Swords are for wimps
this could get contentious very fast
i like the idea, under limited circumstances. say you're a guy and you've been sleeping with this girl. neither of you intend children. she's on the pill, you're on latex
but now she's pregnant. oops. now, assuming good faith that she was doing everything right (but humans being bastards, some may heve been pretending, unlikely but it could happen), you still don't want kids, but she changes her mind
what do you do. what can you do? obviously you can't 'force' her to terminate, because that would be imposing on her. but her choice in imposing on you
awkward...no further thoughts
The terrible downside to multiple identities: multiple tax returns
Manliest Person on Skype
I can't believe I keep having to say this. Does no one ever read previous threads on the same/similar subject(s)?
It is unfair that a man sometimes has to pay child support for a child he never wanted to have and has no interest in. But it's less unfair than the alternatives. It would be worse to give men the deciding power over women's uteruses, and it would also be worse to leave innocent children (who had no say in the matter, considering they didn't even exist at the time the decision was made) with inadequate financial support.
Stuff what I do.
I tend to think of this question the other way around with the father not having any legal authority to say no to the abortion. Seems wrong to me that he can't control the process at all after conception yet is still held responsible.
But he can control the process before conception. If he doesn’t it is his own fault.
Fact is everybody who has sex knows the risks. For a man it is the financial responsibility. If he think this price is to high his only option is to have no sex.
Neither a pregnancy nor a abortion is free of risks for a woman. Even if everything works out fine the body is put under high stress. A man’s body does not suffer from the consequences of this decision so he has absolutely no right to tell the woman what to do.
edited 18th Jan '11 12:09:57 PM by Osmium
Her input was usually just as necessary as his for the conception, and if he has no control over whether it's brought to term or not it does not seem fair to penalize him for a decision he couldn't affect. It does not seem right to me to give all the decision making ability to a single party when the judgment affects both.
vigilantly taxonomish
But it's not a single party, because the man had to consent to sex in the first place.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
Yes, but once that's all done and the pregnancy occurs he can't do shit about it. I don't really mean the father should be able to force the mother to either have the baby or an abortion, but having either more control or less responsibility doesn't seem like too much to ask.
The Paedofinder General
@Karalora
I did search the forums but found nothing relating to the subject.
I still feel the "Male Abortion" of legal obligations is quite nifty due to the fact that in this case the mother can keep the child, whereas the man could sever the bits that affect him (as biologically he is not carrying a child.)
@Osmium
But what about in the case I added earlier:
If a man impregnates a woman with the explicit goal of having a child, in a manner that is mutually consensual, then it would be morally unacceptable for that woman to later have an abortion.
Oh My
Really? I distinctly remember seeing this topic come up at least three times. In abortion threads here in OTC as well as some other thread. It hasn't been granted its own thread to my knowledge, but if there's an abortion thread this has likely come up. The incident I remember most clearly was a few page argument on it between Karalora and Major Tom.
If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah
They see me troll'n
It's a simple matter of fact, women strip men of their freedom to choose.
If a woman has the choice if she wants to financially commit to a child. That is her choice alone. If a man tells her he is not going to commit, for whatever reasons, and she decides to rear and keep the baby of her own accord, then I do not see how the situation is "unfair" or whatever, "she knew perfectly well what she was getting into"
But men do not have that choice, they can't put the baby up for adoption unless the mother agrees. If they don't want the kid, it's fucking tough luck.
That's wrong.
Additionally, there should be more measures in place to prevent and prosecute mothers engaging in Paternity Fraud due to the current lax laws regarding the issue.
edited 18th Jan '11 1:07:16 PM by CommandoDude
My other signature is a Gundam.
vigilantly taxonomish
But in that case, you're giving men the opportunity to make a choice which may seriously damage a child's prospects when growing up.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
On the other hand, for the argument I was making, complete lack of responsibility wouldn't be something I'd approve of either. So I'm not really sure what I think and will just be careful not to get put into the situation myself. Pretty unlikely to happen.
The Paedofinder General
@Aeondoug
It had no topic dedicated to it, and I wanted to discuss the singular issue. I have read many thread about abortions as I find it interesting, however I haven't read every thread relating to in in full detail. Which I personally feel is a bit of an idiotic requirement as it requires going back through every thread remembering who said what and excluding newer forums members from having their say. 
However Back on topic:
@Osmium
(Additionally to my last post) The risk for a man having sex is not just a flat worry about financial dependency, and saying either worry about financial dependency is the only option other than no sex is ridiculous.
edited 18th Jan '11 1:12:41 PM by IanExMachina
By the powers invested in me by tabloid-reading imbeciles, I pronounce you guilty of paedophilia!
They see me troll'n
"But in that case, you're giving men the opportunity to make a choice which may seriously damage a child's prospects when growing up."
Abortion isn't technically the same?
