Except that for the man viability of unborn plays no part in his choices. It makes no difference if the man leaves before 24 weeks or after twenty four weeks as he is not connected to the child. Making the man play by the same rules as a pregnant woman is not fair as the realities of the situation for men is different.
We will not do what has to be done to make the situation more equal, but here is the properly impartial argument.
1) The woman has to have the right to make the decision whether to continue or end the pregnancy simply because it involves risk to her body, and notably the risk of her death is much higher in childbirth than in early abortion. So the guy can't have input on that.
2) However, if the guy does not want to be a legal father, he should have the right to opt out. If she wants to be a legal mother anyway, that should be on her.
3) That said, there are all kinds of caveats.
First, no matter what the woman chooses, it is going to cost her money. Her least costly option is early abortion. Hence, even if the guy wants to opt out, he should have to pay the woman the equivalent of 50% of the cost of the abortion she could get, plus 50% of any costs such as overnight stays, transportation, etc., that are necessary for that option. He should have to pay that much, 50% of the least costly option.
If he wants to be considered the legal father, he should have to pay for 50% of the pregnancy and childbirth/hospitalization costs, including springing for 50% of the maternity clothes she will have to buy because her clothes won't fit her. If she is injured in childbirth or has medical issues while nursing, he should have to go in on the costs for probably six weeks afterwards.
Also, rapists should not have any say. They should not be allowed to assert legal fathers' rights vis-a-vis children who grew from their rape fertilization of a woman. The woman should have the right to prevent him from ever coming near her or the child. I don't even think he should be allowed to pay 50% of the minimal amount to her, but only to the government, which can then provide the sum to her under its name and not the name of the rapist.
But similarly, if a woman rapes a man and gets pregnant by that act, if she wants an abortion, he should absolutely not have to pay anything, and if she wants to carry to term, I really do not think she should be allowed to keep the child she bears unless the man agrees to it.
So there are all sorts of details that would have to be worked out to make the system more equal.
And the reason we are not going to do that is that, if men are given some degree of equal responsibility, they will abuse it and start wanting to have a say over whether or not a woman gets the right to choose abortion. Women know that it is better by far to take all the responsibility and incur all the costs than to let a man start to butt in on that issue.
I think it should be opt-in, not opt-out.
You opt-in when you have sex. There's always a probability of pregnancy, even when using birth control. This is known.
Welcome back! I hope you are well.
I agree with most of this. Only thing I would add is that if the man opts out and at any time before the child turns 18, the woman applies for and qualifies for public support, then he should have to pay child support until she is off assistance (or the child turns 18, whichever comes first). If it comes down to him or the taxpayer paying, it should not be the taxpayer.
Having sex is in no way shape or form agreeing to gestate and give birth should pregnancy occur. Just like smoking is not agreeing to not seek to have any resulting tumours removed from one's body.
Cancer and reproduction are two very different things. Sorry if you cannot see the difference.
You opt-in when you have sex. There's always a probability of pregnancy, even when using birth control. This is known.
You opt-in when you have sex. There's always a probability of pregnancy, even when using birth control. This is known.
We will not do what has to be done to make the situation more equal, but here is the properly impartial argument.
1) The woman has to have the right to make the decision whether to continue or end the pregnancy simply because it involves risk to her body, and notably the risk of her death is much higher in childbirth than in early abortion. So the guy can't have input on that.
2) However, if the guy does not want to be a legal father, he should have the right to opt out. If she wants to be a legal mother anyway, that should be on her.
3) That said, there are all kinds of caveats.
First, no matter what the woman chooses, it is going to cost her money. Her least costly option is early abortion. Hence, even if the guy wants to opt out, he should have to pay the woman the equivalent of 50% of the cost of the abortion she could get, plus 50% of any costs such as overnight stays, transportation, etc., that are necessary for that option. He should have to pay that much, 50% of the least costly option.
If he wants to be considered the legal father, he should have to pay for 50% of the pregnancy and childbirth/hospitalization costs, including springing for 50% of the maternity clothes she will have to buy because her clothes won't fit her. If she is injured in childbirth or has medical issues while nursing, he should have to go in on the costs for probably six weeks afterwards.
Also, rapists should not have any say. They should not be allowed to assert legal fathers' rights vis-a-vis children who grew from their rape fertilization of a woman. The woman should have the right to prevent him from ever coming near her or the child. I don't even think he should be allowed to pay 50% of the minimal amount to her, but only to the government, which can then provide the sum to her under its name and not the name of the rapist.
But similarly, if a woman rapes a man and gets pregnant by that act, if she wants an abortion, he should absolutely not have to pay anything, and if she wants to carry to term, I really do not think she should be allowed to keep the child she bears unless the man agrees to it.
And the reason we are not going to do that is that, if men are given some degree of equal responsibility, they will abuse it and start wanting to have a say over whether or not a woman gets the right to choose abortion. Women know that it is better by far to take all the responsibility and incur all the costs than to let a man start to butt in on that issue.
How about if it were tied to the existing abortion policy? Women still have the right to slaughter unborn children then the man has the right to opt out of care if the woman decides to keep the baby. But if the law ever changes to what you presumably would like to see happen...a ban on abortions...THEN the man has no opt out rights.Well, to stay inside the parameters of your O, and to also keep in line with my pro-life ideology, I'm forced to support an unfair towards men position. If a man is having sex, and a baby results from said sex, he should be responsible for the support and care for said child and have no opt-out option.
The act of consensual sex doesnt eliminate the womans right to choose to slaughter her unborn child. Why should it eliminate the fathers right to opt in or out of the childs care?You opt-in when you have sex. There's always a probability of pregnancy, even when using birth control. This is known.
How about if it were tied to the existing abortion policy? Women still have the right to slaughter unborn children then the man has the right to opt out of care if the woman decides to keep the baby. But if the law ever changes to what you presumably would like to see happen...a ban on abortions...THEN the man has no opt out rights.
Fair enough?
You opt-in when you have sex. There's always a probability of pregnancy, even when using birth control. This is known.
It's an analogy and it's perfectly valid.
The act of consensual sex doesnt eliminate the womans right to choose to slaughter her unborn child. Why should it eliminate the fathers right to opt in or out of the childs care?
So you're against abortion?
Yes...the law is the law but we are discussing a philosophical perspective. If the world is all about equality, then why would a mans rights be any different than a womans? Why would you hold the position that the choice to have sex MANDATES the man be responsible, but gives the woman an option to either keep the child or slaughter it rather than care for it?The law is as the law is, but the fact remains that there's a human on the line. And we can say "oh yes, it should be fair and men should be able to beat our responsibility too", but to do only increases the suffering of another. One has responsibility to the life they create, and intended or not, that life is real and so are the consequences. Consensual sex is the opt in.
Yes...the law is the law but we are discussing a philosophical perspective. If the world is all about equality, then why would a mans rights be any different than a womans? Why would you hold the position that the choice to have sex MANDATES the man be responsible, but gives the woman an option to either keep the child or slaughter it rather than care for it?
If we're not considering the law, but pure philosophy, my argument stands as stated. Neither man nor woman could "opt out" as it were under nominal circumstances.
I have long argued on the pro-life side.
And yet under the law as well as from your philosophical perspective, the woman CAN opt out. Out of sheer convenience (or rather inconvenience).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?