Support NeoGAF

[CrayzeeCarl]

Cute, but the two aren't really the same. The man is ignoring a living child who could use his support. The woman has aborted the pregnancy, thus there is no child to ignore.

To the OP, I've considered this situation too and have felt that it might be unfair to men. However, again, these two things are not the same. If a man decides he doesn't want the kid (that both he and the woman are responsible for creating), he is leaving the kid to the woman who will then have to support the kid on her own. If a woman decides she doesn't want the kid, she has an abortion or gives it up for adoption. In this case, she does not leave the man with the kid so it is not quite the same.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

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.

 

[Alucrid]

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.

Yes and if you get her pregnant it's entirely your fault since you could have used condoms, ensured she was on birth control, etc, etc.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

Cute, but the two aren't really the same. The man is ignoring a living child who could use his support. The woman has aborted the pregnancy, thus there is no child to ignore.

To the OP, I've considered this situation too and have felt that it might be unfair to men. However, again, these two things are not the same. If a man decides he doesn't want the kid (that both he and the woman are responsible for creating), he is leaving the kid to the woman who will then have to support the kid on her own. If a woman decides she doesn't want the kid, she has an abortion or gives it up for adoption. In this case, she does not leave the man with the kid so it is not quite the same.

He isn't leaving her with the child. He's leaving her with the choice of whether or not to have the child if she so desires. Abortion is legal in this country.

Alucrid, it may be my "fault" if I get her pregnant, but it's her "fault" if she chooses not to abort it.

 

[razielim]

Consequences to actions are still consequences no matter what the percentages are of them occurring. When you take part in these actions you accept responsibility for whatever happens as a consequence. I've never seen an ad stating a contraceptive is 100% full proof, so when you decide it's worth the risk anyway you are taking responsibility for anything that happens. There's a very easy way to avoid getting/becoming pregnant. And people that choose to act like it's not an option to not have sex are pretty pathetic in my book. Some of the people in this thread would have you believe that 98% of unwanted pregnancies come from broken condoms, failed contraceptives or lying women.

 

[Interfectum]

It is depressing how devoid of responsibility our society would like to be.

Not our society, just selfish GAFFERs who would rather not have the burden of paying for a child they are responsible for when the new iPhone 5 comes out. Priorities man. :lol

 

[Always-honest]

In this thread, apparently thats not the correct way. Its either the guy takes responsibility or he doesnt. But the girl gets to chose what responsibility she takes. Whether she gives up the child in abortion, adoption, keep it away from the father, or simply still have it regardless of the fathers decision.

That's it, for everything else, its basically man up or let the courts handle it. Which is how itr currently is and it sucks.

there are an insane amount of irrisponsible people out there. just fucking away and shitting babies on to the planet like they are farts.
It seems the more stupid and irrisponsible people are, the more children they have.
This is not a general rule, but it's just the way it seems in a lot of cases.

if you don't want to get pregnant, do it with protection, or don't fuck.

However, in the end.. it IS her body. Not a goddamn thing you can do about it.
And yah, that sucks monkey balls. Especially nowadays, where parenting is a much more equally devided responsibility.

 

[Shanadeus]

Unlikely. They'd just have the kid and drag your name through the mud. Same PR effect.

Some people will always be horrible and stupid I guess, and I don't know what you can do to combat rare cases like that.

So you're further absolving both men and women from personal responsibility for pregnancy and putting the burden on the state? We should be pushing people to more responsible, not less. Giving handouts just promotes dependency. Education is the key, not "get shit for free" cards in every scenario.



You're keeping the choice, but making it a horrible one. The choice choice changes from

abortion vs. unwanted pregnancy with male financial support (which is really, the minimum support you can offer to a god damned baby carrying your genes)

to

abortion vs. unwanted pregnancy with no financial support

So you've kept the illusion of choice, only you're making one of the options horrible to skew the results in the way that you want them.

I admit that yes, it does skew the results in a way that leads to less unwanted and poor children. Which I feel will benefit us all.

As an African American man I've seen what the plague of single parenthood as a 'lifestyle choice' has done to my people. It's not good, for the fathers, mothers, the children, or the community. It's a net negative any way you measure it, just so a few guys can get their rocks off guilt free. What you're proposing will encourage this kind of irresponsible hedonism across the entire nation, and I can't support that. It's not worth it, and I don't see it as fair.

