So if the man has no choice in the matter whatsoever about the decision to abort or have the baby, does that mean conversely he also has the choice to leave the woman to her own devices if she has the baby? Or does he have no choice in that, either?
Wanted to continue this outside the abortion thread.
Basically, in the event of a woman choosing to have the baby from a pregnancy, then what should the man's responsibilities be (even if he does not want the child)? Should he be expected to contribute financially, or does he bare little or no responsibility because it was ultimately the woman's decision?
1.) He helped make the baby so he'd damn well better help raise it and provide for it.
2.) If the woman can terminate the pregnancy without the man's consent then the man should be able to deny the woman child support by permanently giving up his parental rights.
I personally like number 1 better because it gets kids taken care of, but I can't let go of number 2 because it's complete and utter bullshit that after 2 people are irresponsible and conceive and unplanned baby only one party gets to decide whether that baby is delivered and whether the father owes child support.
I don't want to be the one to give you "the talk", but it seems like you missed out on something if you imagine that when having intercourse with a woman, and pregnancy occurs, that she is "using your DNA to make something". She isn't doing shit, the laws of nature are. She's just making the decision whether or not to let this kid gestate in her womb, or not.
And the MOMENT that decision becomes ENTIRELY hers? So should the legal consequences. That "decision" she is making is the Action I refer to when I say "using [my] DNA to make something", even if I expressed it unclearly.
Be assured, you bare as much responsibility for that initial conception as she does (barring certain extreme cases)
Conception? Yes. I'll go the extra mile and say a man bears as much responsibility for the delivery, no matter what method (or time frame) is decided upon for said delivery. She will eventually have to suffer an abortion or delivery; he should pay the costs to ensure this is done safely and to medical standards.
But the buck should stop there, because deciding to raise a new person is a different decision from the decision to abort or allow a fetus to come to term. And I believe it more detrimental for society as a whole, and a child in particular, when a parent is forced to contribute to that child's development in any way, shape, or form if they do not wish to help out.
Summary: I think that both parties were close enough to have sex, and should be close enough to share the consequences of that. But should an impasse be reached, I think it is dangerously hypocritical to allow the legal system to force a person to deal with the consequences of a decision he or she had no say in.
I'm not as interested in his responsibilities so much as his rights. For instance, if a woman decides to have a child and doesn't want the father involved, how much right does the father have to be involved in the life of the child? I would LIKE to have some rights legally toward my offspring, regardless of how the mother feels, but I don't know if I want to make it a universal right.
I can see both sides offered but I can't support the deadbeat dad side of the house, I'm sorry.
If you are mature enough and responsible enough to have sex, then you should be mature enough and responsible enough to live with any outcome or ramification of those actions.
I'm not as interested in his responsibilities so much as his rights. For instance, if a woman decides to have a child and doesn't want the father involved, how much right does the father have to be involved in the life of the child? I would LIKE to have some rights legally toward my offspring, regardless of how the mother feels, but I don't know if I want to make it a universal right.
I don't think you can really have one without the other. You don't the right to help raise a child and be involved in its life without shouldering some of the responsibility when times get tough. You're either there or you're not.
I don't see a reason to absolve the guy from his responsibilities to the child.
And the guy does have a choice in the matter. Maybe not the last part of it, but he definitely has a choice.
So consenting to sex = consenting to fatherhood? I know many people here get a little angry when that standard is applied to motherhood. I mean, this very same logic could be used to take away the woman's right to an abortion, no?
1.) He helped make the baby so he'd damn well better help raise it and provide for it.
2.) If the woman can terminate the pregnancy without the man's consent then the man should be able to deny the woman child support by permanently giving up his parental rights.
1) overrides 2) only because 2) merely punishes the child, who is the one person who had no say in the matter.
Basically, a couple made a baby, and it's being raised by one of them. This child needs to be provided for. You need to tell us why the state (tax dollars) should be providing for it, and not the people who made it.
And the guy does have a choice in the matter. Maybe not the last part of it, but he definitely has a choice.
Disagree completely. There are, in fact, several choices here:
- The choice to have sex
- The choice to use protection DURING sex
- The choice to use protection during sex and make your intentions clear and come to an agreement if only verbal ("if you get pregnant, I want nothing to do with it")
and, once pregnant, there is:
- The choice to abort or deliver
- The choice of what to do after delivery (adopt or keep)
They all do not follow from each other, and aren't part of some meta-choice. They are separate, and though one leads to another, things fall down right about at the point of pregnancy - when the choice to keep or abort occurs (all woman).
