TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Abortions and Men's Rights

Go To

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#51: Jan 19th 2011 at 12:48:12 PM

Just write into the surrogate pregnancy contract that the surrogate will have to pay financial costs (including compensating the mother back for any money given to her so far) if she aborts in the middle of things. Surrogate keeps control of her body and the transaction works like any other contract - there are penalties to serve as a disincentive for backing out.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
joeyjojo Happy New Year! from South Sydney: go the bunnies! Since: Jan, 2001
Happy New Year!
#52: Jan 19th 2011 at 3:00:44 PM

In the case of the surrogate, I see no reason why the genetic mother can't get an injunction against an abortion. The surrogate mother made a legal contract of her own will.
In the US at least women aren't allow to abort their pregnancy they have the right to.

Roe vs Wade didn't just decided that abortion was legal (It was already legal in quite a few northern states) it also decided it was unconstitutional to outlaw it. There are some rights that you can't signed away and control over your own body is one of them.

Let say your in las vegas and after hitting the casinos you want to break some more commandments and go to a whore house. You pay the madame and pick out this cute little red head girl called brandy. You go into a private room and get busy but in an attempt to to lighten the mood you call her some pet name. It just so happens that it was the same name her mother called her as a child. She starts breaking down crying and is way to upset to willingly perform for you.

Now your sympathetic and all but your flying out of the city in fours hours and your have already pay for your time. Now surely you have to right to take was is yours.

The same applies with the Surrogate. She has to right to change her mind at any time as it's her body that's being used.

edited 19th Jan '11 3:05:36 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid
CommandoDude Since: Jun, 2010
#53: Jan 19th 2011 at 3:54:26 PM

"With the "paper abortion" issue, though, the debate isn't over men's bodies, but men's money. Why people keep equating the two is beyond me."

I don't even get what you're trying to say. The debate is clearly over the financial responsibilities of the parties involved. The actual act of abortion is just a variable to the end of the debate.

Karalora Since: Jan, 2001
#54: Jan 19th 2011 at 3:59:15 PM

The financial responsibilities are identical. When a child is born, both biological parents are required to contribute to its support unless they mutually agree to put it up for adoption.

CommandoDude Since: Jun, 2010
#55: Jan 19th 2011 at 4:01:19 PM

However, the woman's decision supercedes the man's. She's the one with the veto power.

joeyjojo Happy New Year! from South Sydney: go the bunnies! Since: Jan, 2001
Happy New Year!
#56: Jan 19th 2011 at 4:17:32 PM

While I admit that's true in practice it's not true in legal principle.

hashtagsarestupid
CommandoDude Since: Jun, 2010
#57: Jan 19th 2011 at 4:25:19 PM

Your point? They made slavery illegal after the civil war and a large amount of blacks might as well still have been considered "slaves" as sharecroppers due to circumstances.

If it still happens in practice then something is wrong.

Karalora Since: Jan, 2001
#58: Jan 19th 2011 at 4:27:25 PM

Commando Dude, you're conflating two (related but) separate issues: 1) who gets to decide whether a pregnancy is completed, and 2) who pays for a born child. The woman gets to decide 1) because it takes place in her body, and for no other reason. Both parents must pony up for 2). Your anger is misplaced.

I agree that it is unfair that men sometimes wind up on the hook for children they never wanted. But it is less unfair than consigning children to poverty because their parents couldn't agree upon whether or not to have them. And it is way less unfair than letting men dictate that women must have abortions in order to suit their (the men's) pocketbooks.

CommandoDude Since: Jun, 2010
#59: Jan 19th 2011 at 4:50:24 PM

"But it is less unfair than consigning children to poverty because their parents couldn't agree upon whether or not to have them."

Shocking news. It happens anyways. If anything, it's the mother's fault for having then keeping the child if she knows she can't raise it with or without the support of the father.

"And it is way less unfair than letting men dictate that women must have abortions in order to suit their (the men's) pocketbooks."

Forfeiting parental responsibility =/= Forcing women to abort. That's just plain logical fallacy.

"Both parents must pony up for 2)."

The issue is that this is wrong. Women can choose not to. I'm not conflating two separate issues. They're separate, but the latter is entirely dependent of the outcome of the former. Which means, de facto, the choice is the woman's.

In anycase, the statement is wrong at its very core. Both parents must pony up for it only if they agree not to abandon it. I see no reason why this mutual but lopsided arrangement shouldn't be displaced by a fairer alternative allowing an individual, rather then dual, option.

joeyjojo Happy New Year! from South Sydney: go the bunnies! Since: Jan, 2001
Happy New Year!
#60: Jan 19th 2011 at 4:53:15 PM

If the women decides to bring the child into the world then by the same logic she decides to take on the responsibility of parenthood. No one is forcing her to give birth. Staying pregnant was her choice.

edited 19th Jan '11 4:57:38 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid
RawPower Jesus as in Revelations from Barcelona Since: Aug, 2009
Jesus as in Revelations
#61: Jan 20th 2011 at 6:12:33 PM

Yup, if the dude don't want in but she want it she pay for it. Sounds like common sense to me.