I think that many feel that single parenthood is an acceptable lifestyle choice because they know they'll be supported financially. If we hand out free birthcontroll and abortions then I think the number of "baby mamas" will decrease.

See my reply to this guy below:

So you want ME, the taxpayer, to financially support the child you created, until that child reaches adulthood, because YOU don't want to accept financial responsibility for it?

FUCK YOU.

Yes, that's kinda what I'm proposing, You will with your tax money financially fund abortions and birthcontroll to reduce the number of children born to poor mothers and couples in ghettos - which will lead to a reduced number of criminals that your tax money pays for in prisons. My reasoning is based on the plummeting of crime rates which happened after abortion was legalized in the US. And I think that handing out free birthcontroll and abortions will help have a similar effect - removing potential criminals before they are even born.

 

[Futureman]

I find it funny that what this really comes down to is money.

You have the legal right in this country as a man to totally 100% walk away from the girl provided you send her some money every month.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

People really love their money so much that they'd be cool with wrecking some girl's life that THEY fucked and got pregnant.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

So you want ME, the taxpayer, to financially support the child you created, until that child reaches adulthood, because YOU don't want to accept financial responsibility for it?

FUCK YOU.

Except that's how it already works. If a person has a child and they can't afford that child the state already comes in and provides services for it. That's not going to change. This would just give state funding to abortion which would actually considerably cut the costs to the state if the option is used.

It's similar to smokers and government costs. While smokers may be less healthy, they die sooner and therefore cost less.

 

[Interfectum]

Luckily for us Shanadeus and the like won't ever get what they want. Not in our lifetime anyway.

Keep your dicks in your pants gents unless you want to put off that iMac purchase for a couple months so your kid can eat.

 

[Skiptastic]

Not our society, just selfish GAFFERs who would rather not have the burden of paying for a child they are responsible for when the new iPhone 5 comes out. Priorities man. :lol

The views here are partially reflective of our society as a whole. It's not just not wanting to pay for a kid. It includes abortions, government bailouts of corporations, mortgage bailouts, etc. Just depressing.

Yes, that's kinda what I'm proposing, You will with your tax money financially fund abortions and birth control to reduce the number of children born to poor mothers and couples in ghettos - which will lead to a reduced number of criminals that your tax money pays for in prisons. My reasoning is based on the plummeting of crime rates which happened after abortion was legalized in the US. And I think that handing out free birth control and abortions will help have a similar effect - removing potential criminals before they are even born.

And you've just killed any chance of your proposition being passed and/or accepted. And wow at that second bold. Just wow. You also remove a far greater number of good people in the process. Are they just collateral damage to your proposition?

 

[Metaphoreus]

I've only read through about Post 100, so I apologize if I repeat anything, but I wanted to comment quickly.

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

It's hardly unjust. The woman's right to abort the child flows directly from the fact that the child is growing within her body. The same right would logically be accorded any man who had a child growing in his body. The "antiquated" beliefs you keep referring to are in fact both ancient and modern--they are biological. The mother has no greater right than the man to swear off a child once born, regardless of the right she has to abort the child before its birth. It would be more unjust to permit the father to avoid financial responsibility for the existing child without extending a similar right to the mother; as it is, the mother is only given the right to avoid responsibility for a non-existing child. If you want balance in this situation, then the result of the father's refusal to accept responsibility for the child must be the non-existence of the child. Thus, you either extend the right to choose an abortion to the father (on the basis of "fairness" instead of on the basis of biological facts), or you give him a period following birth in which he can, without legal repercussions, kill the child.

If only we'd live in an ideal world where we can trust each other unconditionally.

Since we don't, the guy should have used protection independent of the woman's claim to be on the pill.

If the biological father doesn't want to, how can he give the child the unconditional love it needs?

No one is talking about unconditional love. We're talking about money.

What these posts really point out is that men really need their own form of birth control pill.

Something like a... like a... condom, or some such.

I'll stop back by this thread later with any other comments or responses.

 

[Interfectum]

Except that's how it already works. If a person has a child and they can't afford that child the state already comes in and provides services for it. That's not going to change.

No but it would get worse. You are a fool if you think more women will abort a child because she might not be able to afford it. If a women wants to have a child, she will regardless of the man's legal obligation. Laws of nature, brah.