Also, I'd be interested to know of any precidents dealing with point 3 (where a verbal consensus was reached beforehand).
I can see both sides offered but I can't support the deadbeat dad side of the house, I'm sorry.
If you are mature enough and responsible enough to have sex, then you should be mature enough and responsible enough to live with any outcome or ramification of those actions.
Imagine this. Ben and Sue and in a relationship. They're having sex and using protection. They've discussed what happens in the off chance that Sue gets pregnant, and they agree that she'll terminate the pregnancy. Several months later, they find out that Sue is pregnant, but she refuses to terminate.
Explain to me how the man was not responsible in this case. Explain to me why Sue should get to dictate whether he has to pay for a baby that he doesn't want to be born when the two parties involved agreed that she would terminate beforehand. And explain to me why legally, not biologically, it makes sense for one party to hold all of the decision-making power when both parties are equally involved.
I'm not as interested in his responsibilities so much as his rights. For instance, if a woman decides to have a child and doesn't want the father involved, how much right does the father have to be involved in the life of the child? I would LIKE to have some rights legally toward my offspring, regardless of how the mother feels, but I don't know if I want to make it a universal right.
Why not? I'd argue that assuming the father is financially supporting the child, he should have the same parental rights as the mother, until/unless there are compelling reasons not to (say, abuse or other things which would normally remove parental rights)
Granted, *custody* agreements are more complex, but certainly a financially supportive father, regardless of his relationship with the mother should have parental rights.
Basically, a couple made a baby, and it's being raised by one of them. This child needs to be provided for. You need to tell us why the state (tax dollars) should be providing for it, and not the people who made it.
Because the state says that only one one of those people has the option of deciding to un-make it?
Don't get me wrong, I think the current system pretty much has to stay. But I'll not pretend that it's anything but the least bad choice.
I don't see a reason to absolve the guy from his responsibilities to the child.
And the guy does have a choice in the matter. Maybe not the last part of it, but he definitely has a choice.
So consenting to sex = consenting to fatherhood? I know many people here get a little angry when that standard is applied to motherhood. I mean, this very same logic could be used to take away the woman's right to an abortion, no?
Yes, it is consenting to the risk fatherhood. I'm ok with eliminating this risk, though, as soon as a practical solution becomes available. Haven't heard one, though.
Basically, a couple made a baby, and it's being raised by one of them. This child needs to be provided for. You need to tell us why the state (tax dollars) should be providing for it, and not the people who made it.
Funds? Lack of experience? Lack of desire? Because the state (rightly) removes the choice of abortion from one party?
And before everyone looks at "lack of desire" as some sort of deadbeat-anythingism, why don't you talk to someone in the know about how absolutely fucking harmful it is to be grudgingly raised by someone out of obligation instead of love. All it would take is a visit to many county prisons.
I don't see a reason to absolve the guy from his responsibilities to the child.
And the guy does have a choice in the matter. Maybe not the last part of it, but he definitely has a choice.
So consenting to sex = consenting to fatherhood? I know many people here get a little angry when that standard is applied to motherhood. I mean, this very same logic could be used to take away the woman's right to an abortion, no?
Yes, it is consenting to the risk fatherhood. I'm ok with eliminating this risk, though, as soon as a practical solution becomes available. Haven't heard one, though.
I know of one, but it involves sharp things and scrotums.
I don't see a reason to absolve the guy from his responsibilities to the child.
And the guy does have a choice in the matter. Maybe not the last part of it, but he definitely has a choice.
So consenting to sex = consenting to fatherhood? I know many people here get a little angry when that standard is applied to motherhood. I mean, this very same logic could be used to take away the woman's right to an abortion, no?
1.) He helped make the baby so he'd damn well better help raise it and provide for it.
2.) If the woman can terminate the pregnancy without the man's consent then the man should be able to deny the woman child support by permanently giving up his parental rights.
1) overrides 2) only because 2) merely punishes the child, who is the one person who had no say in the matter.
I think consenting to sex means consenting to the possibility that you could father a child, and be responsible (at least financially) until that child is 18. After the child is concieved, the fathers rights end. Completely, until that child is born the father has no say in what happens to it. As I said in the last thread, the father and mother share equal responsibility in creating it, but the father has zero responsibility when it comes to carrying it. It isn't his body going all fun-house mirror on him (thank you Family Guy.)
here's an easy solution, before sticking your dick in something, have some foresight about how this stuff might turn out. If you aren't in a stable relationship, chances are your going to end up with either an aborted baby, or you paying child support payments for a long ass time. But you know what, those are things to think about before dipping your wick, not after.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
I don't see a reason to absolve the guy from his responsibilities to the child.
