Should a man be able to get a "financial abortion" or something like it?

[buddhallah_the_christ]

The idea is that if he fills out certain paperwork before X date in the pregnancy (just like abortion) he is clear of all financial obligations with regard to that child.
This debate hinges on one concept - fairness is more important than responsibility. And I think that's a dangerous one.
Thoughts?

 

[koshergrl]

No, ridiculous.

 

[Skylar]

The idea is that if he fills out certain paperwork before X date in the pregnancy (just like abortion) he is clear of all financial obligations with regard to that child.
This debate hinges on one concept - fairness is more important than responsibility. And I think that's a dangerous one.
Thoughts?

Well, its a bad idea. As it violates fairness. And of course, screws a child over.

Under the current system all obligations are equal. Either both are parents are equally responsible if the child is born. Or neither have any financial responsibility if the pregnancy is terminated. Their obligations are always the same.

Under the proposed system, a woman is responsible for any child she bears. But a man is never responsible for any child he fathers. That's hardly 'fair'. The flip side is also ridiculous. Where a man can 'veto' her abortion. Leaving a man in control of his own body and her body. While a woman has control of neither his body nor her own. Epically failing the fairness test.

Worse, the obligation isn't to the mother. Its to the child. If the child exists, the obligation for support exists. So the denial of financial support is a punishment to the child who is unarguably innocent in this entire scenario.

There's just no angle where such an arrangement makes the slightest sense.

 

[Sonny Clark]

The idea is that if he fills out certain paperwork before X date in the pregnancy (just like abortion) he is clear of all financial obligations with regard to that child.
This debate hinges on one concept - fairness is more important than responsibility. And I think that's a dangerous one.
Thoughts?

That's about as silly and pathetic as one can get .... really .......... surely you're not serious ..........this has to be a joke thread.

Now, who is going to be responsible for the child when it's born? Do you believe in and condone single parent homes? Look at our pathetic prison population ( the largest in the world ) and tell me who is supporting the children fathered by those men? Who is teaching them how to be productive members of society? Who is teaching them right from wrong, giving them guidance and life's instructions? Who is passing on skills and family values? Who is setting an example?

Again, this has got to be a joke thread. No one could possibly consider such nonsense as being a reasonable or accepted part of society.

 

[Syriusly]

The idea is that if he fills out certain paperwork before X date in the pregnancy (just like abortion) he is clear of all financial obligations with regard to that child.
This debate hinges on one concept - fairness is more important than responsibility. And I think that's a dangerous one.
Thoughts?

Thoughts?

If you father a child- you have the obligation to support the child.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I think abortion provides rights a man does not get. For example: The mother can terminate all financial obligations with an abortion while The father can not. I would think that if we think because equality under the law allows equal rights to all then fathers should have the right to terminate all financial obligations to the child in the same way the mother can.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

The idea is that if he fills out certain paperwork before X date in the pregnancy (just like abortion) he is clear of all financial obligations with regard to that child.
This debate hinges on one concept - fairness is more important than responsibility. And I think that's a dangerous one.
Thoughts?

Thoughts?

If you father a child- you have the obligation to support the child.

Yes, but why can't we apply the same logic to women. If you get pregnant you have an obligation to take care of the child which means you can't abort the child.

 

[Syriusly]

The idea is that if he fills out certain paperwork before X date in the pregnancy (just like abortion) he is clear of all financial obligations with regard to that child.
This debate hinges on one concept - fairness is more important than responsibility. And I think that's a dangerous one.
Thoughts?

Thoughts?

If you father a child- you have the obligation to support the child.

Yes, but why can't we apply the same logic to women. If you get pregnant you have an obligation to take care of the child which means you can't abort the child.

Exact same logic- if you give birth to a child- you have an obligation to support the child.

 

[Sherry]

Until a man can carry a child to term, he should not be protected by equal "opportunity" under the law. There is a reason a woman has the final choice, because she bears the short-term and long-term consequences to her body. If a man has any issues with a potential life being created, then abstain or get a vasectomy.

 

[Skylar]

I think abortion provides rights a man does not get. For example: The mother can terminate all financial obligations with an abortion while The father can not. I would think that if we think because equality under the law allows equal rights to all then fathers should have the right to terminate all financial obligations to the child in the same way the mother can.

It doesn't. A man and woman both have control over their own bodies.

And your reasoning is flawed. As a mother can't terminate financial obligation if the child exists. While in your scenario, a father could. You'd be granting the father a right the mother doesn't have. And of course, screwing over the child. Worse, you'd be creating a scenario where a woman is responsible for every child she bears but a father is never responsible for any child he fathers.

That's not 'equality'. That's just stupid.

If a child exists, an obligation exists. And that obligation is always equal. There is equality.

 

[Syriusly]

I think abortion provides rights a man does not get. For example: The mother can terminate all financial obligations with an abortion while The father can not. I would think that if we think because equality under the law allows equal rights to all then fathers should have the right to terminate all financial obligations to the child in the same way the mother can.