 

[Skiptastic]

No but it would get worse. You are a fool if you think more women will abort a child because she might not be able to afford it. If a women wants to have a child, she will regardless of the man's legal obligation. Laws of nature, brah.

They couldn't be more right.

 

[dmann]

Don't be a deadbeat... take care of your kid(s).
If you don't want the responsiblity, then stop going in raw.

Always use a rubber.

 

[Pein]

If you're man enough to have sex you better be ready for the responsibilities that it brings. If the woman wants the kid then you are shit out of luck.

 

[Gaborn]

Well, what does the female do?
If she doesn't want a child she just gets an abortion, if she wants it she doesn't have to do anything.

If the man doesn't want a child, it's up to the mother whether he'll get it or not. If he wants it, it's still up to the mother whether he'll get it or not.

There's a clear imbalance and if there was anything we could do against the second situation for the man that wouldn't violate the womans control over her body then I'd be all for it. We can fortunately fix the first situation for the man though, implementing something along the lines of what I and others have said in this thread.

The imbalance currently seems to go against the woman in my opinion. Women that go through pregnancy have to essentially change their entire life around, suffer massive hormonal changes, balloon in size enormously, pay for dozens of additional doctor visits AND go through the pain of essentially squeezing a watermelon from a hole that previously was occupied by a much (and in some gaffers cases MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH) smaller object. If you want to try to "fix" the "imbalance" wrap it up or find a way to get YOURSELF pregnant and see how you like it.

 

[Evlar]

GAFfer: I wonder how things ought to be.

Bunch of other GAFfers: This is how things are.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

No but it would get worse. You are a fool if you think more women will abort a child because she might not be able to afford it. If a women wants to have a child, she will regardless of the man's legal obligation. Laws of nature, brah.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Knowing she was going into something without the support of someone else would cause her to think twice about making that choice.

It's hardly unjust. The woman's right to abort the child flows directly from the fact that the child is growing within her body. The same right would logically be accorded any man who had a child growing in his body.

If the child is growing in her body, and she has the choice to do something about it, and she doesn't, then she faces the responsibility. Just because a man had sex with her doesn't mean he should share the responsibility of a choice made long after the choice to have sex.

 

[APF]

I think it's interesting how GAFfers deal with trying to appear pro-female, by essentially taking the woman out of the equation when talking about decisions to have sex, use contraception, etc.

 

[Mystic Theurge]

Your "solution" is impossible. The obligations of a father are tied to the child. They can not be--should not be--waived without the consent of the child, which it cannot give until it reaches the age at which the obligations disappear anyway.

 

[Stinkles]

In this thread, the OP suddenly cares what happens to sperm, after wasting gallons of it for years.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Shouldn't a woman decide whether to bring a child to this world if her boyfriend/husband doesn't want one?

What if the bf/husband wants the child and the woman doesn't?

I guess the issue is what would bring about the greatest happiness for everyone.

 

[Gaborn]

In this thread, the OP suddenly cares what happens to sperm, after wasting gallons of it for years.

Hmmmm

 

[LosDaddie]

It's a very complicated, emotional issue, but I side with the "It's her body. Her choice" crowd on this.

 

[dead souls]

You have the power to wrap your cock with latex before diving balls deep. Pregnancy is one of the real-life potential consequences of having sex, along with STDs, if you cant handle that, dont have unprotected sex.

I swear this board gets more naive and more misogynistic by the day.

Agreed.

I knew when I saw the thread title I shouldn't click because I'd just get pissed off, but I did and I am.

 

[Forceatowulf]

The only situation in which I agree a man should have a say in this, is in a scenario where the woman rapes the man and get's pregnant from it.

Believe it or not.. this has happened before.

 

[Shanadeus]

He isn't leaving her with the child. He's leaving her with the choice of whether or not to have the child if she so desires. Abortion is legal in this country.

Alucrid, it may be my "fault" if I get her pregnant, but it's her "fault" if she chooses not to abort it.

Sums up how I am feeling. We're way beyond "I PUT PENIS IN VAGINA, IT MEANS I ACCEPT KIDS IF THAT SHIT HAPPEN" since we have birthcontroll, condoms and ultimately abortions.
If you chose not to abort it, you are accepting motherhood. You are chosing whether or not you're becoming a mother, and I have said again and again that I want to give men a similar choice (without touching the womans right to her body).