And the guy does have a choice in the matter. Maybe not the last part of it, but he definitely has a choice.
So consenting to sex = consenting to fatherhood? I know many people here get a little angry when that standard is applied to motherhood. I mean, this very same logic could be used to take away the woman's right to an abortion, no?
I can't comment on other debates but yeah, consenting to sex = consenting to the fact that hey, you might become a father! Biologically, yes, the woman at this point holds the cards in determining the future of the pregnancy - sure, that might be unfair but isn't something that can be changed.
Basically, a couple made a baby, and it's being raised by one of them. This child needs to be provided for. You need to tell us why the state (tax dollars) should be providing for it, and not the people who made it.
I'd phrase it more like this:
Basically, a couple made a baby, and it's being raised by one of them. This child needs to be provided for. The person who had the final say in having the child was not financially capable of supporting it. You need to tell us why the father should be on the hook for providing for it, and not the mother who chose to have it.
The 'male pill' gets bandied about at various times, but that still wouldn't eliminate the risk.
The risk can never be completely eliminated.
Honestly, I can't help but feel that the decision to have sex does, in fact, carry the risk of becoming a parent. Granted, it can be mitigated in one way or another by a number of things (condoms, pills, agreements on abortion/adoption/financial responsibility), but it can never be eliminated.
Everyone must decide for themselves how much risk of parenthood they're willing to accept before engaging in sex, but it must be understood there's always *some* risk.
Without child support, though, you're offering many women a false choice. Namely: if you're a woman, poor, are pregnant, and the biological father does not want to be an actual father and can simply run away with no responsibilities whatsoever, what choice do you have BUT to abort or put their child up for adoption? You can't support the child on your own and state money is not enough. In this situation, if the woman wanted to keep the child, her only realistic option is to abort it/give it away. That ends up curtailing women's rights far too much to be a viable option.
Or let's say that the state will provide enough money to support the child. Why should society be bearing the burden and not the father when the father had a direct hand in creating the child (having sex, for instance)? It seems to me that far more responsibility weighs on the father than it does on the state in the creation of a child.
Either you end up with a false choice for many poor women (infringing on their right to keep their children) or you end up costing taxpayers more money and requiring a huge investment in pubic infrastructure. Which system seems more efficient and equitable to you? Huge government child-care programs (which are already under attack and underfunded/staffed) or child-support payments by fathers?
Basically, a couple made a baby, and it's being raised by one of them. This child needs to be provided for. You need to tell us why the state (tax dollars) should be providing for it, and not the people who made it.
Funds? Lack of experience? Lack of desire? Because the state (rightly) removes the choice of abortion from one party?
And before everyone looks at "lack of desire" as some sort of deadbeat-anythingism, why don't you talk to someone in the know about how absolutely fucking harmful it is to be grudgingly raised by someone out of obligation instead of love. All it would take is a visit to many county prisons.
Funds? Sure, they should be taken into account? And lack of desire? I'm not sure what that has to do with child support payments, but I guess I should've made it clear that that's what I'm talking about. And the third just does not follow.
The 'male pill' gets bandied about at various times, but that still wouldn't eliminate the risk.
The risk can never be completely eliminated.
Honestly, I can't help but feel that the decision to have sex does, in fact, carry the risk of becoming a parent. Granted, it can be mitigated in one way or another by a number of things (condoms, pills, agreements on abortion/adoption/financial responsibility), but it can never be eliminated.
Everyone must decide for themselves how much risk of parenthood they're willing to accept before engaging in sex, but it must be understood there's always *some* risk.
Aye. Most of this conversation is borne out of the immature desire (of all parties) to have sex be free of consequences. It's not; despite all our fetishising of it and the rise of casual sex.
I don't see a reason to absolve the guy from his responsibilities to the child.
And the guy does have a choice in the matter. Maybe not the last part of it, but he definitely has a choice.
So consenting to sex = consenting to fatherhood? I know many people here get a little angry when that standard is applied to motherhood. I mean, this very same logic could be used to take away the woman's right to an abortion, no?
Yes, it is consenting to the risk fatherhood. I'm ok with eliminating this risk, though, as soon as a practical solution becomes available. Haven't heard one, though.
