PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Abortion Debates
     a man's right to abortion

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
wayneinFL

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In this country, today, a woman has a right to an abortion, for whatever reason. If she feels her economic situation doesn't warrant having a child she conceived, then she has an out- abortion.

Then, why doesn't the man have a right to abortion? A woman isn't responsible to care for a child she doesn't want. How can a man be made responsible to care for a child he doesn't want through child support payments?

Take a lawsuit for negligence for instance: Bob is injured by Jack.  Bob can't work unless he gets a $1000 operation. He won't get the operation, because he feels it's against his religion. He makes $10,000 a year, and has 10 years until retirement. Law says Jack in only responsible for $1000, not $100,000 as Bob claims because Bob could mitigate the damages if he wished.

According to this principle of our legal system, an expectant father would only be responsible for the cost of an abortion, not for raising a kid for 18 years. That's the woman's choice- she could mitigate her losses.


-------
wayneinFL
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 2:33 PM on May 14, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Okay then :-)....
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 2:45 PM on May 14, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wayneinFL at 2:33 PM on May 14, 2005 :
In this country, today, a woman has a right to an abortion, for whatever reason. If she feels her economic situation doesn't warrant having a child she conceived, then she has an out- abortion.

Then, why doesn't the man have a right to abortion? A woman isn't responsible to care for a child she doesn't want. How can a man be made responsible to care for a child he doesn't want through child support payments?

Take a lawsuit for negligence for instance: Bob is injured by Jack.  Bob can't work unless he gets a $1000 operation. He won't get the operation, because he feels it's against his religion. He makes $10,000 a year, and has 10 years until retirement. Law says Jack in only responsible for $1000, not $100,000 as Bob claims because Bob could mitigate the damages if he wished.

According to this principle of our legal system, an expectant father would only be responsible for the cost of an abortion, not for raising a kid for 18 years. That's the woman's choice- she could mitigate her losses.


The man should pay because it's his child, therefore his responsibility as well as the woman's. He played half the part in conception, so he should play half the role in parenting.

Bacially, by your reasoning, fathers should have no responsibilty to any children they help conceive of they don't want them. Where does that leave the mothers? What if the woman can't cope with an abortion? Should we then punish her for keeping her child by taking away any financial support she might have had? That's ridiculous. Fathers should be made to pay for raising a child.
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 02:52 AM on May 15, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But women can get an abortion without the father concent. Is that fair? no it isn't. The choice of an abortion should be down to both parents. The mother currently has the right to abort the child, which the father doesn't. The mother currently has the rite to keep the child, but the father doesn't. The father has to agree with the mothers choice which is unfair. However saying this there is little other way in which it could be, the father can't force the mother to have an abortion. And the no one with common decentcy could allow there child to be unsuported (however I do completly disagree with father that can't see there child but still have to pay benefits). However I woman shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion, if the father wants to keep the child, and working on the same principle the mother should then have to suport the child. But when it comes to parenting the mother always tends to win...


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 10:25 AM on May 15, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

but you can't trivialise the toll that abortion can have on a woman - it is not an easy way out. It is a large price to pay, so saying that they can 'simply' abort it is wrong - there is almost always a high emotional and psychological cost which is far more permanently damaging than financial cost.

The choice of abortion should be down to both parents. But we must remember that the relationship between the respective parents might not be steady. Not all conceptions occur in ideally loving relationships.

And finally, the whole point of forcing payment from the father is to make him live up to the consequences of his actions. The woman has - she's had a child she helped conceive and now she must look after and pay for it. The father should, if he doesn't want the child, therefore be able to simply walk away? I know you cannot think that is fair.

Situation where child is born to parents, and the father doesn't want the child and therefore leaves yet is made to pay for child:

Woman - pays emotionally, physically, psychologically, and financially

Man - pays financially

It's a small price in comparison, so they should be made to pay it.
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 02:03 AM on May 16, 2005 | IP
Fender

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from K8 at 02:52 AM on May 15, 2005 :
Quote from wayneinFL at 2:33 PM on May 14, 2005 :
In this country, today, a woman has a right to an abortion, for whatever reason. If she feels her economic situation doesn't warrant having a child she conceived, then she has an out- abortion.

