Support NeoGAF

[Shanadeus]

The man does have a choice. It's made the moment he decides to have sex. There's your choice.

I said equivalent. The woman can also avoid sex if she doesn't want a kid, but it's not the only way she can avoid having a child. She can also have as much sex as she want and then get an abortion in the unlikelyhood that she gets pregnant. She is making a responsible choice by not becoming a mother when she don't want to become one, and I think that men should also have the choice of not becoming a father when they don't want to become one.

The equivalent choice we can give to the men is to give them the ability to opt out of parenthood just like the woman can opt out of parenthood.

See and another big choice would be MALE BIRTH CONTROL. I'm telling you it just fits.

I think it'd solve a lot of problems as well, and I'm all for male birth controll pills/patches as well.

 

[Vanillalite]

I said equivalent. The woman can also avoid sex if she doesn't want a kid, but it's not the only way she can avoid having a child. She can also have as much sex as she want and then get an abortion in the unlikelyhood that she gets pregnant. She is making a responsible choice by not becoming a mother when she don't want to become one, and I think that men should also have the choice of not becoming a father when they don't want to become one.

The equivalent choice we can give to the men is to give them the ability to opt out of parenthood just like the woman can opt out of parenthood.

See and another big choice would be MALE BIRTH CONTROL. I'm telling you it just fits.

 

[Shanadeus]

If someone creates a child they should be responsible for said child. If you don't want a kid, don't have sex.

Quite, if the woman births a child that the man doesn't want - she should be the only one responsible for said child. She made a choice of having a child by not using the tools we've given her to chose her own destiny, and the man made a choice of not having a child by telling her in advance that he is not interested.

If you don't want a child, use condoms, other forms of birth control and ultimately get an abortion.

 

[Speevy]

If he asks me, I'll kick him in the balls. Problem solved.

 

[oneHeero]

I don't know why you can't understand what I'm writing. Let me say in a different way.

If a man and a woman are using contraceptives and agree to have no kids, but the woman gets pregnant and decides to keep the child then the father has to take responsibility because the child exists, and as such the father has obligations to it.

Not every state considers the fetus as being a child withing a certain timeframe. So what obligations are you referring to?

Secondly, I'd love your reply to this. What if the guy wants the kid but the girl wants abortion. Its her right still right? Of course, the guy has to take responsiblities without having a choice.

This isnt the 1800s/1900s where having sex means u agree to having a kid. If your going to follow those rules you may as well not allow sex before marriage as well. So dont bring that strawman arguement.

If he asks me, I'll kick him in the balls. Problem solved.

Your female? I never knew that.

 

[Shanadeus]

Just to clarify, we have with modern medical science been able to successfully separate the act of having sex from the consequence of having a child.

Show me a child that has survived a number of repeated abortions and I'll go back on this statement.

 

[stewy]

I said equivalent. The woman can also avoid sex if she doesn't want a kid, but it's not the only way she can avoid having a child. She can also have as much sex as she want and then get an abortion in the unlikelyhood that she gets pregnant. She is making a responsible choice by not becoming a mother when she don't want to become one, and I think that men should also have the choice of not becoming a father when they don't want to become one.

The equivalent choice we can give to the men is to give them the ability to opt out of parenthood just like the woman can opt out of parenthood.


I think it'd solve a lot of problems as well, and I'm all for male birth controll pills/patches as well.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I'm saying that the reality of the situation from a male's perspective is that you accept the risk when you have sex. "opting out" for a man isn't really equivalent to a woman having an abortion, in my mind. If a man opts out he can just walk away. Where's the potential emotional trauma and invasive surgery there? Not to mention the social stigma still attached to an abortion (in North America, anyway).

Thus, "opting out" would be a much easier choice for a man, with zero consequence. That just makes it an easy out, and would lead many men to be even more irresponsible than they already are.

 

[Mystic Theurge]

Not every state considers the fetus as being a child withing a certain timeframe. So what obligations are you referring to?

Obligations that a father has to his child. Financial Support is one of them

Secondly, I'd love your reply to this. What if the guy wants the kid but the girl wants abortion. Its her right still right? Of course, the guy has to take responsiblities without having a choice.

This isnt the 1800s/1900s where having sex means u agree to having a kid. If your going to follow those rules you may as well not allow sex before marriage as well. So dont bring that strawman arguement.

Because it's her body, the woman gets to decide whether a child exists or not. Are you saying she shouldn't?

 

[Speevy]

Your female? I never knew that.

No.

 

[Vanillalite]

Quite, if the woman births a child that the man doesn't want - she should be the only one responsible for said child. She made a choice of having a child by not using the tools we've given her to chose her own destiny, and the man made a choice of not having a child by telling her in advance that he is not interested.

If you don't want a child, use condoms, other forms of birth control and ultimately get an abortion.

The big key here IMO is that there really isn't a good form of birth control for guys yet so for dudes it's basically condoms or bust. I'm telling you it would be a huge sea change if males got birth control options on the level of females.

 

[Escape Goat]

The same can be applied to a number of things. Any situation can have exceptions.

Girl wears sexy outfit - girl accepts the fact that guys will be more interested. girl walks down dark street - girl accepts possible chance of being rape. Therefor she has to have the baby. Wait, no she can have a abortion.

See how my analogy sucks? But its the same thing, shes taking the risk by wearing something sexy.

