. So yeah women have legal options to get out of being a parent. shouldn't men?
I totally get what you are saying and you aren't wrong but personally I feel that if somebody can help make a life then they can help provide for that life
Is it just parental responsibility where you take issue or all forms of responsibility? If that's the case then never have a pet, a job, a career, friends, a house, bills, debts and literally anything else that require responsibility.
it is just responsibility forced on someone i take issue now if he choice to take on that responsibility then sure he cannot just walk away but if he said nope dont want to be a parent then we should not force him to
My doctor noticed something during a physical. I was tested and it was found that I lacked vas derens. I was then tested for cystic fibrosis, because that is one of the signs, but I am clear. What I have is called non-cystic fibrosis congenital bilateral absence of the vas deferens.
Why are guys literally shamed for whatever reason? Girls: i dont want to deal with motherhood nor the responsibility fuck that. >gets as many abortions as she wants ""Yeah you go girl!!
nope as they have choices but men do not women can pick from abortion adoption and safe havens but men on the other hand are forced into it against his will under threat of jail or getting his freedoms taken away or better yet driven into poverty by the choice of another person how is that fair
a woman's body is her responsibilty though isn't it?
Logically, to make a guy more careful than a woman is with her own body is to give him more responsibility over her, as if he owns her like one might own a child. Right?
but it is they both consent tosex but only one one consent to parant hood which is the women when she refused to get an abortion so until you can justify forceing someone elses choice on to another then you do not have a leg to stand on
not saying he gets a say in abortion just that he shoud be able to get a say in being a parent so no child support unless he consents to being a parent none of this bs about sex being consent to being a parent unless it also applys to the women
abortion is also not in the interests of the child yet we still let women have them so what you mean is it is not best interests of the mother more like it and on a side note where in the law does it state children have the right to be cared for by their parents?
then why can women choose adoption and safe haven laws as they options after the birth as for best instrest of the child is to be with its mother then adoption and safe haven laws should be against the law then plus you still have not answerd my question where in law does it say children have the righ to be cared for by their parents
Every state has laws saying parents have the obligation to care for their children. And the best jnterests of the child means whichever parent has more money pays for it. That’s usually the guy.
which is unfair it is and it is amazing you do not see or understand that as if the women has options to get out of parenthood post sex so should the man anything less is unfair unjust and is a anti male hate system any other part of the system would be torn down and rebuild to be more fair if it was unfair to women but when it is unfair to men and benafits women you all fight to the end to keep it that way why
nope just a women how is not twofaced and unfair to men so the best you have for countering my argument is calling me a catfish so you have no counter argument as there is no way to justify forceing a man into parenthood agasint his will why at the same time giving women the freedom to choose not to be parents so you resort to calling me a catfish in a vain attempt to paint me as the bad guy
but you never explained why he should pay for a choice he got no say in yes they both had sex yes they both should have used protecion but no they both did not consent to parenthood as the womon get extra choices which by the way is against the law technically as you have giving her them choices based on her gender which is not allowed as it is classed as discrimination and being treated diffrently under the law which is wrong and a crime but that is besides the point all the man consent to do was have sex and make a zygote but it was the women who consent to turn that zygote into a baby thereby consent to parenthood so where did the man consent give u a hint it was not at sex
As a woman, I never asked to bare the burden of carrying a fetus in my body for 9 months and then having to endure intense pain to birth it, and then have to feed it from my breasts for the first months of it's life, every 2-3 hours. Personally, as I told BeMuse, I'd get an abortion if I fell pregnant out of wedlock, depending on the situation. Not all women would though. Many people have casual sex and some women would keep the baby in that situation. As for the man who made it possible, that's a risk he assumed when he fucked her, end of story.
you cannot use the whole oh poor me has to be pregant so lets force men into parenthood against his will for something he had no control over but i want to make him suffer for me having to the one to give birth that is how you sound right now as men did not make it this way nature did and yet again u do not say why consent to sex is conset to parenthood for men only but the women gets an out just love how glose over that if the women gets a choice post sex so should the man end of story or are u ok with forceing parenthood on men but giving the women the freedom to choice but as the same time making the man pay for her choice so i ask again why is consent to sex conset to parenthood only in the case of men
Which is precisely the reasoning for why abortion should not be a right as the woman chose to perform the reproductive act without contraceptive therefore she chose to get pregnant. If she didn't want a baby she should have kept her legs closed. But I'm guessing your going to give women a special pass because you don't like the idea that you or any other woman would actually have to be treated like an adult and be held accountable for your actions like men do.