I don't believe that consenting to fatherhood is necessarily implied by having sex. People can have sex without any intention of becoming parents.
Basically, a couple made a baby, and it's being raised by one of them. This child needs to be provided for. You need to tell us why the state (tax dollars) should be providing for it, and not the people who made it.
I'd phrase it more like this:
Basically, a couple made a baby, and it's being raised by one of them. This child needs to be provided for. The person who had the final say in having the child was not financially capable of supporting it. You need to tell us why the father should be on the hook for providing for it, and not the mother who chose to have it.
And explain to me why legally, not biologically, it makes sense for one party to hold all of the decision-making power when both parties are equally involved.
Legally, it is so because of biology. Sure it's unfair but that is the risk you take in having sex. Verbal agreements aren't worth the paper they're signed on. You want a legal way out of it? Get something drafted by a lawyer and sign it.
I don't see a reason to absolve the guy from his responsibilities to the child.
And the guy does have a choice in the matter. Maybe not the last part of it, but he definitely has a choice.
So consenting to sex = consenting to fatherhood? I know many people here get a little angry when that standard is applied to motherhood. I mean, this very same logic could be used to take away the woman's right to an abortion, no?
Yes, it is consenting to the risk fatherhood. I'm ok with eliminating this risk, though, as soon as a practical solution becomes available. Haven't heard one, though.
I don't believe that consenting to fatherhood is necessarily implied by having sex. People can have sex without any intention of becoming parents.
It doesn't matter what you believe, because it's true. Are you saying that you have sex without acknowledging the possibility that pregnancy is a risk?
here's an easy solution, before sticking your dick in something, have some foresight about how this stuff might turn out. If you aren't in a stable relationship, chances are your going to end up with either an aborted baby, or you paying child support payments for a long ass time. But you know what, those are things to think about before dipping your wick, not after.
Why do people think this argument works when were talking about the father, but not when were talking about the mother. You could easily change this around to talk about the mother, but for some reason thats wrong.
Basically, a couple made a baby, and it's being raised by one of them. This child needs to be provided for. You need to tell us why the state (tax dollars) should be providing for it, and not the people who made it.
I'd phrase it more like this:
Basically, a couple made a baby, and it's being raised by one of them. This child needs to be provided for. The person who had the final say in having the child was not financially capable of supporting it. You need to tell us why the father should be on the hook for providing for it, and not the mother who chose to have it.
The final say doesn't mean you had no say.
But he does have little to no say. I don't disagree with that, but I don't feel he should be held legally responsible for something largely out of his hands.
here's an easy solution, before sticking your dick in something, have some foresight about how this stuff might turn out. If you aren't in a stable relationship, chances are your going to end up with either an aborted baby, or you paying child support payments for a long ass time. But you know what, those are things to think about before dipping your wick, not after.
Why do people think this argument works when were talking about the father, but not when were talking about the mother. You could easily change this around to talk about the mother, but for some reason thats wrong.
sanstodo: How about neither?
Because it's HER fucking body. The moment the guy gets to shove the fetus up his ass and pop out a baby in nine months, that might change.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
The 'male pill' gets bandied about at various times, but that still wouldn't eliminate the risk.
The risk can never be completely eliminated.
Honestly, I can't help but feel that the decision to have sex does, in fact, carry the risk of becoming a parent. Granted, it can be mitigated in one way or another by a number of things (condoms, pills, agreements on abortion/adoption/financial responsibility), but it can never be eliminated.
Everyone must decide for themselves how much risk of parenthood they're willing to accept before engaging in sex, but it must be understood there's always *some* risk.
Um...the bolded part there does nothing to mitigate it. At all. Because one partner in any such "agreement" has the full right to, after the fact, change their mind without any say from the other partner. I can't even imagine a written agreement being binding in this case, because of the implications it would hold.
And it could be eliminated. Make it the mother's choice whether or not to abort, and the father's whether or not to support it. Done. Then neither party has to deal with raising/supporting a child if they don't want to.
Also I find it interesting that a common theme in this seems to be the whole, "he could just choose not to have sex," thing. As if that's a reasonable standard to apply in any way. Which obviously it isn't, since we don't apply the same to women.
Because it's HER fucking body. The moment the guy gets to shove the fetus up his ass and pop out a baby in nine months, that might change.
Right. It's her body. Aside from rape, she has the full right to keep penises out of it. Why is this not a reasonable standard to apply to both parties?
here's an easy solution, before sticking your dick in something, have some foresight about how this stuff might turn out. If you aren't in a stable relationship, chances are your going to end up with either an aborted baby, or you paying child support payments for a long ass time. But you know what, those are things to think about before dipping your wick, not after.
Why do people think this argument works when were talking about the father, but not when were talking about the mother. You could easily change this around to talk about the mother, but for some reason thats wrong.
sanstodo: How about neither?
Because it's HER fucking body. The moment the guy gets to shove the fetus up his ass and pop out a baby in nine months, that might change.
How does that have anything to do with having the foresight to think about how your decisions turn out?
I don't believe that consenting to fatherhood is necessarily implied by having sex. People can have sex without any intention of becoming parents.
It doesn't matter what you believe, because it's true. Are you saying that you have sex without acknowledging the possibility that pregnancy is a risk?
No. I'm saying that the decision to become a parent should be viewed as separate from the decision to have sex, even though pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex.
I don't see a reason to absolve the guy from his responsibilities to the child.
And the guy does have a choice in the matter. Maybe not the last part of it, but he definitely has a choice.
So consenting to sex = consenting to fatherhood? I know many people here get a little angry when that standard is applied to motherhood. I mean, this very same logic could be used to take away the woman's right to an abortion, no?
Yes, it is consenting to the risk fatherhood. I'm ok with eliminating this risk, though, as soon as a practical solution becomes available. Haven't heard one, though.
I don't believe that consenting to fatherhood is necessarily implied by having sex. People can have sex without any intention of becoming parents.
I don't go to carnivals intending to get hurt, either. I go to have some fun. No matter how many safety precautions there are in place, though, there is a logical possibility that going at extreme speeds, large heights, and upside down while moving quickly at great heights might result from my actions.
Same thing with sex. No matter how many precautions you take, there is a possibility that your actions might result in pregnancy (other than having your tubes tied or a vasectomy or whatnot). Just like how you cannot sue an amusement park for injuries you may sustain (unless there is gross negligence), you cannot avoid the financial obligation you might bear with the birth of a child (barring extreme circumstances like her extracting semen from a condom and impregnating herself in-vitro with it, etc etc).
And explain to me why legally, not biologically, it makes sense for one party to hold all of the decision-making power when both parties are equally involved.
Legally, it is so because of biology. Sure it's unfair but that is the risk you take in having sex. Verbal agreements aren't worth the paper they're signed on. You want a legal way out of it? Get something drafted by a lawyer and sign it.
I don't personally want a legal way out of it, I'm just defending my second thought on the matter. If you'll recall I personally think that if you helped make it then you'll help raise it.
Failing that, I think that both parties should have an equal say in whether the child is born. If only the mother wants it then she can pay for it. If only the father wants it and the mother is willing to carry it then he can pay for it and come to an agreement wherein he compensates the mother for her time.
Ideally, though, we'd all think long and hard before we had sex with anybody because no matter how much protection you use, making a baby is a possibility. It may not be why you're having sex, but until somebody holds a gun to you head and says "ejaculate inside her" that baby ought to be your responsibility.
EDIT: And I think this should apply to both parties. Women are let off the hook just because they're the ones carrying the baby. If they want one that bad, they should be prepared to raise it on their own unless they're married or in a committed relationship in which having children has been discussed. That's why this is such a hard topic. Both people need to be responsible for their actions; not just the mom and not just the dad.
here's an easy solution, before sticking your dick in something, have some foresight about how this stuff might turn out. If you aren't in a stable relationship, chances are your going to end up with either an aborted baby, or you paying child support payments for a long ass time. But you know what, those are things to think about before dipping your wick, not after.
Why do people think this argument works when were talking about the father, but not when were talking about the mother. You could easily change this around to talk about the mother, but for some reason thats wrong.
sanstodo: How about neither?
Because it's HER fucking body. The moment the guy gets to shove the fetus up his ass and pop out a baby in nine months, that might change.
How does that have anything to do with having the foresight to think about how your decisions turn out?
Because, the ball is in her court. That's the way this whole system works. She ultimately gets to decide if she keeps or aborts the baby, therefore her initial decision doesn't carry as much weight as that of the potential father.
No guy over the age of 18 can claim to not understand this. And if they do, chances are the baby is of inferior genetic quality and will not contribute much anyway.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Basically, a couple made a baby, and it's being raised by one of them. This child needs to be provided for. You need to tell us why the state (tax dollars) should be providing for it, and not the people who made it.
