Well, when a man can incur more health risks and carry a child, then he can argue for more equal terms. Until then, tough luck getting past this particular "inequality." Woman > Man when pregnancy is concerned.
REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS |
Well, when a man can incur more health risks and carry a child, then he can argue for more equal terms. Until then, tough luck getting past this particular "inequality." Woman > Man when pregnancy is concerned.
This is bullshit. If she doesn't want it, but the father does, and she's healthy enough to give birth to it without it posing some kind of threat on her life or well-being, she's the only one with any say in the situation. When it's reversed, the man is forced to "man up" and take on responsibility just because SHE wanted it. This isn't a one-way thing. If the man wants to have his child and it won't threaten the livelihood of the mother, she should have it.
Once again, we live in a world where men are expected to own up to the consequences of their actions and women aren't. Oh, but they want equality LOL.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not only talking about child support, because it's not really a possibility to remove yourself from your child's life but still want to be with your partner. I'm also talking about abortion and pregnancy, as per the title topic. I've no idea how it could be reasonably handled, but I think it should be handled different.No, no, no. I never said the situation was fair. There needs to be a change in how child support is handled in the event that the woman wants the child and the man doesn't.
Thank you for stating the obvious.The man can protest, but I still think the woman gets the final say with the current system.
I want to start with this, because it's the first thing that is written in this thread, and it's been called into question a few times. I fully support what Stooge says above: that a woman has a right to do with her body as she wants and, especially, that no one has the right to impose anything on her or her body. That pretty much spells out my current views on abortion as well.First off, just a little disclaimer so nobody misunderstands me: I fully believe that a woman has a right to do with her body as she wants and that no one has the right to impose anything on her.
Johnny Stooge said:So I ask you: if a mother can terminate her unborn child against the wishes of the father, is it fair to force a father to pay child support if he doesn't want to be a part of the child's life?
I have mixed feelings about "financial abortions." There have been some compelling statements on this thread that the child support system needs to be reformed, and it's a topic that I don't know much about. However, I don't agree with the way that "financial abortions" and abortions have been lumped together as basically equivalent in this discussion.Luap911 said:"Financial abortions" really need to be a thing.
XIII Heartless said:She's no more morally obliged than a man is. If she doesn't want the child, she either aborts it, or gives it up.
Luap911 said:But, a woman can also have an abortion simply because she doesn't want it. A guy can't do that.
All of these responses treat abortion solely as a "get out of maternity/jail free card," which it is undoubtedly used for. But if that were all there was to abortion, it probably wouldn't be one of the biggest controversies in the United States and beyond. There are ethical, religious, legal, and social repercussions that come with abortion; though XIII Heartless takes it as an(other) example of women not being expected to "own up to the consequences of their actions," I have to disagree with him strongly on this point, because there definitely are consequences to abortion, and to unwanted pregnancies in general, that women have to face, often alone.Orion said:I don't see a solution to this problem where the man doesn't get at least a modicum of control in the situation. He has a few seconds to go ahead or stop himself in the exchange of intercourse, while the woman has at least a good thirteen weeks to decide whether or not she wants to keep the baby, yet we lump pretty much all the unavoidable responsibility onto the man alone?
However, I can accept (by which I really mean understand) this argument against abortion: that a developing child also has a right to its body, currently dependent on the mother, which needs to be protected. I don't agree with that argument, but I can accept it. What I cannot accept is the argument that has been put forward in this thread--that a father has a right to the mother's (or child's) body, and can thereby impose on the mother either to keep or abort the child against her wishes.* If there is some confusion about where the woman's body ends and the child's body begins, there should be no confusion about where the man's body ends and the woman's begins.
*This is clearly not a pro-life argument. Though the idea of forced abortion hasn't been brought up explicitly (it is unavoidable implicitly), the child's right to body/life is not what is being championed.
I have mixed feelings about "financial abortions." There have been some compelling statements on this thread that the child support system needs to be reformed, and it's a topic that I don't know much about. However, I don't agree with the way that "financial abortions" and abortions have been lumped together as basically equivalent in this discussion.
All of these responses treat abortion solely as a "get out of maternity/jail free card," which it is undoubtedly used for. But if that were all there was to abortion, it probably wouldn't be one of the biggest controversies in the United States and beyond. There are ethical, religious, legal, and social repercussions that come with abortion; though XIII Heartless takes it as an(other) example of women not being expected to "own up to the consequences of their actions," I have to disagree with him strongly on this point, because there definitely are consequences to abortion, and to unwanted pregnancies in general, that women have to face, often alone.