@hellionthesagereborn so if she gets raped and sexually abused, she should be forced to have a child? Also, condoms do break and birth control does fail sometimes and it’s neither party’s fault. I explained this in one of my comments. Abortion should always be an option.
Well first, never suggested that and secondly that's less then 1% of all rapes (statistically speaking) so that's completely irrelevant. Also we expect men to pay child support even if they where raped (Hermsmann vs seyer court ruling (it was a 12 year old boy who was raped by his babysitter, the court ruled in favor of the female rapist forcing the 12 year old to pay child support), so your saying that's acceptable? So what about the other 99% of the time? Also the failure rate of contraceptives are low, even taking into account the individual screw ups (mostly the woman not taking her birth control regularly) that accounts for maybe 20%, so again we still have about 79% of all abortions being due to personal choices. Also, again, why does she get a choice but he doesn't? Why does having a vagina mean you don't have to be a responsible adult but having a penis means you are absolutely 100% responsible for your actions AND her actions?
@hellionthesagereborn in the case of rape, no, the one who got raped shouldn’t have to pay child support. But just like the statistics that you cited for the failure of birth control, a man getting raped doesn’t happen very often either, so. Again, see my comments to BeMuse’s post. If a guy doesn’t want children, he should discuss it with the woman he wants to have sex with to make sure they’re both on the same page. The moment he sticks his dick in her, he assumes all risks for anything that happens resulting from that. He’s responsible for his own sperm regardless of what anyone else did or didn’t do. I don't know how else to explain that. It’s pretty black and white. If someone was standing there with a gun to his head telling him to have sex or he’ll be dead then that’s a different story.
but why should he have to talk to the women to make sure they on the same page the women does not have to as she can do what she wants yet force the man into what she wants so again u still have not answred my question
Okay so we are agreed that claiming "rape" is a shit argument because its such a rare occurrence. That leaves us the other 80% of the time? Again, why are the rules different for him then for her? By your rational women are not mentally fit to make these decisions for themselves because your saying they cannot under any circumstance be allowed to take responsibility for their actions. That's messed up. Your literally arguing that women are incapble of making their own decisions and therefore need some one else to make those decisions for them. If you where not arguing this then why would you constantly state that only the man has to take responsibility for his actions? Their is no way around this, your rules do not apply across the board so the only reasons are either you think women are to incapable of making rational decisions (not unlike children or the mentally impaired) OR that your just incredibly sexist and want special privilege with no responsibility. Those are the only two options available for your argument to make sense, so which one is it? IS it because you think women are just inferior to men OR do you just want to avoid responsibility?
@hellionthesagereborn “If you where not arguing this then why would you constantly state that only the man has to take responsibility for his actions? ” I didn’t state that “only” the man has to take responsibility for his actions. Please do point out where I specifically stated such a thesis. You’re making skewed inferences from my argument to better support your own, which unfortunately only serves to make yours sound a bit crazy and accusatory.
Well, we’re killing babies here so the discussion of what’s fair is pretty much ridiculous. We’ve crashed the car of morality and now we’re fighting over who gets the seat covers.
Sure, as long as both parties agree to an abortion. Pregnancy is 50/50 unless the chick lied about being on the pill or something; it takes two to tango.
If he doesn't want the child, nothing should force him to do anything. If a woman wants to keep the child, fine, but it's her choice, and she should face the consequences of that choice.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions