Should Men Have a Say?

[rivrrat]

Biology has nothing to do with the fact that a woman can choose to abort but a man can't?

How would you change this legally?

It's not a matter of whether or not a man can 'abort'. That's not up for debate, nor is it an issue in the slightest. That's not what the discussion is about.

There are two legal ways to fix this that really have jack to do with biology.

1) Legally, we can make it illegal for a woman to have an abortion. (not the option I would choose)

2) Legally, we can allow a man to remove himself from financial obligation to a child whose life he CHOOSES not to be a part of. As long as the woman has a choice to not be a part of a child's life, then so should the man. Allowing the man to have the choice in no way prevents the woman from having a choice.

 

[nonpareil]

Biology has nothing to do with the fact that a woman can choose to abort but a man can't?

How would you change this legally?

The issue is whether men are liable to a baby he doesn't want. That has everything to do with the law and nothing to do with biology.

If you argue that if the man doesn't want to be liable he should not risk having children by having sex, the same applies to women and abortion.

 

[thatguymd]

Because only one gender can get pregnant, and therefore have an abortion.

The logic to this is not gender specific. It is saying that you do consent to unintended consequences that happen to your partner but not to yourself.

Based on that, you could sue someone for giving you an STD even if you knew it was a risk. Unless, of course, you are saying that pregnancy is the only unintended consequence that you agree to for someone else but not yourself. In which case, you would need a reason as to why pregnancy is the exception.

Um, yeah. She can have an abortion. The father can't. Pretty obvious.

First, you can abort a consented pregnancy because your are pregnant. Now you can do it because you can have an abortion. It just keeps getting better!

No, that's illegal. Abortion is legal.

My point exactly!

This is a common tactic. I am showing you that you logic makes no sense by applying it to other areas in an attempt to demostrate the flaw. So, by your logic I should be able to do all those other things. Meaning either those things should be legal or abortion should be illegal for your logic to be consistent.

But, wait! Let's see if you can display your mastery of debate and logic with a response like "But abortion is legal".

They are fair.

Everyone has the right to an abortion if they become pregnant.

Um... oh, nevermind.

She can abort because she's the pregnant one. Are you claiming the right of fathers to prevent abortion? That's a different issue.

I was starting to get at what rivrrat is already pointing out quite clearly. I'll let her try to explain that to you.

 

[molten_dragon]

Well put. It's not fair. But that's life.

This is called life. It's unfair sometimes.

This is such a cop out.

Sure, life isn't fair, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't endeavor to make our laws as fair as possible.

"Life isn't fair" is not a valid counter-argument to anything.

 

[misterman]

It's not a matter of whether or not a man can 'abort'. That's not up for debate, nor is it an issue in the slightest. That's not what the discussion is about.

There are two legal ways to fix this that really have jack to do with biology.

1) Legally, we can make it illegal for a woman to have an abortion. (not the option I would choose)

2) Legally, we can allow a man to remove himself from financial obligation to a child whose life he CHOOSES not to be a part of.

Why would we want to allow a man to remove himself from financial obligation to a child whose life he choose not to be a part of?

You want to make it legal for fathers to just walk away from their children? Why?

As long as the woman has a choice to not be a part of a child's life, then so should the man. Allowing the man to have the choice in no way prevents the woman from having a choice.

But the woman has a choice of whether to create that life. That's the difference. If she chooses to have the baby, she can't choose not to support it (except for adoption of course). At that point, the child exists. This is about the interests of the CHILD.

Just because women have nine months to decide and men have nine minutes doesn't mean you have to legally "fix" that situation. It's just the way it is.

 

[misterman]

This is such a cop out.

Sure, life isn't fair, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't endeavor to make our laws as fair as possible.

"Life isn't fair" is not a valid counter-argument to anything.

How are our laws the least bit unfair?

If you become the parent of a child, you must support it. That's the law. The fact that women have another chance at avoiding parenthood is irrelevant.

 

[VanceMack]

In your attempt to commit simple assault, you're very likely to commit murder. And in many states that's going to be two murders and maybe the death penalty.

Nah...its FAR more likely to just kill the zygote...and they can ALWAYS use 'choice' as their defense should the extreme happen.

And how can it POSSIBLY be a 'second murder' if the man does it when women have state and federal sanctioned RIGHT to do it???

 

[molten_dragon]

Biology has nothing to do with it. The law does. That can be changed.

This is exactly the point that Misterman and others like him aren't getting I think.

The fact that women have a longer time than men to get out of the obligation of being a parent has nothing whatsoever to do with biology, and everything to do with the law. And laws can always be changed.

Biologically speaking, a man has lots of options for getting out of his obligations as a father once the woman is pregnant. He could kill the fetus growing inside her, or simply kill the woman herself. Or he could simply abandon her and the child. The law however, says that all of these things are illegal, so he can't do them without facing punishment.

The woman on the other hand can kill the fetus (or have someone do it for her) to get out of her obligations and the law says that that is just fine.

 

[misterman]

First, you can abort a consented pregnancy because your are pregnant. Now you can do it because you can have an abortion. It just keeps getting better!

Only if you keep confusing biology with law.