And you've just killed any chance of your proposition being passed and/or accepted. And wow at that second bold. Just wow. You also remove a far greater number of good people in the process. Are they just collateral damage to your proposition?

Are the good people that were removed due to abortions being made legal collateral damage?
Answer that and you have my answer.

No but it would get worse. You are a fool if you think more women will abort a child because she might not be able to afford it. If a women wants to have a child, she will regardless of the man's legal obligation. Laws of nature, brah.

Yet, less women in the ghettos had kids when abortions were made legal.
Now I wonder what effect widespread and free birthcontroll/abortions will have on our birthrates, and especially the birthrates among poor people.

If you're man enough to have sex you better be ready for the responsibilities that it brings. If the woman wants the kid then you are shit out of luck.

Don't be a deadbeat... take care of your kid(s).
If you don't want the responsiblity, then stop going in raw.

Always use a rubber.

Yes, today I'd recomend a guy to use rubber or get a vasectomy. But that's not what this thread is about, it's about how things should be tomorrow.

Your "solution" is impossible. The obligations of a father are tied to the child. They can not be--should not be--waived without the consent of the child, which it cannot give until it reaches the age at which the obligations disappear anyway.

Or they can just be waived away since it can be aborted without its own consent.
I of course support abortions and my reasoning presumes that abortions are legal and acceptable - which I believe they are.

 

[oneHeero]

Yes and if you get her pregnant it's entirely your fault since you could have used condoms, ensured she was on birth control, etc, etc.

It's a very complicated, emotional issue, but I side with the "It's her body. Her choice" crowd on this.

I think it's interesting how GAFfers deal with trying to appear pro-female, by essentially taking the woman out of the equation when talking about decisions to have sex, use contraception, etc.

If you're man enough to have sex you better be ready for the responsibilities that it brings. If the woman wants the kid then you are shit out of luck.

I can quote several times where you guys jsut overlook areas where this was already covered, but for the numerous time, I'll cover again. Just because you guys seem to identify the differences of the scenario I'm proposing.

I swear we are going in circles here. We are not talking about deadbeat dads who get a girl pregnant without any prior conversation of hey im not ready for a kid, we are talking about when both people have a understanding that they are using birth control and neither person is ready for a child, thus the purpose of the birth control. Now if the girl still gets pregnant, she didnt want a kid yet, she was on birth control right? And the guy didnt want it, he used a condom right? But she still got pregnant, so the guys ideal choice would be abortion. He cant make that decision.
The women can change her decision whenever she wants, controlling the guys overall responsiblity. The guy was under the impression that they wont have a kid, but girl decides "o i got pregnant even though we were trying to prevent it because neither of us wanted it, but i changed my mind now so I'll still have it." Locking the guy down into some type of responsibility because she changed her mind. If the female decides to have the kid regardless of the previous decisions made, she should be the responsible person who take on full responsiblity since she is changing her initial decision where neither person were ready for the child.

So now the guy has no choice? We have posters saying just man up. But the same poster will argue equal rights for something else in the next topic.

Everyone else is thinking of this situation.

Guy and girl casually date, girl gets pregnant, not on pill guy forgot to use condom. Girl gets pregnant, guy decides to still leave.

THIS IS NOT SOMETHING I AGREE WITH AND THE GUY SHOULD TAKE RESPONSIBLITY AND MAN UP.

If the child is growing in her body, and she has the choice to do something about it, and she doesn't, then she faces the responsibility. Just because a man had sex with her doesn't mean he should share the responsibility of a choice made long after the choice to have sex.

This is kinda borderline. If they just had sex and she gets pregnant and neither had the discussion on whether they were ready for a kid, than both need to take the responsibility of the child. If father walks away, he should pay child support.
If the decision was made prior to pregnancy that both would use birth control because neither wants a child, than she gets pregnant regardless of using birth control, than she should have a abortion, if the femal changes her mind, than she should take on responsiblity on her own.

 

[Broken Arrow]

If she wants to have the child and he doesn't and abortion is a legal option, then let her have the baby with all the responsibilities that it implies.

If the man wants to have the baby and she doesn't she has the right to get the guy's kid aborted, and that at least for me is not ok.