I get what you mean tho, but it doesnt match up to the actual discussion taking place here. I wish you guys could read a thread instead of skimming it and picking replies to reply to.

That analogy makes no sense. Rape is not a consentual agreement between two people.

And problem I see here is people want a choice after they've already made one (to have sex). Its too late bucko. She is pregnant.

 

[PaNaMa]

IMO the only just, decent way of looking at it is this: It's ultimately up to the baby, since that's who's life we're terminating. We need to know if he or she would like a shot at this whole growing up thing.

Problem is, you have to give her a while (years!) before she can really voice that opinion.

So the decent and most fair thing to do, is own up to what you did, wait a few years, and give your child the opportunity to decide for her/himself. If you really REALLY don't want the child, give it up for adoption I guess. That way, you give the child a chance at life, and yours isn't saddled for more than a few months.

If you don't care about the child-to-be, and you purely want to look at it as "who gets the power to invoke abortion, mother or father", well I suppose it's always going to be the mother's decision if she wants to carry him/her, and the father can man up and be supportive, or be the deadbeat father you never had. But as a rule, I don't really support the notion that he should be able to pull the trigger on abortion, if the mom actually wants to keep the baby.

 

[TheExecutive]

As far as I am concerned there are two different categories of fatherhood. One is biological. The other is environmental. Should he have the choice of whether he becomes a biological father or not? That is a tough one. One usually thinks of the man not wanting the child, which in that case is none of his business if she wants it. However, it becomes more heartbreaking if he actually wants it but she does not. It's a tough subject but in either case one must accept the consequences to their actions when they are performing the act. One of the consequences is pregnancy/loss of pregnancy and the possibility of not being able to choose the one he may want. However, I do not believe in almost any case the government or anyone else should be allowed to tell a mentally competent person what to do with their body.

Long story short- Gotta stick with the women's right to choose in this argument.

P.S- I find abortion to be morally questionable however, I respect and uphold the woman's right to choose. One can be morally against abortion and still allow it to happen by just respecting that not everyone else has your beliefs or morality nor should they.

 

[TheExecutive]

IMO the only just, decent way of looking at it is this: It's ultimately up to the baby, since that's who's life we're terminating. We need to know if he or she would like a shot at this whole growing up thing.

Problem is, you have to give her a while (years!) before she can really voice that opinion.

So the decent and most fair thing to do, is own up to what you did, wait a few years, and give your child the opportunity to decide for her/himself. If you really REALLY don't want the child, give it up for adoption I guess. That way, you give the child a chance at life, and yours isn't saddled for more than a few months.

If you don't care about the child-to-be, and you purely want to look at it as "who gets the power to invoke abortion, mother or father", well I suppose it's always going to be the mother's decision if she wants to carry him/her, and the father can man up and be supportive, or be the deadbeat father you never had. But as a rule, I don't really support the notion that he should be able to pull the trigger on abortion, if the mom actually wants to keep the baby.

This is quite honestly the most reasonable conclusion for all three parties. However, not every case is the same and should be analyzed individually.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I said equivalent. . . .

Again, you aren't proposing an equivalent. You're proposing that men not be responsible for existing children that they have sired, even though women do not have the option of not being responsible for children that they have birthed (aside from adoption). The fact that the woman has a longer window of opportunity in determining whether she wants to be a mother is the result of biology, and so can hardly be called unjust regardless of how unfair it is. Unless and until you change the biological facts of reproduction, the result follows from the reality. Once more, if you truly want the father to have the equivalent right to avoid parenthood, then you (a) override the woman's right to choose whether to abort the child or not, on the basis of fairness, or (b) give the father the right to choose whether or not to kill the child once born, which does not implicate the mother's right to control her body. These are the only ways that the father is given an equivalent right, because these are the only ways that result in a disavowal of parenthood without leaving an existing child for someone else to care for.

You, of course, instead of coming right out and supporting (a), disclaim it entirely, claiming it isn't what you want. The practical effect of all of your suggestions, however, is to make abortion the only realistic choice for the woman. This choice will be imposed on her not only by the father of her child, but by all of society, because you want to reorganize society around free abortions--just so the father doesn't have to pay for an unwanted child. For you, the benefit of not having to pay a fraction of your income for a non-custodial child far outweighs the value of that child in existing. That says very little for your worth. To wrap it all up in claims of "fairness" and "justice" only indicates a moral cowardice: say what you mean, instead of hiding behind vague concepts that can't justify your proposals.

There should be abortion contracts.

Child support obligations arise by operation of law. Child support payments are the right of the child, not of the mother. The rights of the child could not be affected by the mere agreement of the parents. Further, abortion contracts such as you propose, relieving one of the responsible parties and placing the taxpayer on the hook, would be contrary to the public policy of any rational state. You're saying that one of the causes of that child's existence is free to go, but those who had no hand in causing said existence must pay for its existence (because the state would inevitably pick up the tab). It makes more sense for society to impose the burden on the two individuals who caused the child's existence than on the millions who had nothing to do with it.

 

[YoungHav]

If you have sex and gets someone pregnant when you don't want to have a child, then you're an idiot doing something wrong. There's condoms, birth control, and plan b before you even get into the situation of a possible abortion. It doesn't matter if sex =! pregnancy, you run the risk of getting someone pregnant when you have sex with them. Instead of crying/whining about "men should have the choice", you do have the choice of jerking off for the night or making sure you use a condom.