A "financial abortion" does not carry the same implications as an abortion. This isn't to say it doesn't have its own--as XIII Heartless rightly points out, "deadbeat dads" (a pejorative) are not appreciated in our society today. But it's not the same--it doesn't have the same ethical, religious, legal, or social overtones as an abortion, and ultimately it's not the same choice. So whether or not "financial abortions" should be available, it is fallacious to argue that since women alone have the choice of abortion, men should have the (equivalent) choice of "financial abortion."
You say you can accept (but don't agree with) the argument that the child has a right to itself. But the right of that child has to exist somewhere. Then you say that (in bold) that the father has no right to it. The only party left is the mother, and I have to fully disagree that she's the only one with a right to it.
Luap911 said:The father shouldn't be stripped of every say in the matter. He should have less say than the women, yes, because her body is the one that carries the child. But it takes two to tango, and if she consented to sex.... the blame for unwanted pregnancy should be spread equally. The burdens should be spread as equally as possible, instead of leaving the man with no choice.
Luap911 said:But when it comes to how we are biologically, it's obvious that there isn't a perfect equality. A man doesn't carry that baby, the female does. A man can't have an abortion, while the woman can. But if we are to live in an equal society, we must come up with solutions that can make the situation equal.
Luap911 said:Women have a time limit for when they can get an abortion. I think it depends on the state in America, but after a certain amount of time (like 16 or so weeks, usually) they cannot get an abortion. Financial abortions should exist, with the same time limit a woman has, where he can decide to "opt out" of responsibility for the child.
Luap911 said:As long as both people were consenting to sex, then they are equally to blame if pregnancy occurs. To suggest otherwise is sexist, because it suggests that men can't control their sexual desires and/or that women are too dependent to say no to a man. They are equals and taken equal burden.
XIII Heartless said:Once again, we live in a world where men are expected to own up to the consequences of their actions and women aren't. Oh, but they want equality LOL.
Luap911 said:We're discussing where a father's rights starts and ends. And to do that, you have to look at where a women's rights starts and ends, and then figure out how to make this starts and ends as equal as possible.
Spoiler ShowThe 2004 study I posted above on why women choose to have abortions gives a good overview of some of these conditions in its Results and Discussion.
Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives [PDF]
Earlier I focused on the result that nearly half of women responding (48%) cited not wanting to be single mothers or having relationship problems as a primary reason for abortion, and a similar percentage (42%) cited it as a subreason relating to financial instability. In fact, the three most common reasons given for abortion were “having a baby would dramatically change my life” (73%), “can’t afford a baby now” (72%) and “don’t want to be a single mother or having relationship problems” (48%). Respondents could select more than one, as well as subreasons. And while the first two could reasons certainly apply to fathers as well as mothers, the study also shows how interrelated these reasons are in the case of women, 72% of whom have never been married at the time of abortion.
Another living condition that needs to be examined in relation to abortions is whether abortion services are in fact universally available to women.
Abortion Incidence and Access to Services in the United States, 2008 [PDF]
A summary can be found here: Journalist’s Resource
This 2008 survey takes into account the number of abortions, the number and types of abortion providers, gestational limits, costs, and harassment. While national coverage in the US is relatively stable, 35% of women live in counties without providers, and coverage in individual states can change dramatically. The fact that a state such as Mississippi, which has the highest rate of unintended pregnancies in the country (69 per 1000 women*) also has one of the lowest abortion rates in the country (5-6 per 1000 women) suggests that something is preventing many women in specific environments from getting abortions they are legally entitled to.
*This is compared to an already high national average of 51 per 1000 women—and that is all women within childbearing age (15-44), not specifically pregnant women. [source]
And accessibility of abortion doesn’t just include the legality and proximity of services—it includes social constraints as well, which are not directly addressed in the paper above or at all in this thread. For that, Google “pro-life vs pro-choice” or any related phrase to see the mixed message we send to expectant mothers/pregnant women (depending on which terminology you choose) in the U.S.
I’ll also suggest one more reading on social constraints, though this one is further removed from the U.S. and the West (and therefore also from the specific challenges women there face). But I found some of the descriptions in this study of Thai youths not so removed from conditions in the U.S., especially the Results in Experiences at partner level: Power imbalances in sexual partnerships (p.6) and Experiences at family level: Communication with parents on sexual matters (p.7).
Gender Double Standards in Young People Attending Sexual Health Services in Northern Thailand [PDF]