Then, why doesn't the man have a right to abortion? A woman isn't responsible to care for a child she doesn't want. How can a man be made responsible to care for a child he doesn't want through child support payments?

Take a lawsuit for negligence for instance: Bob is injured by Jack.  Bob can't work unless he gets a $1000 operation. He won't get the operation, because he feels it's against his religion. He makes $10,000 a year, and has 10 years until retirement. Law says Jack in only responsible for $1000, not $100,000 as Bob claims because Bob could mitigate the damages if he wished.

According to this principle of our legal system, an expectant father would only be responsible for the cost of an abortion, not for raising a kid for 18 years. That's the woman's choice- she could mitigate her losses.


The man should pay because it's his child, therefore his responsibility as well as the woman's. He played half the part in conception, so he should play half the role in parenting.

Bacially, by your reasoning, fathers should have no responsibilty to any children they help conceive of they don't want them. Where does that leave the mothers? What if the woman can't cope with an abortion? Should we then punish her for keeping her child by taking away any financial support she might have had? That's ridiculous. Fathers should be made to pay for raising a child.



I don't beleive in abortion at all but your reasoning is typical of feminism,it says that women should always have the choices and men the responsabilities,a man is there to respond to whatever decison her highness might pass down to him.The fact is that feminism supports a woman no matter what she does and condemns a man if he does not go along,if a woman gets pregnant and aborts the child they say she is just doing what is best for her and the child and everybody else,if she has the baby then she is bravely facing being a single mother and blah blah blah,either way she comes out smelling like a rose,use contraception,male or female or keep your legs closed or better yet get sterilized,murder is not the answer.
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 9:08 PM on June 1, 2005 | IP
Fender

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wayneinFL at 2:33 PM on May 14, 2005 :
In this country, today, a woman has a right to an abortion, for whatever reason. If she feels her economic situation doesn't warrant having a child she conceived, then she has an out- abortion.

Then, why doesn't the man have a right to abortion? A woman isn't responsible to care for a child she doesn't want. How can a man be made responsible to care for a child he doesn't want through child support payments?

Take a lawsuit for negligence for instance: Bob is injured by Jack.  Bob can't work unless he gets a $1000 operation. He won't get the operation, because he feels it's against his religion. He makes $10,000 a year, and has 10 years until retirement. Law says Jack in only responsible for $1000, not $100,000 as Bob claims because Bob could mitigate the damages if he wished.

According to this principle of our legal system, an expectant father would only be responsible for the cost of an abortion, not for raising a kid for 18 years. That's the woman's choice- she could mitigate her losses.



If feminism were about equality as they would have you beleive then things would be as you say,however fenminism is about power and who is in charge and that is why things are the way they are,wonem have secured for themselves the right to murder at will,men have not.
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 9:13 PM on June 1, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Fender at 9:08 PM on June 1, 2005 :

I don't beleive in abortion at all but your reasoning is typical of feminism,it says that women should always have the choices and men the responsabilities,a man is there to respond to whatever decison her highness might pass down to him.The fact is that feminism supports a woman no matter what she does and condemns a man if he does not go along,if a woman gets pregnant and aborts the child they say she is just doing what is best for her and the child and everybody else,if she has the baby then she is bravely facing being a single mother and blah blah blah,either way she comes out smelling like a rose,use contraception,male or female or keep your legs closed or better yet get sterilized,murder is not the answer.



I'm not a feminist - i'm an equalist. This is not about power, it's about responsibility for ones actions. If men are not to be held partially accountable for the existence of a child they do not want, when will they be held accountable then? Only when it's convenient to them? They're part of the conception process and, as i said:

Woman pays: emotionally, physically, psychologically and financially

Man pays: financially

this arrangment, you say, is unfair. What then would be fair? Give me a fairer scenario.