 

[Mystic Theurge]

*snip*

Clap.gif

 

[TheExecutive]

If you have sex and gets someone pregnant when you don't want to have a child, then you're an idiot doing something wrong. There's condoms, birth control, and plan b before you even get into the situation of a possible abortion. It doesn't matter if sex =! pregnancy, you run the risk of getting someone pregnant when you have sex with them. Instead of crying/whining about "men should have the choice", you do have the choice of jerking off for the night or making sure you use a condom.

Unfortunately, the idiots are the one's to reproduce the most

Spoiler

sometimes?

 

[BreakyBoy]

I read the OP and nothing else, and I do plan to read the rest of this thread, but I'll just throw this in:

What happens in the situation that the couple is in a committed relationship (married even) where they no longer use condoms but have been using other forms of contraception (i.e. birth control pill) for a long time. Then, let's say there's been a discussion, and the woman wants a child, but the man doesn't. The woman backs down in the discussion and says "fine, not now then". Except, she turns around and decides not to take the pill behind the man's back and gets pregnant that way.

I ask this, because this is pretty much how I was conceived. My parents already had a 6 year old daughter, my mom wanted another kid, my dad said "we can't really afford to take care of another child now", and my mom basically just "forgot" to take her pill for a little while.

Now, mind you, my dad is awesome, so there's no issues there. And, I'm quite glad to be around. However, from an objective perspective, my dad's objections were pretty much thrown out the window because ultimately the control lied with my mother taking the pill.

So, in that situation, what then? Dad still has the right to say, "no, fuck you, get an abortion"?

Honestly, I'm very strongly pro-choice, and maybe this hits a little too close to home, but I don't know how I'd call it. Even forgetting about the unborn child's "rights" (which normally I honestly would) - Rights of the father, or rights of the mother?

 

[stewy]

I read the OP and nothing else, and I do plan to read the rest of this thread, but I'll just throw this in:

What happens in the situation that the couple is in a committed relationship (married even) where they no longer use condoms but have been using other forms of contraception (i.e. birth control pill) for a long time. Then, let's say there's been a discussion, and the woman wants a child, but the man doesn't. The woman backs down in the discussion and says "fine, not now then". Except, she turns around and decides not to take the pill behind the man's back and gets pregnant that way.

I ask this, because this is pretty much how I was conceived. My parents already had a 6 year old daughter, my mom wanted another kid, my dad said "we can't really afford to take care of another child now", and my mom basically just "forgot" to take her pill for a little while.

Now, mind you, my dad is awesome, so there's no issues there. And, I'm quite glad to be around. However, from an objective perspective, my dad's objections were pretty much thrown out the window because ultimately the control lied with my mother taking the pill.

So, in that situation, what then? Dad still has the right to say, "no, fuck you, get an abortion"?

Honestly, I'm very strongly pro-choice, and maybe this hits a little too close to home, but I don't know how I'd call it. Even forgetting about the unborn child's "rights" (which normally I honestly would) - Rights of the father, or rights of the mother?

I think the ultimate lesson here is that men need to know and accept all possible consequences when they decide to have sex, no matter who it's with or what previous agreements they might have.

 

[Shanadeus]

That analogy makes no sense. Rape is not a consentual agreement between two people.

And problem I see here is people want a choice after they've already made one (to have sex). Its too late bucko. She is pregnant.

I'll just repost:

Just to clarify, we have with modern medical science been able to successfully separate the act of having sex from the consequence of having a child.

Show me a child that has survived a number of repeated abortions and I'll go back on this statement.

Partaking in some good old fashioned sex is no longer a implicit consent to having a child in the case of a pregnancy that the female for one reason or another proceeds with.

Obligations that a father has to his child. Financial Support is one of them

And in some countries, and certain situations, the biological father does not have to financially support their child
Your point?

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I'm saying that the reality of the situation from a male's perspective is that you accept the risk when you have sex. "opting out" for a man isn't really equivalent to a woman having an abortion, in my mind. If a man opts out he can just walk away. Where's the potential emotional trauma and invasive surgery there? Not to mention the social stigma still attached to an abortion (in North America, anyway).

Thus, "opting out" would be a much easier choice for a man, with zero consequence. That just makes it an easy out, and would lead many men to be even more irresponsible than they already are.

The equal options can still be different, opting out for a man means that he has to pay for the abortion or lose a good relationship. I don't see what else you could do, it'd just be silly to add "artificial"potential trauma and invasive surgery for the man where none is required. For the woman to opt out, she's unfortunately relegated to using an abortion. But hopefully this will change with artificial wombs and more.

Again, you aren't proposing an equivalent. You're proposing that men not be responsible for existing children that they have sired, even though women do not have the option of not being responsible for children that they have birthed (aside from adoption). The fact that the woman has a longer window of opportunity in determining whether she wants to be a mother is the result of biology, and so can hardly be called unjust regardless of how unfair it is. Unless and until you change the biological facts of reproduction, the result follows from the reality. Once more, if you truly want the father to have the equivalent right to avoid parenthood, then you (a) override the woman's right to choose whether to abort the child or not, on the basis of fairness, or (b) give the father the right to choose whether or not to kill the child once born, which does not implicate the mother's right to control her body. These are the only ways that the father is given an equivalent right, because these are the only ways that result in a disavowal of parenthood without leaving an existing child for someone else to care for.