'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?
Karalora Since: Jan, 2001
#62: Jan 20th 2011 at 6:43:56 PM

Staying pregnant was her choice.

It wasn't the child's choice. Child support is for the child, not for the mother.

CommandoDude Since: Jun, 2010
#63: Jan 20th 2011 at 7:06:14 PM

Except the money goes to the mother. Who can choose to use it however she wants. Even if she isn't in financial trouble.

Karalora Since: Jan, 2001
#64: Jan 20th 2011 at 7:27:11 PM

Well, maybe that's a weakness in the system that can be corrected without throwing the whole thing out. Perhaps instead of giving the mother money straight out, the father could buy "child care vouchers" to send to her, which could only be spent on groceries, children's clothing, school supplies, etc. Although I would worry about the inefficiency involved in introducing a middleman like that.

joeyjojo Happy New Year! from South Sydney: go the bunnies! Since: Jan, 2001
Happy New Year!
#65: Jan 20th 2011 at 7:45:27 PM

Okay that sound like a good idea. sort of like food stamps.

edited 20th Jan '11 7:50:17 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#66: Jan 20th 2011 at 7:48:34 PM

^^ Better yet if you don't want to abandon the entire concept of child support payments (for either gender), introduce accountability. Basically put strings on the check saying if you don't spend X arbitrary amount on child care, food, children's clothing, etc. relating to the kid, you'll be booted from further payments. Enforcement is simple, a periodic check of the finances and expenditures of the child support payment recipient. They do periodic checks for welfare handouts, why not do it for child support payments?

RawPower Jesus as in Revelations from Barcelona Since: Aug, 2009
Jesus as in Revelations
#67: Jan 20th 2011 at 7:50:37 PM

So you boot that person, what about the child? If you boot her, at least take the child away from her. If she ain't paying for him before, she ain't paying for her later either.

'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#68: Jan 20th 2011 at 7:56:44 PM

Acceptable too. Either way accountability needs to be introduced into the system.

Karalora Since: Jan, 2001
#69: Jan 20th 2011 at 8:09:17 PM

[up][up] I have to say no, taking the child away is not a good idea. If the custodial parent is not spending the child support money on the child anyway, the child will hardly be harmed by the cessation of payments. They are likely to suffer if removed from the home and family they are used to.

edited 20th Jan '11 8:09:32 PM by Karalora

MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#70: Jan 20th 2011 at 8:12:45 PM

^ You could do a custody swap. Say we have a mother receiving child support payments from the father who doesn't have custody and she doesn't spend a lick of it on child care etc. Why not in the process of accountability just swap custody roles? She's being negligent anyways. Give custody to the father and force the negligent mother to pony up child support, she wasn't gonna spend it on the kid anyways so why not give the father a chance to do better?

neoYTPism Since: May, 2010
#71: Jan 20th 2011 at 8:14:40 PM

"They are likely to suffer if removed from the home and family they are used to." - Karalora

As opposed to being with the family that is clearly misspending the money it is recieving?

At the very least, you'd think they'd get used to said new home over time. o.o

Karalora Since: Jan, 2001
#72: Jan 20th 2011 at 8:15:20 PM

You could do a custody swap.

That would still constitute an upheaval in the child's life. Also, up until now we've been talking about cases where one biological parent wants nothing to do with the kid but must pay child support because someone has to.

As opposed to being with the family that is clearly misspending the money it is recieving?

Um...yes. Young children don't know about misspent money; but they do know where they live and who their family is.

edited 20th Jan '11 8:18:40 PM by Karalora

MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#73: Jan 20th 2011 at 8:17:30 PM

Those are the situations you call a broken home. The child support recipient is negligent and the other party wants nothing to do with it. There's no ethical reason to keep the kid in that situation.

Karalora Since: Jan, 2001
#74: Jan 20th 2011 at 8:22:32 PM

1. That's the most specific definition of "broken home" I've ever heard of. You might want to be careful throwing around statements like "a child in a broken home should be removed" until you're sure everyone is using the term the same way.

2. The child's mental well-being is an ethical reason.

3. In any case, you certainly wouldn't start by taking the child away. You start by educating the negligent parent. They don't all do it out of malice, you know; some of them just have really screwed up priorities and need help sorting them out. Psychiatric treatment might be indicated in some cases.

MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#75: Jan 20th 2011 at 8:32:03 PM

The child's mental well-being could not be worse in a negligent home like that. (Unless anywhere else is even more abusive.)

Secondly, there are those who even with education and psychiatric treatment would not suddenly turn into the perfect single parent. A lot of those people who misallocate child support like that, aren't going to change their priorities, they've already decided the kid's a free meal ticket nothing more.


Total posts: 78
Top