I'd phrase it more like this:
Basically, a couple made a baby, and it's being raised by one of them. This child needs to be provided for. The person who had the final say in having the child was not financially capable of supporting it. You need to tell us why the father should be on the hook for providing for it, and not the mother who chose to have it.
The final say doesn't mean you had no say.
But he does have little to no say. I don't disagree with that, but I don't feel he should be held legally responsible for something largely out of his hands.
No say? They only you could claim that is in the case of rape.
Without child support, though, you're offering many women a false choice. Namely: if you're a woman, poor, are pregnant, and the biological father does not want to be an actual father and can simply run away with no responsibilities whatsoever, what choice do you have BUT to abort or put their child up for adoption?
What about the woman's first right to choose NOT to have sex to begin with or alteast use protection to avoid pregnancy. If she chose to accept the risks, then she should accept the consequence.
Basically, a couple made a baby, and it's being raised by one of them. This child needs to be provided for. You need to tell us why the state (tax dollars) should be providing for it, and not the people who made it.
I'd phrase it more like this:
Basically, a couple made a baby, and it's being raised by one of them. This child needs to be provided for. The person who had the final say in having the child was not financially capable of supporting it. You need to tell us why the father should be on the hook for providing for it, and not the mother who chose to have it.
The final say doesn't mean you had no say.
No, but greatly diminished authority ought to bring about greatly diminished responsibility.
It's not like it's any great secret that, biologically, women are more on-the-hook for pregnancy. They go into it knowing that. So we need to legislate undue burden on the man?
I look at it like this: she makes the ultimate call, she ought to bear the ultimate responsibility. If she decides to have a kid despite not being able to afford it, that's her responsibility to deal with.
That said, I'm all for having men pay their part for the abortion procedure, and ancillary medical expenses. But ultimate authority ought to come with ultimate responsibility. And that's the woman's pervue.
I don't believe that consenting to fatherhood is necessarily implied by having sex. People can have sex without any intention of becoming parents.
It doesn't matter what you believe, because it's true. Are you saying that you have sex without acknowledging the possibility that pregnancy is a risk?
No. I'm saying that the decision to become a parent should be viewed as separate from the decision to have sex, even though pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex.
I said that consenting to sex means that you're consenting to the risk of fatherhood. Now, explain to me why this is not true.
Posts
1.) He helped make the baby so he'd damn well better help raise it and provide for it.
2.) If the woman can terminate the pregnancy without the man's consent then the man should be able to deny the woman child support by permanently giving up his parental rights.
I personally like number 1 better because it gets kids taken care of, but I can't let go of number 2 because it's complete and utter bullshit that after 2 people are irresponsible and conceive and unplanned baby only one party gets to decide whether that baby is delivered and whether the father owes child support.
And the MOMENT that decision becomes ENTIRELY hers? So should the legal consequences. That "decision" she is making is the Action I refer to when I say "using [my] DNA to make something", even if I expressed it unclearly.
Conception? Yes. I'll go the extra mile and say a man bears as much responsibility for the delivery, no matter what method (or time frame) is decided upon for said delivery. She will eventually have to suffer an abortion or delivery; he should pay the costs to ensure this is done safely and to medical standards.
But the buck should stop there, because deciding to raise a new person is a different decision from the decision to abort or allow a fetus to come to term. And I believe it more detrimental for society as a whole, and a child in particular, when a parent is forced to contribute to that child's development in any way, shape, or form if they do not wish to help out.
Summary: I think that both parties were close enough to have sex, and should be close enough to share the consequences of that. But should an impasse be reached, I think it is dangerously hypocritical to allow the legal system to force a person to deal with the consequences of a decision he or she had no say in.
And the guy does have a choice in the matter. Maybe not the last part of it, but he definitely has a choice.
If you are mature enough and responsible enough to have sex, then you should be mature enough and responsible enough to live with any outcome or ramification of those actions.
stout's Amazon Wishlist | my lastFM
I don't think you can really have one without the other. You don't the right to help raise a child and be involved in its life without shouldering some of the responsibility when times get tough. You're either there or you're not.
So consenting to sex = consenting to fatherhood? I know many people here get a little angry when that standard is applied to motherhood. I mean, this very same logic could be used to take away the woman's right to an abortion, no?
1) overrides 2) only because 2) merely punishes the child, who is the one person who had no say in the matter.