As soon as men are the ones experiencing pregnancy, then I think then men should be able to decide on decisions affecting their own bodies.

Its really not too hard to understand:
a) Before conception- either party can choose not to participate and avoid the potential eventual child being born.
b) After conception- the person whose body is pregnant has control over his/her body until
c) Birth- once a child is born, both persons are financially responsible for their child.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I actually think that if we could not force men to take care of there child then women would be more selective in who they mate with. Will they choose dude x who has no job or dude y who is financially stable and morally responsible.

 

[Sherry]

I actually think that if we could not force men to take care of there child then women would be more selective in who they mate with. Will they choose dude x who has no job or dude y who is financially stable and morally responsible.

The only thing that approach would accomplish is to increase the welfare rolls...and society at large becomes financially responsible instead of the father.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I think abortion provides rights a man does not get. For example: The mother can terminate all financial obligations with an abortion while The father can not. I would think that if we think because equality under the law allows equal rights to all then fathers should have the right to terminate all financial obligations to the child in the same way the mother can.

As soon as men are the ones experiencing pregnancy, then I think then men should be able to decide on decisions affecting their own bodies.

Its really not too hard to understand:
a) Before conception- either party can choose not to participate and avoid the potential eventual child being born.
b) After conception- the person whose body is pregnant has control over his/her body until
c) Birth- once a child is born, both persons are financially responsible for their child.

The woman can abort or put up for adoption which ends all legal obligations to the child. A man does not have this option which is reaLily an example of inequality under the law.

 

[Skylar]

The idea is that if he fills out certain paperwork before X date in the pregnancy (just like abortion) he is clear of all financial obligations with regard to that child.
This debate hinges on one concept - fairness is more important than responsibility. And I think that's a dangerous one.
Thoughts?

Thoughts?

If you father a child- you have the obligation to support the child.

Yes, but why can't we apply the same logic to women. If you get pregnant you have an obligation to take care of the child which means you can't abort the child.

Easy. Because a woman has the same right to control her own body that a man possesses.

You're again proposing unequal rights. Where a man can control his own body. But a woman can't control hers.

That's not equality.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I actually think that if we could not force men to take care of there child then women would be more selective in who they mate with. Will they choose dude x who has no job or dude y who is financially stable and morally responsible.

The only thing that approach would accomplish is to increase the welfare rolls...and society at large becomes financially responsible instead of the father.

There are plenty of people who are single parents who are not in welfare.

 

[Skylar]

I think abortion provides rights a man does not get. For example: The mother can terminate all financial obligations with an abortion while The father can not. I would think that if we think because equality under the law allows equal rights to all then fathers should have the right to terminate all financial obligations to the child in the same way the mother can.

As soon as men are the ones experiencing pregnancy, then I think then men should be able to decide on decisions affecting their own bodies.

Its really not too hard to understand:
a) Before conception- either party can choose not to participate and avoid the potential eventual child being born.
b) After conception- the person whose body is pregnant has control over his/her body until
c) Birth- once a child is born, both persons are financially responsible for their child.

The woman can abort or put up for adoption which ends all legal obligations to the child. A man does not have this option which is reaLily an example of inequality under the law.

A man doesn't carry the child. How could he make a decision to abort? The 'right' you speak of isn't a matter of law. Its a matter of biology. You might as well speak of a man's 'right' to menstrual cramping.

 

[Sherry]

I actually think that if we could not force men to take care of there child then women would be more selective in who they mate with. Will they choose dude x who has no job or dude y who is financially stable and morally responsible.

The only thing that approach would accomplish is to increase the welfare rolls...and society at large becomes financially responsible instead of the father.

There are plenty of people who are single parents who are not in welfare.

So what?? That doesn't negate the fact that welfare rolls would still increase under your proposal. Don't be daft.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

The idea is that if he fills out certain paperwork before X date in the pregnancy (just like abortion) he is clear of all financial obligations with regard to that child.
This debate hinges on one concept - fairness is more important than responsibility. And I think that's a dangerous one.
Thoughts?

Thoughts?

If you father a child- you have the obligation to support the child.

Yes, but why can't we apply the same logic to women. If you get pregnant you have an obligation to take care of the child which means you can't abort the child.

Easy. Because a woman has the same right to control her own body that a man possesses.

You're again proposing unequal rights. Where a man can control his own body. But a woman can't control hers.

That's not equality.

Huh?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I actually think that if we could not force men to take care of there child then women would be more selective in who they mate with. Will they choose dude x who has no job or dude y who is financially stable and morally responsible.

The only thing that approach would accomplish is to increase the welfare rolls...and society at large becomes financially responsible instead of the father.

There are plenty of people who are single parents who are not in welfare.

So what?? That doesn't negate the fact that welfare rolls would still increase under your proposal. Don't be daft.

Single moms are all deadbeats? That is bullshit!