You, of course, instead of coming right out and supporting (a), disclaim it entirely, claiming it isn't what you want. The practical effect of all of your suggestions, however, is to make abortion the only realistic choice for the woman. This choice will be imposed on her not only by the father of her child, but by all of society, because you want to reorganize society around free abortions--just so the father doesn't have to pay for an unwanted child. For you, the benefit of not having to pay a fraction of your income for a non-custodial child far outweighs the value of that child in existing. That says very little for your worth. To wrap it all up in claims of "fairness" and "justice" only indicates a moral cowardice: say what you mean, instead of hiding behind vague concepts that can't justify your proposals.

I'm getting a little tired now so I might have misunderstood you but here goes:

It's an equivalent choice because the end result is that the male is absolving himself of all responsibilities just as the female can absolve herself of any responsibilities by getting an abortion. Being a parent is a choice for females, it should be a choice for males.

I read the OP and nothing else, and I do plan to read the rest of this thread, but I'll just throw this in:

What happens in the situation that the couple is in a committed relationship (married even) where they no longer use condoms but have been using other forms of contraception (i.e. birth control pill) for a long time. Then, let's say there's been a discussion, and the woman wants a child, but the man doesn't. The woman backs down in the discussion and says "fine, not now then". Except, she turns around and decides not to take the pill behind the man's back and gets pregnant that way.

I ask this, because this is pretty much how I was conceived. My parents already had a 6 year old daughter, my mom wanted another kid, my dad said "we can't really afford to take care of another child now", and my mom basically just "forgot" to take her pill for a little while.

Now, mind you, my dad is awesome, so there's no issues there. And, I'm quite glad to be around. However, from an objective perspective, my dad's objections were pretty much thrown out the window because ultimately the control lied with my mother taking the pill.

So, in that situation, what then? Dad still has the right to say, "no, fuck you, get an abortion"?

Honestly, I'm very strongly pro-choice, and maybe this hits a little too close to home, but I don't know how I'd call it. Even forgetting about the unborn child's "rights" (which normally I honestly would) - Rights of the father, or rights of the mother?

The guy can say anything he want, but he can never force her to have an abortion.
In your case your dad should have been able to inform the proper authorities that his parter has gotten pregnant and that he's opting out of fatherhood, they in turn would have called back to your mother and informed her of the dads right to absolve himself of any father responsibilities if your mother proceeded with the pregnancy. She can then in turn argue with your dad to stay, and if he accepts then he'd have to call in and say that he's changed his mind and he's ready to take full responsibility( a decision that cannot be taken back unless it's found that your mother has lied about the father or something),get the abortion or just get the child without your fathers support.

I'm sure there'd be a more effective and secure way of going about it all, but that's kinda what I imagine it being like.

 

[ampere]

It's her body.

It's not his.

The man has the freedom not to get his partner pregnant.

If he does, then he better man up and be responsible.

Bam.

You want a choice?

Use a condom.

Retarded OP, sorry. It's not the same ballpark getting someone pregnant and becoming pregnant. Abortions can be dangerous to a woman, it's between her and her doctor.

 

[stewy]

The equal options can still be different, opting out for a man means that he has to pay for the abortion or lose a good relationship. I don't see what else you could do, it'd just be silly to add "artificial"potential trauma and invasive surgery for the man where none is required. For the woman to opt out, she's unfortunately relegated to using an abortion. But hopefully this will change with artificial wombs and more.


I'm getting a little tired now so I might have misunderstood you but here goes:

It's an equivalent choice because the end result is that the male is absolving himself of all responsibilities just as the female can absolve herself of any responsibilities by getting an abortion. Being a parent is a choice for females, it should be a choice for males.

Forcing the man to pay for an abortion the woman might not want? How is that a viable solution? How about in that situation we force the man into a vasectomy as well?

You're still not getting it. Being a parent is a choice for a man. It's just a choice they have to make 30 seconds - 1 hour earlier than a woman.

 

[Evlar]

Again, you aren't proposing an equivalent. You're proposing that men not be responsible for existing children that they have sired, even though women do not have the option of not being responsible for children that they have birthed (aside from adoption). The fact that the woman has a longer window of opportunity in determining whether she wants to be a mother is the result of biology, and so can hardly be called unjust regardless of how unfair it is. Unless and until you change the biological facts of reproduction, the result follows from the reality. Once more, if you truly want the father to have the equivalent right to avoid parenthood, then you (a) override the woman's right to choose whether to abort the child or not, on the basis of fairness, or (b) give the father the right to choose whether or not to kill the child once born, which does not implicate the mother's right to control her body. These are the only ways that the father is given an equivalent right, because these are the only ways that result in a disavowal of parenthood without leaving an existing child for someone else to care for.

You, of course, instead of coming right out and supporting (a), disclaim it entirely, claiming it isn't what you want. The practical effect of all of your suggestions, however, is to make abortion the only realistic choice for the woman. This choice will be imposed on her not only by the father of her child, but by all of society, because you want to reorganize society around free abortions--just so the father doesn't have to pay for an unwanted child. For you, the benefit of not having to pay a fraction of your income for a non-custodial child far outweighs the value of that child in existing. That says very little for your worth. To wrap it all up in claims of "fairness" and "justice" only indicates a moral cowardice: say what you mean, instead of hiding behind vague concepts that can't justify your proposals.