This is a common tactic. I am showing you that you logic makes no sense by applying it to other areas in an attempt to demostrate the flaw. So, by your logic I should be able to do all those other things. Meaning either those things should be legal or abortion should be illegal for your logic to be consistent.

But my logic isn't flawed.

The reason a woman has the right to abort is because she's the pregnant one. There is no reason for the law to somehow fix that. If you choose to take the actions that result in fatherhood, and a child results, you are responsible. The fact that someone else could choose not to have that child is irrelevant to that fact.

 

[molten_dragon]

The fact that women have another chance at avoiding parenthood is irrelevant.

This is the unfair part, and it's far from irrelevant. A woman essentially has 9 extra months (less in some states) to decide whether she's ready to be a mother than the man had. That's unfair.

 

[misterman]

The fact that women have a longer time than men to get out of the obligation of being a parent has nothing whatsoever to do with biology

Did you think before you posted that?

 

[molten_dragon]

Did you think before you posted that?

Yes, I did.

You clearly didn't read the rest of my post.

 

[misterman]

The issue is whether men are liable to a baby he doesn't want. That has everything to do with the law and nothing to do with biology.

Fine.

Men should be liable for babies they father, even if they don't want them. Same with the mother.

Do you think parents should be able to simply declare they don't want their child and have no legal obligation to it?

If you argue that if the man doesn't want to be liable he should not risk having children by having sex, the same applies to women and abortion.

No, it applies AFTER the child is born. Before the child is born, there is no child to be obligated to yet. See how that works?

 

[misterman]

Yes, I did.

Think about it again.

 

[molten_dragon]

Think about it again.

Go back and read my post, I explained exactly what my thinking was. I'll wait a bit if you need to read it twice before it sinks in.

 

[rivrrat]

Why would we want to allow a man to remove himself from financial obligation to a child whose life he choose not to be a part of?

You want to make it legal for fathers to just walk away from their children? Why?

They should have the same choice in the matter as a woman does. A woman can choose to have the child, to not have the child, or to give the child up for adoption. The law should reflect a man's choice in the same matter.

But the woman has a choice of whether to create that life. That's the difference. If she chooses to have the baby, she can't choose not to support it (except for adoption of course). At that point, the child exists. This is about the interests of the CHILD.

The woman shouldn't have a child she can't support. If she chooses to have a child knowing full well she's doing it on her own, then that's her choice. If she can't support it, she can still choose to give it up for adoption. The child's interests are taken care of.

No man should have to pay for 18 years for something he never intended and never wanted.

Just because women have nine months to decide and men have nine minutes doesn't mean you have to legally "fix" that situation. It's just the way it is.

Yes, it does mean that we have to legally fix the situation. That's the way it is NOW, but that isn't the way it should be.

 

[rivrrat]

Do you think parents should be able to simply declare they don't want their child and have no legal obligation to it?

YES. They can do so now, as long as the mother makes the choice. Any parents can give their kid up for adoption. Any woman can have an abortion.

 

[nonpareil]

Fine.

Men should be liable for babies they father, even if they don't want them. Same with the mother.

But the women don't. She has the choice to leave it for adoption as you just admitted in the above post.

Do you think parents should be able to simply declare they don't want their child and have no legal obligation to it?

I have two responses to this, the reasoned one goes like this: It depends. Some parents not should have any legal relationship with their child even if they do want to. But the issue is the decision on whether to have the child before it is even born. If the father says no, and the women chooses to go ahead with the birth anyway, essentially she should bear the full burden of raising that child. It's her choice.

The second less reasonable one: Before the child is born, there is no child to be obligated to yet. See how that works?

No, it applies AFTER the child is born. Before the child is born, there is no child to be obligated to yet. See how that works?

Before there's sex there's no fetus to make decision on whether to keep or not. See how that works?

 

[Panache]

Men should be liable for babies they father, even if they don't want them. Same with the mother.

Do you think parents should be able to simply declare they don't want their child and have no legal obligation to it?

Parents are people who choose to have children. Dudes who donate their sperm for someone else to decide what to do with are sperm donors.

Why should men be financially obligated for helping someone else conceive the child that SHE wanted?

Do you also feel that women who donate eggs to help a barren couple have a child should be financially responsible? They made essentially the same contribution that a man does.

 

[OKgrannie]

Nah...its FAR more likely to just kill the zygote...and they can ALWAYS use 'choice' as their defense should the extreme happen.

Not true, the zef is well-protected by the woman's body. It's very difficult to injure a zef without severely injuring the woman. I heard of one case where a woman jumped off a roof in an attempt to cause a miscarriage...she broke both legs but went on to deliver a healthy baby. A man can't use "choice" as a defense, it's not HIS "choice."