Disagree completely. There are, in fact, several choices here:
- The choice to have sex
- The choice to use protection DURING sex
- The choice to use protection during sex and make your intentions clear and come to an agreement if only verbal ("if you get pregnant, I want nothing to do with it")
and, once pregnant, there is:
- The choice to abort or deliver
- The choice of what to do after delivery (adopt or keep)
They all do not follow from each other, and aren't part of some meta-choice. They are separate, and though one leads to another, things fall down right about at the point of pregnancy - when the choice to keep or abort occurs (all woman).
Also, I'd be interested to know of any precidents dealing with point 3 (where a verbal consensus was reached beforehand).
Imagine this. Ben and Sue and in a relationship. They're having sex and using protection. They've discussed what happens in the off chance that Sue gets pregnant, and they agree that she'll terminate the pregnancy. Several months later, they find out that Sue is pregnant, but she refuses to terminate.
Explain to me how the man was not responsible in this case. Explain to me why Sue should get to dictate whether he has to pay for a baby that he doesn't want to be born when the two parties involved agreed that she would terminate beforehand. And explain to me why legally, not biologically, it makes sense for one party to hold all of the decision-making power when both parties are equally involved.
Why not? I'd argue that assuming the father is financially supporting the child, he should have the same parental rights as the mother, until/unless there are compelling reasons not to (say, abuse or other things which would normally remove parental rights)
Granted, *custody* agreements are more complex, but certainly a financially supportive father, regardless of his relationship with the mother should have parental rights.
Because the state says that only one one of those people has the option of deciding to un-make it?
Don't get me wrong, I think the current system pretty much has to stay. But I'll not pretend that it's anything but the least bad choice.
Yes, it is consenting to the risk fatherhood. I'm ok with eliminating this risk, though, as soon as a practical solution becomes available. Haven't heard one, though.
Funds? Lack of experience? Lack of desire? Because the state (rightly) removes the choice of abortion from one party?
And before everyone looks at "lack of desire" as some sort of deadbeat-anythingism, why don't you talk to someone in the know about how absolutely fucking harmful it is to be grudgingly raised by someone out of obligation instead of love. All it would take is a visit to many county prisons.
I know of one, but it involves sharp things and scrotums.
I think consenting to sex means consenting to the possibility that you could father a child, and be responsible (at least financially) until that child is 18. After the child is concieved, the fathers rights end. Completely, until that child is born the father has no say in what happens to it. As I said in the last thread, the father and mother share equal responsibility in creating it, but the father has zero responsibility when it comes to carrying it. It isn't his body going all fun-house mirror on him (thank you Family Guy.)
here's an easy solution, before sticking your dick in something, have some foresight about how this stuff might turn out. If you aren't in a stable relationship, chances are your going to end up with either an aborted baby, or you paying child support payments for a long ass time. But you know what, those are things to think about before dipping your wick, not after.
I can't comment on other debates but yeah, consenting to sex = consenting to the fact that hey, you might become a father! Biologically, yes, the woman at this point holds the cards in determining the future of the pregnancy - sure, that might be unfair but isn't something that can be changed.
stout's Amazon Wishlist | my lastFM
Basically, a couple made a baby, and it's being raised by one of them. This child needs to be provided for. The person who had the final say in having the child was not financially capable of supporting it. You need to tell us why the father should be on the hook for providing for it, and not the mother who chose to have it.
The risk can never be completely eliminated.
Honestly, I can't help but feel that the decision to have sex does, in fact, carry the risk of becoming a parent. Granted, it can be mitigated in one way or another by a number of things (condoms, pills, agreements on abortion/adoption/financial responsibility), but it can never be eliminated.
Everyone must decide for themselves how much risk of parenthood they're willing to accept before engaging in sex, but it must be understood there's always *some* risk.
Or let's say that the state will provide enough money to support the child. Why should society be bearing the burden and not the father when the father had a direct hand in creating the child (having sex, for instance)? It seems to me that far more responsibility weighs on the father than it does on the state in the creation of a child.
Either you end up with a false choice for many poor women (infringing on their right to keep their children) or you end up costing taxpayers more money and requiring a huge investment in pubic infrastructure. Which system seems more efficient and equitable to you? Huge government child-care programs (which are already under attack and underfunded/staffed) or child-support payments by fathers?
Funds? Sure, they should be taken into account? And lack of desire? I'm not sure what that has to do with child support payments, but I guess I should've made it clear that that's what I'm talking about. And the third just does not follow.
Aye. Most of this conversation is borne out of the immature desire (of all parties) to have sex be free of consequences. It's not; despite all our fetishising of it and the rise of casual sex.