Child support obligations arise by operation of law. Child support payments are the right of the child, not of the mother. The rights of the child could not be affected by the mere agreement of the parents. Further, abortion contracts such as you propose, relieving one of the responsible parties and placing the taxpayer on the hook, would be contrary to the public policy of any rational state. You're saying that one of the causes of that child's existence is free to go, but those who had no hand in causing said existence must pay for its existence (because the state would inevitably pick up the tab). It makes more sense for society to impose the burden on the two individuals who caused the child's existence than on the millions who had nothing to do with it.

Sired is an interesting word. What is the equivalent word for the mother's activity during conception?

Because it appears to me your argument hinges on obscuring the fact that the mother has multiple decision points: at least two proactive decisions (whether to have sex, and whether to use contraception) and at least two reactive decisions (whether to abort, whether to give up for adoption). The father, in most jurisdictions, has the first two options but not the second two. I say you obscure this by using the word "sire" and balance it against the word "birth", because your argument tries to present the male's decision points (both proactive) against only some of the female's decision points (the two which are reactive).

The ethical dilemma, then, is why are two adults given equivalent responsibility for a happenstance when one adult is allowed multiple paths to avoid that responsibility, both proactively and in reaction to information about the pending circumstance (news that she is pregnant), and the opportunity to spend weeks or months deciding how to respond; the other adult, with equal legal responsibilities, is accorded no reactive response, and if you admit the possibility of contraception failing his options whittle down to only one: to refuse to have sex? And bear in mind, this happens in committed relationships, too: If a man does not want to have a child, the only way to ensure it is to refuse to have sex and bear the consequences of possible estrangement from the other person, even in a marriage or other committed relationship.

 

[Mudkips]

OP is correct.

It is wrong for one person to be financially at the mercy of another person for 18-21 years with zero choice in the matter.

"It's her body" doesn't come into play here. Nobody is forcing anyone to get an abortion or carry a child to term. The woman still has 100% legal control over the fetus.

A man should be able to legally say he does not want the child and waive all economic responsibility for it, just as a woman can through abortion or adoption. A man should have X amount of time to make this legal decision, after being informed (either of the pregnancy or of the child if it has already been born).

Worried about guys abandoning kids? With this option there's no room for "Of course I want this baby." and then running off as soon as it's born. Women have full control of whether or not they have or keep the child. They also have full control of whether or not they get pregnant in the first place (see all the "keep it in your pants" and "use a condom" retorts, and apply it to women). Women have many more options for birth control than men, and have many more options to get it cheap or free.

An increase in the number of "abandoned children" will only happen if women let it happen. They'll be less inclined to let it happen if they know that they can't legally get a man on the hook for child support.

A woman gets pregnant and can't afford a child. She has the legal right to terminate the pregnancy or give the child up for adoption. If she keeps the child, she gets financial support from the state and from the father.

A man gets a woman pregnant with a child he can't afford. He has no say in the matter, and if the woman keeps the child he will be forced to pay child support for 18 - 21 years. If he can't pay child support, he can wind up in jail.

This speaks nothing to the corrupt and broken family court system where child support amounts are often ridiculously high and inflexible in the event of job loss, where a good chunk of child support paid is eaten by the court itself, where plenty of men are paying for kids that aren't even theirs, where there is no oversight regarding the use of child support paid, where men who do keep up with child support still get little to no access to their children, etc.

 

[Shanadeus]

Forcing the man to pay for an abortion the woman might not want? How is that a viable solution? How about in that situation we force the man into a vasectomy as well?

You're still not getting it. Being a parent is a choice for a man. It's just a choice they have to make 30 seconds - 1 hour earlier than a woman.

Sigh.

In modern times, I don't think the act of having sex is a tacit agreement on the part of a man to accept fatherhood if it should happen. It's not for a woman, and a man should have a reasonable expectation to have the same rights as the woman.

I don't quite understand why people assume it should be either. Sex and parenthood are completely separate concepts. We have separated pregnancy from being a consequence of sex via birth control methods and abortion. If a woman gets pregnant she has the choice of accepting responsibility or not. That means if she chooses to become a parent she is responsible, not the man. If she can opt into or out of parenthood, the man should be able to do the same. I don't understand why there is an assumption in modern times that if you have sex at all you're signing up for parenthood at the same time. Just because something CAN be a consequence doesn't mean you're willing accept the consequence if it can easily be prevented.

 

[stewy]

Worried about guys abandoning kids? With this option there's no room for "Of course I want this baby." and then running off as soon as it's born.

No, instead it gives men every right to say "Of course I want children" and then running off as soon as it's conceived.

 

[Shanadeus]

No, instead it gives men every right to say "Of course I want children" and then running off as soon as it's conceived.

No, that's against the point of it all.
If a man agrees to having a child then he can't just randomly go back on such a decision unless he has proof of the child not being his biologically.

At least, that's my opinion.

 

[stewy]

Sigh.

I'm not saying that having sex means you're signing up to be a parent. I'm saying that you have to accept all possible consequences. It's unfair that we don't have reactive options as men (though, funnily enough, I know more than a few men who have kids, have never made a child support payment in their lives, and are still living life normally), but hey, life isn't fair.