You say that women always have the choices and the men have responsibilities. That's incorrect. Women have the responsibility of either having the child (which you would have them do as you're against abortion), or going through the severely painful process of abortion. Abortion has severely high costs on the woman emotionally, physically and psychologically (and sometimes financially). Don't try to say it's an 'easy way out'.

Men have the choice as to whether they stay in a child's life or leave it - they should then have the responsibility of AT LEAST supporting his child financially if nothing else. It seems to me that you would rather have the father have no responsibility whatsoever if he 'doesn't want it' - tell me, then, when does his accountability kick in?


 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 01:34 AM on June 2, 2005 | IP
Fender

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from K8 at 01:34 AM on June 2, 2005 :
Quote from Fender at 9:08 PM on June 1, 2005 :

I don't beleive in abortion at all but your reasoning is typical of feminism,it says that women should always have the choices and men the responsabilities,a man is there to respond to whatever decison her highness might pass down to him.The fact is that feminism supports a woman no matter what she does and condemns a man if he does not go along,if a woman gets pregnant and aborts the child they say she is just doing what is best for her and the child and everybody else,if she has the baby then she is bravely facing being a single mother and blah blah blah,either way she comes out smelling like a rose,use contraception,male or female or keep your legs closed or better yet get sterilized,murder is not the answer.



I'm not a feminist - i'm an equalist. This is not about power, it's about responsibility for ones actions. If men are not to be held partially accountable for the existence of a child they do not want, when will they be held accountable then? Only when it's convenient to them? They're part of the conception process and, as i said:

Woman pays: emotionally, physically, psychologically and financially

Man pays: financially

this arrangment, you say, is unfair. What then would be fair? Give me a fairer scenario.

You say that women always have the choices and the men have responsibilities. That's incorrect. Women have the responsibility of either having the child (which you would have them do as you're against abortion), or going through the severely painful process of abortion. Abortion has severely high costs on the woman emotionally, physically and psychologically (and sometimes financially). Don't try to say it's an 'easy way out'.

Men have the choice as to whether they stay in a child's life or leave it - they should then have the responsibility of AT LEAST supporting his child financially if nothing else. It seems to me that you would rather have the father have no responsibility whatsoever if he 'doesn't want it' - tell me, then, when does his accountability kick in?





I Did not say that i beleive a man should not have to help support a child he fathered.The opening post ask why is it that a woman can abort a child without the fathers consent but must supoport the child if the mother chooses to have it"equalism" goes both ways,the ball is always in the women's court and the man has no say so in anything,only a feminist beleives that is fair.I beleive men ad women should use birth control or keep their clothes on,alot of pregnanies occur because in the heat of the moment nobody took responsability for the situation and instead chose to roll the dice,its all, about so called adults acting in an irresponsable manner and making the child pay the price and that is wrong.
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 5:05 PM on June 2, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Usually, both parents give their consent unless the father ran off thus leaving the descision up to the woman.


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 5:31 PM on June 2, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Fender at 5:05 PM on June 2, 2005 :

I Did not say that i beleive a man should not have to help support a child he fathered.The opening post ask why is it that a woman can abort a child without the fathers consent but must supoport the child if the mother chooses to have it"equalism" goes both ways,the ball is always in the women's court and the man has no say so in anything,only a feminist beleives that is fair.


By saying that a father should not have to support his child just because the mother didn't abort it like he would have liked is punishing the woman for not having an abortion.

You don't believe abortion to be right, yet by saying that a father should not have to support his 'un-aborted' (excuse the crude term) child, you're simply advancing the option of abortion to women as more desirable than single parenthood. Often, a mother may only choose single parenthood over abortion simply due to the minimal support she will receive from the baby's father - take that away, then what is she going to do?
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 11:40 PM on June 2, 2005 | IP
celticgreen

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree with the original poster's position. If a woman has the right to choose to not have a child *after* conception, the father should also have that right.  Fair is fair. And equal rights do both ways.

Now what about the father who chooses to keep the baby after conception when the mother wants to abort?
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 6:54 PM on July 1, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've already said this (i think), but making a father pay financially for an unwanted child is fairer than allowing him to surrender all responsibility to a child he does not want. Why you may ask?

In a situation where a father does not want to have a part in a child's life:
In having the child, a mother will pay: financially, emotionally, physically and mentally

A father will pay: financially

Above situation already unequal and unfair in the eyes of the woman. Take away the father's financial responsibility, then what do you have?

The original post also implies that abortion is an 'easy way out' when it comes to an unwanted pregnancy.

Woman still pays: financially, physically, emotionally and mentally
Man pays: MAYBE financially (if he is at all wanting to be involved)

A woman must always pay heavily either way. A man must not.
How can any of you say the man doesn't already have a fair deal?

I'm quite surprised that anyone labelling themselves as pro-life (or anyone, for that matter) could ever support a fathers 'right to abortion'. Such a concept only advances abortion as a more viable option than single parenthood to a mother. No one wants more abortions occurring in this world, so how could any of you advance such a dangerous and unfair concept as right?



 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 03:16 AM on July 4, 2005 | IP
celticgreen

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"And finally, the whole point of forcing payment from the father is to make him live up to the consequences of his actions. The woman has - she's had a child she helped conceive and now she must look after and pay for it. The father should, if he doesn't want the child, therefore be able to simply walk away? I know you cannot think that is fair. "

Why not? Why shouldn't he be able to walk away? If he chooses not to keep the child, as the mother may choose at any time after conception and after the birth (adoption), why is the man saddled with the choice the woman makes? How is that fair?

"And finally, the whole point of forcing payment from the father is to make him live up to the consequences of his actions."

And yet the woman has the choice to have the baby, abort, or to choose adoption. Why this need to make the man "live up to" the consequences while the woman has 3 choices, all of which *he* must abide by?

There is nothing fair in this situation.

Do you believe that the woman should be made to live up to the consequences of her actions, should the man choose to keep the child when she would rather abort or would choose adoption?





 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 06:51 AM on July 4, 2005 | IP
celticgreen

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"I'm quite surprised that anyone labelling themselves as pro-life (or anyone, for that matter) could ever support a fathers 'right to abortion'. Such a concept only advances abortion as a more viable option than single parenthood to a mother. No one wants more abortions occurring in this world, so how could any of you advance such a dangerous and unfair concept as right?"

How is it unfair? I don't think that convenience abortions are right, but so long as they are legal and adoption is legal, the option to not have or not have children, even after conception, should be offered to men as well.  

I'm not sure if you're responding to my post, but I didn't suggest that a woman has to have an abortion if the man doesn't want the baby, only that the man should be able to choose also. If she wants the baby, good for her. If he doesn't, good for him. So long as the choice is available after conception to her, it should be available to him.

His choice (to walk away) is much less wrong than hers (abortion).

I did ask what should happen if the woman chooses abortion when the man wants the baby.

Whose right trumps the other? Does the right to have a baby that's already conceived trump the right to choose not to have a baby after it's conceived?
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 07:00 AM on July 4, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think everyone's missing the point that this whole situation will never be equal so long as men are still unable to give birth. The fact of the matter is, in a situation where a woman wishes to abort her child and the father of that child wishes her not to, if she's dead-set NOT going to have the child, then the father must somehow be able to offer to raise the child all on his own. I'm not positive as to whether this is possible, but it might be...anyone know for sure???

I'm just saying that, women are the child bearers - nature has placed that responsibility on them. Technically, seeing as they are the only ones who are able to get pregnant, then they can be the only ones therefore with the right to abortion.

Can any of you who disagree with me (are you all guys btw???) outline a scenario you see as fair? Go on, give it a shot!
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 04:05 AM on July 5, 2005 | IP
celticgreen

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"outline a scenario you see as fair? Go on, give it a shot! "

I already have. If the woman has the right to choose not to have a child after conception, then the man also has that right. He has the right to sign papers, walking away from the pregnancy for life.