Blunt Trauma in Pregnancy - October 1, 2004 - American Family Physician Patient Information Handout

Trauma is the most common cause of nonobstetric death among pregnant women in the United States. ....
Trauma affects 6 to 7 percent of pregnancies in the United States and is the leading cause of nonobstetric maternal death.1–4 A reported 0.3 percent of pregnant women require hospital admission because of trauma.4 Motor vehicle crashes, domestic violence, and falls are the most common causes of blunt trauma in pregnancy.1,3–13

The rate of fetal mortality after maternal blunt trauma is 3.4 to 38.0 percent,2,4,5,10–15 mostly from placental abruption, maternal shock, and maternal death11,12,16,17 (Table 1).4,11,14,16,18–21 Fetal loss can occur even when the mother has incurred no abdominal injuries.5,12 Regardless of the apparent severity of injury in blunt trauma, all pregnant women should be evaluated in a medical setting.5

And how can it POSSIBLY be a 'second murder' if the man does it when women have state and federal sanctioned RIGHT to do it???

Ask the authors of Fetal Homicide Laws.

 

[misterman]

Go back and read my post, I explained exactly what my thinking was. I'll wait a bit if you need to read it twice before it sinks in.

But your entire premise is wrong. Of course the fact that only women can abort is based on biology.

Unless you believe that men should have the right to force women to abort?

 

[misterman]

They should have the same choice in the matter as a woman does. A woman can choose to have the child, to not have the child, or to give the child up for adoption. The law should reflect a man's choice in the same matter.

Should a man be able to sue for abortion, perhaps? Go to court and say "I don't want this child, so she must be forced to abort?"

The woman shouldn't have a child she can't support. If she chooses to have a child knowing full well she's doing it on her own, then that's her choice. If she can't support it, she can still choose to give it up for adoption. The child's interests are taken care of.

So fathers can just dump their children, no questions asked, and it's the mothers fault for not aborting.

Is that really protecting the interests and rights of mothers and children?

No man should have to pay for 18 years for something he never intended and never wanted.

Yes he should. It's called responsibility. It applies to everything in life. If you don't intend or want something, yet you do something knowing it could happen, and it does, you are responsible.

Yes, it does mean that we have to legally fix the situation. That's the way it is NOW, but that isn't the way it should be.

Yes, it should be. Parents should be legally responsible for their offspring. It's one of the most important, fundamental principles of society.

 

[misterman]

YES. They can do so now, as long as the mother makes the choice. Any parents can give their kid up for adoption. Any woman can have an abortion.

Abortion isn't choosing not to be responsible for a kid. There is no kid yet. It's a decision not to have one in the first place.

Adoption is different. If you put up your child for adoption, both parents must agree. Adoption is the way society helps unwanted children. It is also for the child, not the parents. We do not and should not make it easier to just have kids and dump them. That's bad for everyone. If we make it easy for fathers to walk away, it makes it more likely that mothers will too, and you end up with more unwanted kids born and more given up and supported by the rest of us. That's not a good situation and we shouldn't make it easy.

 

[Panache]

Should a man be able to sue for abortion, perhaps? Go to court and say "I don't want this child, so she must be forced to abort?"

Why should he be able to deny the mother her own role? He should be able to go to court and abort his own participation.

So fathers can just dump their children, no questions asked, and it's the mothers fault for not aborting.

Sperm donors can anyways. The women should be grateful enough for the assistance in conceiving without having to pay a sperm bank and a doctor.

Is that really protecting the interests and rights of mothers and children?

It is protecting the interests of humans in general.

Yes he should. It's called responsibility. It applies to everything in life. If you don't intend or want something, yet you do something knowing it could happen, and it does, you are responsible.

If some woman chooses to uses your sperm for something you didn't intend, then the consequences are all on her, since it was her choice. Being a sperm donor does not a father make.

Yes, it should be. Parents should be legally responsible for their offspring. It's one of the most important, fundamental principles of society.

"Parents" are people who choose to have children. If the only one choosing to have a child is the mother, then she is the only parent, and ergo the only one responsible for her offspring.

 

[rivrrat]

Should a man be able to sue for abortion, perhaps? Go to court and say "I don't want this child, so she must be forced to abort?"

LMFAO No, and no one is suggesting anything of the sort.

What we ARE suggesting is that the man can go to court and state he does not want the child she is CHOOSING to have, and therefore wants released from all financial obligations should she CHOOSE to have and keep the child.

So fathers can just dump their children, no questions asked, and it's the mothers fault for not aborting.

I don't know what you're asking here

Is that really protecting the interests and rights of mothers and children?

YES. No rights are infringed upon for the mother OR the children. None whatsoever. And if the woman cannot financially manage a child on her own without forcing the man to pay out the ass for 20 years, then she has the choice NOT TO BE A PARENT. She has two resources available for her in that regard. Mothers and childs interests are protected.

Yes he should. It's called responsibility. It applies to everything in life. If you don't intend or want something, yet you do something knowing it could happen, and it does, you are responsible.

So, he's responsible for his sperm swimming up her vagina. Big whoop. That doesn't mean he needs to pay for the rest of his life for ****ing the wrong woman. Much like we're allowed to seek treatment when we have accidents. Yes, we're 'responsible' for our car accident since we chose to get into the car. But we can also seek treatment for our injuries.

Yes, it should be. Parents should be legally responsible for their offspring. It's one of the most important, fundamental principles of society.

Well, aside from abortion and adoption, that is.

No, as long as a woman has a choice in whether or not to be a mother (be it by abortion or adoption), then so should the man. Period.