All of these arguments are great from a theoretical standpoint, but never seem to take into account the real people that would be involved in these situations. Not to mention a surprising lack of concern for a woman's right to have control over her own body.

 

[stewy]

No, that's against the point of it all.
If a man agrees to having a child then he can't just randomly go back on such a decision unless he has proof of the child not being his biologically.

At least, that's my opinion.

Agrees before or after sex? How do you prove it?

 

[Gaborn]

No, that's against the point of it all.
If a man agrees to having a child then he can't just randomly go back on such a decision unless he has proof of the child not being his biologically.

At least, that's my opinion.

... this is viral marketing for Maury, isn't it?

 

[Shanadeus]

I'm not saying that having sex means you're signing up to be a parent. I'm saying that you have to accept all possible consequences. It's unfair that we don't have reactive options as men (though, funnily enough, I know more than a few men who have kids, have never made a child support payment in their lives, and are still living life normally), but hey, life isn't fair.

All of these arguments are great from a theoretical standpoint, but never seem to take into account the real people that would be involved in these situations. Not to mention a surprising lack of concern for a woman's right to have control over her own body.

In what way is the woman's right over her body tampered with?
Her rights aren't even touched.

And you're right that life isn't fair, it wasn't very fair when abortions were illegal and women were forced to accept kids as a consequence of sex. No choice at all over whether or not they want to be mothers. And I guess men too will just have to deal with it, no point in trying to progress mirite?

Agrees before or after sex? How do you prove it?

It could easily be done like with the system I outlined earlier, girl is told by boyfriend that he would love to have kids with her. Girl giddily calls the social services and tells them that her boyfriend is alright with kids if she get pregnant. They in turn call to confirm this with the boyfriend, who can either agree to it (at which point he cannot go back unless he changes his mind before conception) or not agree to it - which the girl will find out in a phone call.

 

[Big Baybee]

OP is correct.

It is wrong for one person to be financially at the mercy of another person for 18-21 years with zero choice in the matter.

"It's her body" doesn't come into play here. Nobody is forcing anyone to get an abortion or carry a child to term. The woman still has 100% legal control over the fetus.

A man should be able to legally say he does not want the child and waive all economic responsibility for it, just as a woman can through abortion or adoption. A man should have X amount of time to make this legal decision, after being informed (either of the pregnancy or of the child if it has already been born).

Worried about guys abandoning kids? With this option there's no room for "Of course I want this baby." and then running off as soon as it's born. Women have full control of whether or not they have or keep the child. They also have full control of whether or not they get pregnant in the first place (see all the "keep it in your pants" and "use a condom" retorts, and apply it to women). Women have many more options for birth control than men, and have many more options to get it cheap or free.

An increase in the number of "abandoned children" will only happen if women let it happen. They'll be less inclined to let it happen if they know that they can't legally get a man on the hook for child support.

A woman gets pregnant and can't afford a child. She has the legal right to terminate the pregnancy or give the child up for adoption. If she keeps the child, she gets financial support from the state and from the father.

A man gets a woman pregnant with a child he can't afford. He has no say in the matter, and if the woman keeps the child he will be forced to pay child support for 18 - 21 years. If he can't pay child support, he can wind up in jail.

This speaks nothing to the corrupt and broken family court system where child support amounts are often ridiculously high and inflexible in the event of job loss, where a good chunk of child support paid is eaten by the court itself, where plenty of men are paying for kids that aren't even theirs, where there is no oversight regarding the use of child support paid, where men who do keep up with child support still get little to no access to their children, etc.

Fucking this. This entire post.

 

[Skiptastic]

And you're right that life isn't fair, it wasn't very fair when abortions were illegal and women were forced to accept kids as a consequence of sex. No choice at all over whether or not they want to be mothers. And I guess men too will just have to deal with it, no point in trying to progress mirite?

There's the choice of not having intercourse. Seems like a pretty obvious choice to me.

I really don't get your infatuation with abortions, Shanadeus. It's one thing to make your peace with a woman wanting to have the operation done for a number of reasons. It's a completely different thing to be gung ho about it. ShoNuff was right. It's a moral event horizon, and you've gone past the point of no return.

 

[oneHeero]

I'm not saying that having sex means you're signing up to be a parent. I'm saying that you have to accept all possible consequences. It's unfair that we don't have reactive options as men (though, funnily enough, I know more than a few men who have kids, have never made a child support payment in their lives, and are still living life normally), but hey, life isn't fair.

All of these arguments are great from a theoretical standpoint, but never seem to take into account the real people that would be involved in these situations. Not to mention a surprising lack of concern for a woman's right to have control over her own body.

And why isnt this extended to women? If the guy says no kids in the beginning and girl agrees. than gets pregnant and changes her mind(or w/e) why doesnt she have to accept the consequences of knowing the guy never wanted kids in the first place and that she'll be fully responsible for the child?

I really don't get your infatuation with abortions, Shanadeus. It's one thing to make your peace with a woman wanting to have the operation done for a number of reasons.

WTF are you talking about? The poster is pro-choice, the poster states its the womens right in every situation to have or not have a abortion. WTF are you talking about? You make it seem like he's trying to impose abortion on people.

No, instead it gives men every right to say "Of course I want children" and then running off as soon as it's conceived.

No that's not what its doing. It's actually the exact opposite of what we're proposing. Are you seriously not reading the full post?