Only the law prevents him from forcing the woman to continue a pregnancy if he wants to have the baby when the woman doesn't want it. Who would have thought years ago that a woman would have the legal right to kill her own child. Is a law preventing her from killing her child if the father wants it that unbelievable?

I don't think that law is likely, but it's not impossible.

Giving both "parents" equal rights in childbirth is only a matter of deciding which right trumps the other - the right to have the baby or the right not to have the baby.

Do you decide in favor of life when it's wanted by the father,  or abortion when it's (the life) not wanted by the mother?
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 06:38 AM on July 5, 2005 | IP
rob74696

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

K8,

I certainly respect the womans rights and there is no doubt in anyones mind that nature has bestowed upon her the honor of childbirth. there are several flaws in some of your arguments however:

"The fact of the matter is, in a situation where a woman wishes to abort her child and the father of that child wishes her not to, if she's dead-set NOT going to have the child, then the father must somehow be able to offer to raise the child all on his own. I'm not positive as to whether this is possible, but it might be...anyone know for sure???"

Why would a father NOT be able to raise a child on his own and the mother would? Do you really have such a low opinion of the male sex? We are not all irresponsible immature imbeciles who run at the first sign of pregnancy. If, in a relationship where both parents wanted the child but during childbirth the mother died, you think the man would be incapable of raising the child?

You are also very big on this line:

In having the child, a mother will pay: financially, emotionally, physically and mentally

A father will pay: financially

There is a little thing called COUVADE SYNDROME, it is in short, Sympathy pains. There are documented cases of men actually gaining weight and feeling the same physical discomfort, nausea,Insomnia, and even those strange cravings. Couple that with the fact that the man must also endure the ever changing moods that pregnancy brings and maintain his sanity your equation equals out a little better. Now we share everything but the PHYSICAL child in the womb. I am by no means saying this is the case in every pregnancy but in some it is.
I have also seen cases where the father is a better parent than the mother ever would be and once the child was born she felt that her job was done and now HE would have to do his part.

I think for the most part women are very unfair and even unfeeling as to what a man goes through during the womans pregnancy, yes she is carrying a child and will have to endure the pain of childbirth, but to think that women have a monopoly on the emotional, physical and Psycological aspects of pregnancy is to discount mens feelings altogether.

Just My opinion



-------
Robert
 


Posts: 41 | Posted: 09:05 AM on July 5, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm not at all saying a man is incapable of raising a child from birth onwards because he's 'irresponsible' or whatnot - i was just unsure as to how he would feed a baby in the early days. I honestly am not sure as to whether a baby needs breastfeeding at all or not - that's what i was asking. If the man can simply bottlefeed the baby from the beginning then that's great! I just wasn't sure whether this was a possibility or not.

I have an equal respect of the male sex as i do the female sex - i wish people would stop implying i'm some sort of feminist extremist or something. I just don't see how allowing men to completely surrender all parental responsibility because they don't want the child is going to make things any fairer.

I know all those advancing a 'man's right to abortion' feel that it is unfair that it's 'always what the woman chooses' but i'm afraid, as women, having the ability to get pregnant also gives us the ability to choose what that pregnancy concludes in. Men can't have children, women can. Again, technically, as women are the only ones who can get pregnant then we can therefore be the only ones with the right to an abortion.

Taking away a man's responsibility to his child (when, by the way, he still has full rights to the child) will only have harmful effects on society. It may make people (probably men) less responsible when it comes to birth control because, logically, if they have an easy way out they're more likely to risk getting a woman pregnant. It would also risk advancing the option of abortion to women as more viable than single parenthood due to the fact that her financial support would now be severely limited.