Besides, it's not the man's fault if the woman want's to keep the child knowing it will impose hardship on herself and the child.
My other signature is a Gundam.
vigilantly taxonomish
No, abortions do not grow up.
And I don't see how that's any different from forcing a woman to have a child or an abortion. If she can't possibly raise the child by herself, and the man won't provide financial support, she has no choice but to get an abortion.
Then, of course, there are women who won't get abortions, either due to ethical/religious objections or due to emotional reasons, meaning the child would have to be raised by a parent who may not be able to provide for him or her sufficiently.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
The Paedofinder General
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
She does have other choices like benefits (I mean in the UK you have benefits so the situation described is less pressing.) and adoption.
edited 18th Jan '11 1:26:36 PM by IanExMachina
By the powers invested in me by tabloid-reading imbeciles, I pronounce you guilty of paedophilia!
They see me troll'n
...Adoption
Hell, in America, women can just leave newborns on the steps of a firestation no questions asked.
My other signature is a Gundam.
And deadbeat dads are probably worse then just letting them off the hook. You could set up a tax break for single mums with no support from the dad.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?
If a man impregnates a woman with the explicit goal of having a child, in a manner that is mutually consensual, then it would be morally unacceptable for that woman to later have an abortion.
It is still her body. Normally a woman does not go from “I want a child, let’s make one” to abortion without reason. If the circumstances change, she has a right to change her decision. Especially since she is the one most likely having to care for the child. If there is no change of the circumstances then a woman that indecisive is not really ready to be a mother.
And something else:
The child came in existence because two people decided to have sex. The child never had any choice in this matter. The child is the product of the decision this two people made, they are responsible for rising it.
Reducing a child to a mere financial burden to the father is a really fucked up way of thinking. There should be never ever be a easy way for a man to escape this responsibility just because he told the woman she should abort the child, he don’t want it.
The right of abortion is not there to give women a easy way out of financial responsibility. It is there to give woman a option to decide what happens to their body.
Are you saying because a man does not want to be responsible for his own action the society should pay?
Finally able to post
edited 18th Jan '11 2:55:43 PM by Osmium
Yes, you'd prefer they never receive assistance from their deadbeat dad?
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?
NOT THE BEES
The right of abortion is not there to give women a easy way out of financial responsibility.That is, however, explicitly why a large chunk of them happen (second most frequent reason),
so saying that kinda feels like a Double Standard.
edited 18th Jan '11 3:20:14 PM by Pykrete
The Paedofinder General
If the circumstances change, she has a right to change her decision.The child came in existence because two people decided to have sex. The child never had any choice in this matter. The child is the product of the decision this two people made, they are responsible for rising it.Reducing a child to a mere financial burden to the father is a really fucked up way of thinking. There should be never ever be a easy way for a man to escape this responsibility just because he told the woman she should abort the child, he don’t want it.edited 18th Jan '11 3:20:16 PM by IanExMachina
By the powers invested in me by tabloid-reading imbeciles, I pronounce you guilty of paedophilia!
Yes, you'd prefer they never receive assistance from their deadbeat dad?
When the parents are not able to support the child then society of course has to help. But when they can afford it, they have to support their child themselves.
That is, however, explicitly why a large chunk of them happen (second most frequent reason), so saying that kinda feels like a Double Standard.
She has a right to decide because it is her body. Her reason for this decision is independent of her right. In this moment the child reaches the state of being able to live independent of her body she has to fulfill the same responsibilities as the father toward the child.
But if the father's circumstances change he cannot change his position on the support?
No, because it is about the child’s right to be supported by its parents after it is born.
If he has specifically said the sex is for fun, and the woman mislead him, surely he cannot be held responsible in the way you claim.
MISLEAD?? What? How?? Every normal adult person knows that sex can result in babies. The fact that no contraceptive is 100 % save is known too. Even if she says, she uses the pill, it doesn’t mean pregnancy is impossible. Having sex just for fun does not mean that you are not responsible for the results. In the moment a man inserts his penis in a woman’s vagina he is in a unwritten contract which say that he is shares the responsibility for whatever comes out after nine month.
Eye'm the cutest!
^ If it's an unwritten contract that states shared responsibility why does it not state shared decision making? Horribly flawed logic in the contract or like all unwritten contracts worthless unless written down?
"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."
Firstly this topic whilst talking about abortions is not intended as a thread to discuss whether or not abortion is a valid choice.
In the majority of countries the woman has the right to abort her pregnancy, however the man who supplied genetic material does not have a say regarding abortions.
On one hand we have that women:
On the other hand the men have either:
There are arguments against only one sex having the full say on abortion:
I'm not entirely sure where I stand in this however I do like the idea of a "Male Abortion" (Melanie Mc Culley) where the father can "abort" their legal obligations to the unwanted child.
By the powers invested in me by tabloid-reading imbeciles, I pronounce you guilty of paedophilia!