The final say doesn't mean you had no say.
Legally, it is so because of biology. Sure it's unfair but that is the risk you take in having sex. Verbal agreements aren't worth the paper they're signed on. You want a legal way out of it? Get something drafted by a lawyer and sign it.
stout's Amazon Wishlist | my lastFM
It doesn't matter what you believe, because it's true. Are you saying that you have sex without acknowledging the possibility that pregnancy is a risk?
Why do people think this argument works when were talking about the father, but not when were talking about the mother. You could easily change this around to talk about the mother, but for some reason thats wrong.
sanstodo: How about neither?
But he does have little to no say. I don't disagree with that, but I don't feel he should be held legally responsible for something largely out of his hands.
Because it's HER fucking body. The moment the guy gets to shove the fetus up his ass and pop out a baby in nine months, that might change.
Um...the bolded part there does nothing to mitigate it. At all. Because one partner in any such "agreement" has the full right to, after the fact, change their mind without any say from the other partner. I can't even imagine a written agreement being binding in this case, because of the implications it would hold.
And it could be eliminated. Make it the mother's choice whether or not to abort, and the father's whether or not to support it. Done. Then neither party has to deal with raising/supporting a child if they don't want to.
Also I find it interesting that a common theme in this seems to be the whole, "he could just choose not to have sex," thing. As if that's a reasonable standard to apply in any way. Which obviously it isn't, since we don't apply the same to women.
Right. It's her body. Aside from rape, she has the full right to keep penises out of it. Why is this not a reasonable standard to apply to both parties?
How does that have anything to do with having the foresight to think about how your decisions turn out?
No. I'm saying that the decision to become a parent should be viewed as separate from the decision to have sex, even though pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex.
I don't go to carnivals intending to get hurt, either. I go to have some fun. No matter how many safety precautions there are in place, though, there is a logical possibility that going at extreme speeds, large heights, and upside down while moving quickly at great heights might result from my actions.
Same thing with sex. No matter how many precautions you take, there is a possibility that your actions might result in pregnancy (other than having your tubes tied or a vasectomy or whatnot). Just like how you cannot sue an amusement park for injuries you may sustain (unless there is gross negligence), you cannot avoid the financial obligation you might bear with the birth of a child (barring extreme circumstances like her extracting semen from a condom and impregnating herself in-vitro with it, etc etc).
I don't personally want a legal way out of it, I'm just defending my second thought on the matter. If you'll recall I personally think that if you helped make it then you'll help raise it.
Failing that, I think that both parties should have an equal say in whether the child is born. If only the mother wants it then she can pay for it. If only the father wants it and the mother is willing to carry it then he can pay for it and come to an agreement wherein he compensates the mother for her time.
Ideally, though, we'd all think long and hard before we had sex with anybody because no matter how much protection you use, making a baby is a possibility. It may not be why you're having sex, but until somebody holds a gun to you head and says "ejaculate inside her" that baby ought to be your responsibility.
EDIT: And I think this should apply to both parties. Women are let off the hook just because they're the ones carrying the baby. If they want one that bad, they should be prepared to raise it on their own unless they're married or in a committed relationship in which having children has been discussed. That's why this is such a hard topic. Both people need to be responsible for their actions; not just the mom and not just the dad.
Because, the ball is in her court. That's the way this whole system works. She ultimately gets to decide if she keeps or aborts the baby, therefore her initial decision doesn't carry as much weight as that of the potential father.
No guy over the age of 18 can claim to not understand this. And if they do, chances are the baby is of inferior genetic quality and will not contribute much anyway.
No say? They only you could claim that is in the case of rape.
What about the woman's first right to choose NOT to have sex to begin with or alteast use protection to avoid pregnancy. If she chose to accept the risks, then she should accept the consequence.
No, but greatly diminished authority ought to bring about greatly diminished responsibility.
It's not like it's any great secret that, biologically, women are more on-the-hook for pregnancy. They go into it knowing that. So we need to legislate undue burden on the man?
I look at it like this: she makes the ultimate call, she ought to bear the ultimate responsibility. If she decides to have a kid despite not being able to afford it, that's her responsibility to deal with.
That said, I'm all for having men pay their part for the abortion procedure, and ancillary medical expenses. But ultimate authority ought to come with ultimate responsibility. And that's the woman's pervue.
I said that consenting to sex means that you're consenting to the risk of fatherhood. Now, explain to me why this is not true.