And also, in regards to "Couvade Syndrome", I was referring to the scenario when a man wishes to leave the woman with the child and simply pay child support (you'll notice i usually outline such a scenario before i outline the costs to both parties). I'm sure in such a sitiuation the guy would be relatively immune to the effects of this syndrome, as i doubt he'd have much contact with the woman.
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 03:01 AM on July 6, 2005 | IP
raynelightning

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i like the way you are thinking. i am pro-life and i do understand your point. since aborion is legal{right now} the women should also have to get the fathers consent to abort. all these pro- choice people who say that it's my choice, well actually it's not, i am sure that the father might have something to say about it.if i was a man and  my woman tried to abort my baby i take her to court, legally what is in her belly would be half mine and she shouldn't be able to destroy it!!
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 04:38 AM on July 6, 2005 | IP
celticgreen

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

" i was just unsure as to how he would feed a baby in the early days. I honestly am not sure as to whether a baby needs breastfeeding at all or not - that's what i was asking. If the man can simply bottlefeed the baby from the beginning then that's great! I just wasn't sure whether this was a possibility or not."

My goodness! You don't know if a baby can be fed by bottle?!

How in the world do you think adopted babies are fed? And babies whose mothers don't breast feed?

Joan
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 07:36 AM on July 6, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Alright alright - I apologise for my lack of knowledge when it comes to childcare. I've never done it myself.

Now that we know men can take full responsibility of raising a child from birth, perhaps there is that option to women who wish not to have children, yet the fathers do want the child (mind you, the woman must still go through the pregnancy and birth - not exactly a walk in the park).


 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 11:33 PM on July 6, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What makes me especially mad when it comes to all your arguments is the fact that you all want men to be able to fully surrender all parental responsibility when they feel like it, and yet a lot of you still argue that the man should still have a say as to whether a woman gets an abortion or not (some even saying that he should be able to force her not to).

Seems like the man would always get what he wants, yet the woman would either be forced to have a child she did not want (if the father wanted it), or forced to either
a) raise a child with no help from a father who still has rights to it
or b) forced to get an abortion or put the baby up for adoption because she cannot support it without child support payments.  
Wow, way to make things fairer guys. Well done.
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 11:52 PM on July 6, 2005 | IP
celticgreen

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Seems like the man would always get what he wants, yet the woman would either be forced to have a child she did not want (if the father wanted it), or forced to either
a) raise a child with no help from a father who still has rights to it
or b) forced to get an abortion or put the baby up for adoption because she cannot support it without child support payments."

OR -

"Seems like the WOman would always get what She wants, yet the Man would either be forced to have a child He did not want (if the MOther wanted it), or forced to either
a) raise a child with no help from a MOther who still has *NO* rights to it
or b) forced to get an abortion or put the baby up for adoption because He cannot support it without child support payments."

** In deciding not to have a baby (after conception), the father/mother gives up all rights to the child.

Also, for whatever reason the mother/father decides not to have the baby, it's a valid decision.

If the mother can decide that she'll have an abortion or put the baby up for adoption rather than live poor, can't the father decide to sign away his rights rather than live poor? What is the real difference there?

It's just the flip side. As it is now, after conception, the father has no rights at all. If the mother wants the baby, he's stuck with that decision. If the mother doesn't want the baby, he's stuck with that decision.

If the right to have children or not have children is extended to the mother *after* conception, that right, to be completely fair, should be extended to fathers.

Why do you feel that the father's right to decide after conception isn't "fair"?
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 08:55 AM on July 7, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from celticgreen at 08:55 AM on July 7, 2005 :

If the mother can decide that she'll have an abortion or put the baby up for adoption rather than live poor, can't the father decide to sign away his rights rather than live poor? What is the real difference there?

Why do you feel that the father's right to decide after conception isn't "fair"?


The real difference is: when the mother has an abortion or puts her baby up for adoption, no one else is impacted on financially in the process but herself. If a father were able to 'sign away his rights' and avoid providing any financial support to his child and its mother, both his child and its mother are impacted financially.

The concept of allowing a father to simply walk away from his parental responsibilities has negative consequences which ultimately outweigh any perceived equality the granting of such a 'right' would entail (i.e. increased rates of abortion due to financial insecurity, and general financial insecurity for single mothers and hence a potential decrease in standard of living for child).