 

[Alucrid]

I swear we are going in circles here. We are not talking about deadbeat dads who get a girl pregnant without any prior conversation of hey im not ready for a kid, we are talking about when both people have a understanding that they are using birth control and neither person is ready for a child, thus the purpose of the birth control. Now if the girl still gets pregnant, she didnt want a kid yet, she was on birth control right? And the guy didnt want it, he used a condom right? But she still got pregnant, so the guys ideal choice would be abortion. He cant make that decision. The women can change her decision whenever she wants, controlling the guys overall responsiblity. The guy was under the impression that they wont have a kid, but girl decides "o i got pregnant even though we were trying to prevent it because neither of us wanted it, but i changed my mind now so I'll still have it." Locking the guy down into some type of responsibility because she changed her mind.

So now the guy has no choice? We have posters saying just man up. But the same poster will argue equal rights for something else in the next topic.

Everyone else is thinking of this situation.

Guy and girl casually date, girl gets pregnant, not on pill guy forgot to use condom. Girl gets pregnant, guy decides to still leave.

THIS IS NOT SOMETHING I AGREE WITH AND THE GUY SHOULD TAKE RESPONSIBLITY AND MAN UP.

Exactly. Yes, the guy has no choice in the matter. Going in he knew (regardless of forgetting a condom) that there's always that chance, no matter how small, that the girl can get pregnant. (Unless her tubes are tied or he got snipped.) In the end it's up to the women to chose and the man to support her, or be a dick and leave.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

I am trying to think of a metaphor for how I feel on this but none of them really work well. Plus whenever you cite a metaphor people argue holes in the metaphor instead of the actual issue at hand. Oh well, here goes...

If I give a girl some money (semen) she has a choice as of what to do with it. She can choose to do nothing, or start a business (baby). Should I have to pay the taxes for that business even though I never had a say in whether or not the business was started, but the choice was entirely hers? When abortion was made legal it placed the onus of the decision on the woman, since the option of what to do with what is given her is always up to her now. It gave her the choice. The man shouldn't be held responsible.

Edit: Actually, when abortion was made legal it did two things. It separated parenthood from being a consequence of sex, and gave the woman the ultimate choice on whether or not to be a parent.

 

[GatorBait]

GAFfer: I wonder how things ought to be.

Bunch of other GAFfers: This is how things are.

Nice to see I'm not the only one who noticed this.

 

[oneHeero]

Exactly. Yes, the guy has no choice in the matter. Going in he knew (regardless of forgetting a condom) that there's always that chance, no matter how small, that the girl can get pregnant. (Unless her tubes are tied or he got snipped.) In the end it's up to the women to chose and the man to support her, or be a dick and leave.

I'm 100% in agreement its always the females choice. We arent debating that. We are talking about the guys responsibility.

You can break down his responsibility to 2 things.

1. They got pregnant due to their own fault, lack of birth control. Man up, no arguement there.

or

2. They use birth control because both state they dont want a kid, girl still gets pregnant guy still doesnt want a kid, girl changes mind. She should take full responsiblity and guy shouldnt.

The guy cant force the girl to have sex. Some of you guys are fucken stupid. "O he shoulda wrapped up or he shouldnt have had sex with her" like if he can force her to have sex, got her pregnant and now is trying to walk away.

 

[RoH]

When in doubt you must abort.

If you say hey the condom broke (or something like that) and she says i'm keeping it, you should have a way out. The argument that the male should not have gotten in bed is very unfair as the female should have been held to the same BS. So no males should not be forced to pay.

 

[Shanadeus]

Nice to see I'm not the only one who noticed this.

To be fair though, that's the case for loads of threads.

I am trying to think of a metaphor for how I feel on this but none of them really work well. Plus whenever you cite a metaphor people argue holes in the metaphor instead of the actual issue at hand. Oh well, here goes...

If I give a girl some money (semen) she has a choice as of what to do with it. She can choose to do nothing, or start a business (baby). Should I have to pay the taxes for that business even though I never had a say in whether or not the business was started, but the choice was entirely hers? When abortion was made legal it placed the onus of the decision on the woman, since the option of what to do with what is given her is always up to her now. It gave her the choice. The man shouldn't be held responsible.