Because it appears to me your argument hinges on obscuring the fact that the mother has multiple decision points: at least two proactive decisions (whether to have sex, and whether to use contraception) and at least two reactive decisions (whether to abort, whether to give up for adoption). The father, in most jurisdictions, has the first two options but not the second two. I say you obscure this by using the word "sire" and balance it against the word "birth", because your argument tries to present the male's decision points (both proactive) against only some of the female's decision points (the two which are reactive).

The ethical dilemma, then, is why are two adults given equivalent responsibility for a happenstance when one adult is allowed multiple paths to avoid that responsibility, both proactively and in reaction to information about the pending circumstance (news that she is pregnant), and the opportunity to spend weeks or months deciding how to respond; the other adult, with equal legal responsibilities, is accorded no reactive response, and if you admit the possibility of contraception failing his options whittle down to only one: to refuse to have sex? And bear in mind, this happens in committed relationships, too: If a man does not want to have a child, the only way to ensure it is to refuse to have sex and bear the consequences of possible estrangement from the other person, even in a marriage or other committed relationship.

Great reply, doubt anyone will respond to it. We'll see the regular "man up or dont have sex" comments.

OP is correct.

It is wrong for one person to be financially at the mercy of another person for 18-21 years with zero choice in the matter.

"It's her body" doesn't come into play here. Nobody is forcing anyone to get an abortion or carry a child to term. The woman still has 100% legal control over the fetus.

A man should be able to legally say he does not want the child and waive all economic responsibility for it, just as a woman can through abortion or adoption. A man should have X amount of time to make this legal decision, after being informed (either of the pregnancy or of the child if it has already been born).

Worried about guys abandoning kids? With this option there's no room for "Of course I want this baby." and then running off as soon as it's born. Women have full control of whether or not they have or keep the child. They also have full control of whether or not they get pregnant in the first place (see all the "keep it in your pants" and "use a condom" retorts, and apply it to women). Women have many more options for birth control than men, and have many more options to get it cheap or free.

An increase in the number of "abandoned children" will only happen if women let it happen. They'll be less inclined to let it happen if they know that they can't legally get a man on the hook for child support.

A woman gets pregnant and can't afford a child. She has the legal right to terminate the pregnancy or give the child up for adoption. If she keeps the child, she gets financial support from the state and from the father.

A man gets a woman pregnant with a child he can't afford. He has no say in the matter, and if the woman keeps the child he will be forced to pay child support for 18 - 21 years. If he can't pay child support, he can wind up in jail.

This speaks nothing to the corrupt and broken family court system where child support amounts are often ridiculously high and inflexible in the event of job loss, where a good chunk of child support paid is eaten by the court itself, where plenty of men are paying for kids that aren't even theirs, where there is no oversight regarding the use of child support paid, where men who do keep up with child support still get little to no access to their children, etc.

Great fucken post, more than likely it will be overlooked and we'll still see the same replies.

That analogy makes no sense. Rape is not a consentual agreement between two people.

And problem I see here is people want a choice after they've already made one (to have sex). Its too late bucko. She is pregnant.

My analogy doesnt have to make sense, your original point was based off

Calculated risk --> Action --> Consequence/No Consequence

My point is that, that can be applied to anything. Its still Calculated risk --> Action --> Consequence/No Consequence no matter what example you use.
Take that formula out and I'll take out my analogy.

 

[Shanadeus]

There's the choice of not having intercourse. Seems like a pretty obvious choice to me.

I really don't get your infatuation with abortions, Shanadeus. It's one thing to make your peace with a woman wanting to have the operation done for a number of reasons. It's a completely different thing to be gung ho about it. ShoNuff was right. It's a moral event horizon, and you've gone past the point of no return.

Moral event horizon :lol

An abortion is perfectly fine over here, it's the general attitude here and something I've grown up being used to. Repeated abortions are only bad as they damage your chances of getting children voluntarily in the future, but it's still preferable to getting an unwanted child.
You rarely hear arguments about the "sanctity of life"and it's usually the really religious ones that use that term.

I know that it's a different situation in the US because of how widespread christians are in that country, so I try to tone down my own beliefs a bit because of that.

 

[siddx]

I wasn't given a choice either way when I had an...accident.
At first it pissed me off that my opinion wasn't taken into account but you know what? She had far more right to make the decision than I did. She had to deal with the majority of consequences either way.

 

[Skiptastic]

An abortion is perfectly fine over here, it's the general attitude here and something I've grown up being used to. Repeated abortions are only bad as they damage your chances of getting children voluntarily in the future, but it's still preferable to getting an unwanted child.
You rarely hear arguments about the "sanctity of life"and it's usually the really religious ones that use that term.

I'm not overly religious (I don't go to church except for holidays and special occasions, though I did go every Sunday growing up), but I hope our country never gets to that point.

 

[Shanadeus]

I'm not overly religious (I don't go to church except for holidays and special occasions, though I did go every Sunday growing up), but I hope our country never gets to that point.

Christianity is more of a formality here, I haven't heard of anyone going to church except old people, or for weddings or baptizing sometimes. And then we have some sort of ceremony where kids get together to get drunk and have sex ("konfirmation").

So yeah, religion here is about being social and feeling the community spirit. Not so much about morality. And I do hope the US follow our example, it'd be a great country if it wasn't so religious.