It's all very well to say that 'because the mother can do it, the father should also be able to', but you then have to look beyond what you see as a 'right' and look at the potential consequences of extending such a 'right'. Sometimes something can appear fair in theory, but in practice it can be anything but.
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 03:12 AM on July 11, 2005 | IP
celticgreen

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"The real difference is: when the mother has an abortion or puts her baby up for adoption, no one else is impacted on financially in the process but herself. If a father were able to 'sign away his rights' and avoid providing any financial support to his child and its mother, both his child and its mother are impacted financially."

I don't think that money matters. This isn't a question about money, but about who has the right to decide to have or not have children after conception.

If the mother can decide that she will have an abortion or choose adoption because she doesn't like the financial impact a baby will have on her lifestyle, the father should have the same right.

I'm not arguing that abortion is a valid choice, only that the father should have the right to choose not to become a father after conception if the mother has that right.
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 08:42 AM on July 11, 2005 | IP
celticgreen

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"The real difference is: when the mother has an abortion or puts her baby up for adoption, no one else is impacted on financially in the process but herself. If a father were able to 'sign away his rights' and avoid providing any financial support to his child and its mother, both his child and its mother are impacted financially."

But what of the impact having an abortion will have on the father who wants to keep the baby? How can a financial pinch even compare to that?

There seems to be a prevailing assumption that the choice must always favor the mother.
Why?


 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 09:44 AM on July 11, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Until men can get pregnant, this situation will never be equal. It seems naive to think that if you provide both parents with exactly the same choices/"rights" that the situation will be fairer, as only one party is able to actually get pregnant and have the child/have an abortion.

The thing is, by allowing men to have the choices you feel they have a right to, it is likely that the situation will become even less balanced or "fair" than it is now.
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 01:51 AM on July 20, 2005 | IP
Cush

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Luckily, I have never had to sit by and watch as a woman who was carring our baby, went and got an abortion without my consent.

It would devastate me, and I would do whatever I could within my legal power, including taking her to court, to stop it.

I believe that just as I would love and cherish that child after it was born, I love that child as it develops. A father is a father. I believe that a man should have a certain amout of legal rights to prevent the death of his child.

oh,
And I Fully support making a man accountable for somehow supporting a woman who is pregnant with their child.  Whether financially or other.  I believe that by making anyone accountable for anything, it increases the chances that the "right" thing will be done.  Many men today do not realize that the greatest thing that they can do in their personal lives is to simply say, "It is my fault."  That is what it means to be an adult.

 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 2:53 PM on July 20, 2005 | IP
LvDaPrsnH8DaSin

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Are you serious? a abortion is not a "out" sex has been reduced to pure pleasure, this society says screw morals, screw values, do what feels good. I say have responcibility for your actions and if you have sex then its both partners fault she got preg. The child should not pay for the mistakes of the parents. If the women is preg and not ready to have a child for whatever reason, that is her fault for allowing herself to get preg and now must take into consideration another life she has in her hands. There are many programs out there that are ready to help any and all preg women with any situation they are in. She doesn't have to keep the baby, have you heard of adoption?!?!?! there are millions of couples out there that would give anything for a child. Don't be shallow and think of your own self, think of the life you just created and remember you have two lives in your hands now.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 6:43 PM on September 19, 2005 | IP
Christian

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Men's rights have been walked on by the ACLU and "N.O.W" (Nagging Old Witches) for decades.

They baby is 1/2 the fathers; she has NO RIGHT to kill HIS baby.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 9:14 PM on July 20, 2007 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But according to the above arguments, he has the right to walk away and not care for "HIS child".

I agree that if a man expresses an opinion when it comes to whether a woman has an abortion or not (when it's his baby), then that woman should listen to his opinion and do her best to take it into account. However, it is her decision in the end. No one can or should ever be able to force a woman to either have a baby or have an abortion - women bear the heaviest of the consequences, and hence their decision and opinion holds more weight.

Women never have the choice to fully walk away. They have to live with the consequences of either having the child or having an abortion - two options which both carry heavy physical, emotional, psychological and financial costs. Women can't walk away, so men shouldn't be given that option either.
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 10:12 PM on July 25, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.