Edit: Actually, when abortion was made legal it did two things. It separated parenthood from being a consequence of sex, and gave the woman the ultimate choice on whether or not to be a parent.

Nice metaphore, is spot on.

And the bolded is what I've been trying to argue here, I just want the man to have the same choice on whether or not to be parent.

I'm a feminist and even I think that equality goes both ways.

 

[Gaborn]

2. They use birth control because both state they dont want a kid, girl still gets pregnant guy still doesnt want a kid, girl changes mind. She should take full responsiblity and guy shouldnt.

The guy cant force the girl to have sex. Some of you guys are fucken stupid. "O he shoulda wrapped up or he shouldnt have had sex with her" like if he can force her to have sex, got her pregnant and now is trying to walk away.

I think the problem with this argument is the basic assumption that abortion vs pregnancy is a zero sum choice, or even that pregnancy is always the more "burdensome" or "traumatic" option. Some women find abortion more emotionally and psychologically difficult than others, and essentially trying to incentivize a woman to have an abortion or raise the kid on her own with no support from the dad... doesn't seem right. It seems like either way the woman's going to take the mental and emotional hit and the dad basically has the opportunity to do whatever the hell he wants.

 

[Shanadeus]

I think the problem with this argument is the basic assumption that abortion vs pregnancy is a zero sum choice, or even that pregnancy is always the more "burdensome" or "traumatic" option. Some women find abortion more emotionally and psychologically difficult than others, and essentially trying to incentivize a woman to have an abortion or raise the kid on her own with no support from the dad... doesn't seem right. It seems like either way the woman's going to take the mental and emotional hit and the dad basically has the opportunity to do whatever the hell he wants.

And that's why we need widespread and affordable birthcontroll, in order to reduce the suffering for women who have a problem with abortions. While it might be fair to just randomly implement a new system, it'd hit hard against people that's grown used to the old one. There needs to be a slow adaptation to the new one while we encourage more birth controll and help people that can't afford it get it.

A step in the right direction would be the ability to make binding contracts on the nature and intent of your relationships. Like for example that you are both in agreement of not wanting a child, and if the woman goes back on this and decides to break their contract by proceeding to have a child then the man is absolved of any responsibilities. If she doesn't want to risk having an abortion then she also has the choice not to sign the contract and leave for another man who won't request one.

I don't see how anyone could object to the above, but I'm sure some will find a way.

 

[xelios]

In this thread, apparently that's not the correct way. Its either the guy takes responsibility or he doesn't. But the girl gets to chose what responsibility she takes. Whether she gives up the child in abortion, adoption, keep it away from the father, or simply still have it regardless of the fathers decision.

Yup.

Females can be deadbeat parents too. Many get rid of or avoid the responsibility just like some fathers do; they're no better yet they're not called out as much. What you label one you might as well label the other.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

I think the problem with this argument is the basic assumption that abortion vs pregnancy is a zero sum choice, or even that pregnancy is always the more "burdensome" or "traumatic" option. Some women find abortion more emotionally and psychologically difficult than others, and essentially trying to incentivize a woman to have an abortion or raise the kid on her own with no support from the dad... doesn't seem right. It seems like either way the woman's going to take the mental and emotional hit and the dad basically has the opportunity to do whatever the hell he wants.

So what you're saying is that basically men have no scruples. That a man cannot or will not feel guilty or mentally distressed over this either.

 

[Gaborn]

And that's why we need widespread and affordable birthcontroll, in order to reduce the suffering for women who have a problem with abortions. While it might be fair to just randomly implement a new system, it'd hit hard against people that's grown used to the old one. There needs to be a slow adaptation to the new one while we encourage more birth controll and help people that can't afford it get it.

A step in the right direction would be the ability to make binding contracts on the nature and intent of your relationships. Like for example that you are both in agreement of not wanting a child, and if the woman goes back on this and decides to break their contract by proceeding to have a child then the man is absolved of any responsibilities. If she doesn't want to risk having an abortion then she also has the choice not to sign the contract and leave for another man who won't request one.

I don't see how anyone could object to the above, but I'm sure some will find a way.

Condoms are expensive where you live? There are a lot of places that basically give them out for free you know. And if you can't afford one why would you risk having a baby? They're a bit more expensive than a thin sheath.