 

[Skiptastic]

Christianity is more of a formality here, I haven't heard of anyone going to church except old people, or for weddings or baptizing sometimes. And then we have some sort of ceremony where kids get together to get drunk and have sex ("konfirmation").

So yeah, religion here is about being social and feeling the community spirit. Not so much about morality. And I do hope the US follow our example, it'd be a great country if it wasn't so religious.

I'm starting to see a pattern of why you would need abortions.

 

[Shanadeus]

I'm starting to see a pattern of why you would need abortions.

Quite, and the result is anyway less teenage mothers and lower crime rates.
Anyway, that's enough from me for this little detour from the topic.

 

[Freshmaker]

He is always at the mercy of the female, who can decide whether or not he'll be the father regardless of whether he wants to become one or not (I am sorry for the gaffers here who've wanted a child but been denied when your partner got an abortion.)

This is a completely imbalanced and unjust system in my honest opinion.

Unless she's breaking into your house and raping you, you had a choice at several points along the way.

1) You chose to sleep with her.
2) You elected to use no protection.
3) No vasectomy.

You failed at every possible choice up to this point, but now you want a get out of jail free card?

 

[shadowsdarknes]

females don't chase dick, men chase pussy therefore, women have the power to pick and choose who they have sex with.

 

[taylor910]

Don't have sex
get your nuts cut
wear a condom
fhuta

 

[Skiptastic]

Wait, did it take 294 posts to get to FHUTA?

Maybe GAF can change for the better!

 

[YoungHav]

where is RiskyChris!?!?

 

[RoH]

females don't chase dick, men chase pussy therefore, women have the power to pick and choose who they have sex with.

You would be surprised how many female dick chasers are around.

 

[Raistlin]

So the guy gets no choice whatsoever?, or are you going to say he should use protection or not have sex at all.

I'm saying that the current laws are far from perfect, but replacing them with something just as stupid is pointless.

 

[Leviathan1]

I'm with Chris Rock on this one. Men get dicked all the time by the power women have over having children. A man should definitely have the choice in becoming a father. But how does a man get the choice? By being responsible (and using protection).

The problem is so many men aren't responsible and get girls knocked up at the time then go on Maury and be like "but I'm not ready to be a father". I'm not quite sure what my point was but the answer to the question is yes. A man should have a choice.

This is like my worst post ever. :lol

 

[Shanadeus]

Unless she's breaking into your house and raping you, you had a choice at several points along the way.

1) You chose to sleep with her.
2) You elected to use no protection.
3) No vasectomy.

You failed at every possible choice up to this point, but now you want a get out of jail free card?

Too tired to reply, I'll repost this:

OP is correct.

It is wrong for one person to be financially at the mercy of another person for 18-21 years with zero choice in the matter.

"It's her body" doesn't come into play here. Nobody is forcing anyone to get an abortion or carry a child to term. The woman still has 100% legal control over the fetus.

A man should be able to legally say he does not want the child and waive all economic responsibility for it, just as a woman can through abortion or adoption. A man should have X amount of time to make this legal decision, after being informed (either of the pregnancy or of the child if it has already been born).

Worried about guys abandoning kids? With this option there's no room for "Of course I want this baby." and then running off as soon as it's born. Women have full control of whether or not they have or keep the child. They also have full control of whether or not they get pregnant in the first place (see all the "keep it in your pants" and "use a condom" retorts, and apply it to women). Women have many more options for birth control than men, and have many more options to get it cheap or free.

An increase in the number of "abandoned children" will only happen if women let it happen. They'll be less inclined to let it happen if they know that they can't legally get a man on the hook for child support.

A woman gets pregnant and can't afford a child. She has the legal right to terminate the pregnancy or give the child up for adoption. If she keeps the child, she gets financial support from the state and from the father.

A man gets a woman pregnant with a child he can't afford. He has no say in the matter, and if the woman keeps the child he will be forced to pay child support for 18 - 21 years. If he can't pay child support, he can wind up in jail.

This speaks nothing to the corrupt and broken family court system where child support amounts are often ridiculously high and inflexible in the event of job loss, where a good chunk of child support paid is eaten by the court itself, where plenty of men are paying for kids that aren't even theirs, where there is no oversight regarding the use of child support paid, where men who do keep up with child support still get little to no access to their children, etc.

Sired is an interesting word. What is the equivalent word for the mother's activity during conception?

Because it appears to me your argument hinges on obscuring the fact that the mother has multiple decision points: at least two proactive decisions (whether to have sex, and whether to use contraception) and at least two reactive decisions (whether to abort, whether to give up for adoption). The father, in most jurisdictions, has the first two options but not the second two. I say you obscure this by using the word "sire" and balance it against the word "birth", because your argument tries to present the male's decision points (both proactive) against only some of the female's decision points (the two which are reactive).

The ethical dilemma, then, is why are two adults given equivalent responsibility for a happenstance when one adult is allowed multiple paths to avoid that responsibility, both proactively and in reaction to information about the pending circumstance (news that she is pregnant), and the opportunity to spend weeks or months deciding how to respond; the other adult, with equal legal responsibilities, is accorded no reactive response, and if you admit the possibility of contraception failing his options whittle down to only one: to refuse to have sex? And bear in mind, this happens in committed relationships, too: If a man does not want to have a child, the only way to ensure it is to refuse to have sex and bear the consequences of possible estrangement from the other person, even in a marriage or other committed relationship.