AbortedWalrusFetus - Pretty much, yeah. The entire thread is basically a monument to men claiming that abortions are no problem. It's basically one giant Hills Like White Elephants.

 

[oneHeero]

I think the problem with this argument is the basic assumption that abortion vs pregnancy is a zero sum choice, or even that pregnancy is always the more "burdensome" or "traumatic" option. Some women find abortion more emotionally and psychologically difficult than others, and essentially trying to incentivize a woman to have an abortion or raise the kid on her own with no support from the dad... doesn't seem right. It seems like either way the woman's going to take the mental and emotional hit and the dad basically has the opportunity to do whatever the hell he wants.

I can understand this, I wish others could understand my point of view and make a reasonable response like you just did. But everyones under the assumption we are for deadbeat dads.

I'm a father of a 3yr old. It was my wifes choice(before we were married). She had my support 100% whether she chose abortion or to have it. She knew I wasnt ready, I preferred the abortion at the time. But she preferred having it. I support her decision 100% because I believe in pro choice and ultimately its her body. I dont regret her decision at all. But that's not to say others have to bear the same responsibilities as I. DEPENDING on the situation of the pregnancy.

 

[Shanadeus]

Condoms are expensive where you live? There are a lot of places that basically give them out for free you know. And if you can't afford one why would you risk having a baby? They're a bit more expensive than a thin sheath.

A condom is the responsibility of the guy in my opinion, women should also take steps to protect themselves from getting pregnant and the easiest way you can get them to do that is to take birth control pills - which women around here at least accepts (you could never get them to use those weird condom like guards you put inside of you).

I live in Sweden btw and have been kinda refering to pills everytime I've mentioned birth control.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

Condoms are expensive where you live? There are a lot of places that basically give them out for free you know. And if you can't afford one why would you risk having a baby? They're a bit more expensive than a thin sheath.

I am pretty sure he was talking about birth control for women, so they don't have to go through that undue stress you were talking about if they decide to accept a guy bareback.

Either way, I am also against Shanadeus proposal of contracts. I think a simple statement of intent should be enough. If I loan a guy a kitchen knife and he uses it to kill someone I sure as hell don't want to have to produce a written statement to absolve myself of culpability when it was clear my intent was not to cause murder.

 

[antiloop]

It's the way the world works, it's always our fault. Take full responsibility.

 

[Shanadeus]

It's the way the world works, it's always our fault. Take full responsibility.

Welcome to the party!
The way the world used to work was that women would become pregnant and had no choice but to take full responsibility.
Nowadays they don't have to take full responsibility as they have access to abortions, so it becomes a choice of whether or not you want full responsibility. And just as we gave women this choice, we should give men one too - one that doesn't in anyway take away the female right to her own body.

Either way, I am also against Shanadeus proposal of contracts. I think a simple statement of intent should be enough. If I loan a guy a kitchen knife and he uses it to kill someone I sure as hell don't want to have to produce a written statement to absolve myself of culpability when it was clear my intent was not to cause murder.

I'm a socialist, so I kinda add some socialist ideas about societal responsibility to most of the things I talk about. I'm not that sure it'd work in a relatively non-socialist country like the US.

 

[shintoki]

Not really. As said, it's her body when it comes down to it and he did choose to have sex. Inherited risk.

But, on the law side of things. I do believe it should be mandatory and illegal for a court to deny a father a DNA test.

 

[wenis]

It's fairly simple for myself. I chose to engage in a very adult act. If something unfavorable comes from that action I have to act like an actual adult and discuss/support the womans decision whichever way that may be.

If others don't agree that it isn't the womans decision or that I don't have an obligation to be there for her/the child then you are dead wrong. That is a life you created and there is no bones about it. Either you act like a real man and take that responsibility or you act like a child and don't. As simple as that.

 

[daw840]

With all the birth control available, I firmly believe that 99% of pregnancies are choices. The woman does hold all the cards at this point, and all the decision making regarding keeping or aborting a pregnancy. I don't necessarily think that should change though, since right now the laws are designed to protect the child not the parents. Which is exactly how it should be.

The woman NOT getting an abortion when the man wants her too doesn't upset me nearly as much as the woman getting an abortion when the man wants to keep the child. Just speaking for myself, if my wife/girlfriend ever aborted one of my kids against my will I don't know what I would do. Deep depression comes to mind.