CDZ Should Men Have “Abortion Rights”?

[MarkDuffy]

Ok, so let's recap this thread

Vastator, the OP, wants to make abortion illegal, force the woman to bear the child and the man never has to pay for nor support it. He calls this equality!

 

[usmbguest5318]

Since women have the legal right to dodge the responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy; shouldn’t men be given that same legal consideration? Whereby if a woman claims to have been impregnated by a man; that man should have the right to file a claim in court absolving him of responsibility for that mass of tissue, from that moment forward.

If yes; hit agree. If not; but the woman should still have the right to an abortion; explain why...

GO!!!

the woman should still have the right to an abortion

The notion of having or not having a "right" to an abortion has always struck me as a bizarre thing in the first place. It's not all that different from the notion of having the right to breathe air.

A pregnant woman who is committed to not giving birth has myriad ways of acting on her desire to that effect. The only real issue is which of them present the least amount of risk to her and of the options she has available, which she will choose.

Since women have the legal right to dodge the responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy; shouldn’t men be given that same legal consideration?

Strictly speaking, a man can voluntarily terminate his parental rights. As a practical matter, courts don't like granting the termination, making doing so notably more difficult than it is for a woman to abort the pregnancy.

So should men be afforded somewhat equal facility from freeing themselves of the burden of rearing a child he has no desire to raise? Yes. If a woman wants a child and her male sex partner definitely does not, she shouldn't be permitted to force him to be father and adhere to the minimum requirements of being one. There are ways for women to become pregnant (or she can adopt a child) without involving a man whom she knows and who has no desire to be parent.

Having said yes, I'd caveat that by saying to that such men should renounce their parental rights at their earliest opportunity prior to the birth. Waiting until there is new person on the planet and then deciding "oh, I don't really want to do this" doesn't hold water because whether one wants to be parent is an aspect of one's life intentions that one needs to understand quite well long before having sex, much less "unprotected" sex.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Ok, so let's recap this thread

Vastator, the OP, wants to make abortion illegal, force the woman to bear the child and the man never has to pay for nor support it. He calls this equality!

That is a gross oversimplification of the processes and issues involved. Now, I haven't (and won't) read through 180+ posts to determine whether the OP-er has been so simplistic in his exposition(s) of the matter. If he has, well, I'd deride him/his stance too. The matter is not trivial, and there's nothing about it that merits making light of or oversimplifying.

 

[Vastator]

Ok, so let's recap this thread

Vastator, the OP, wants to make abortion illegal, force the woman to bear the child and the man never has to pay for nor support it. He calls this equality!

That is a gross oversimplification of the processes and issues involved. Now, I haven't (and won't) read through 180+ posts to determine whether the OP-er has been so simplistic in his exposition(s) of the matter. If he has, well, I'd deride him/his stance too. The matter is not trivial, and there's nothing about it that merits making light of or oversimplifying.

The post you responded to, is entirely fabricated. No such thing has ever been stated. Said post was the result of being “triggered”. The OP clearly explains what I have to say on the matter.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Ok, so let's recap this thread

Vastator, the OP, wants to make abortion illegal, force the woman to bear the child and the man never has to pay for nor support it. He calls this equality!

That is a gross oversimplification of the processes and issues involved. Now, I haven't (and won't) read through 180+ posts to determine whether the OP-er has been so simplistic in his exposition(s) of the matter. If he has, well, I'd deride him/his stance too. The matter is not trivial, and there's nothing about it that merits making light of or oversimplifying.

The post you responded to, is entirely fabricated. No such thing has ever been stated. Said post was the result of being “triggered”. The OP clearly explains what I have to say on the matter.

Ahem

I mean if republicans are so concerned with loss of life, surely they wouid want laws that help to prevent gun violence. Do they really think the 2nd amendment trumps what a woman chooses to do with her own body?

Now I’m not saying that gun laws would have prevented the Vegas tragedy necessarily, but obviously that still means we can’t be defeatist pussies and not do SOMETHING about hoping to prevent future mass shootings. Gun control does work well in other countries. It doesn’t work here because any gun control law that is miraculously passed is watered down and useless.

My overall point is simple. Republicans are such douche bags for being nazis about abortion without having any sense of responsibility in trying to limit senseless gun violence. How do they not see this stupidity?

It has nothing to do with vaginas. Our constitution protects everyone’s life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. So protecting the unborn child who has no voice, becomes the responsibility of those with a voice.

Its none of your business. None of your business.[/

The oath I swore makes it my business. So yeah... it is. I don’t give 2 shits about you or your vagina. I care about preventing a murder.

The oath I swore makes it my business. So yeah... it is. I don’t give 2 shits about you or your vagina. I care about preventing a murder.

 

[Vastator]

Ok, so let's recap this thread

Vastator, the OP, wants to make abortion illegal, force the woman to bear the child and the man never has to pay for nor support it. He calls this equality!

That is a gross oversimplification of the processes and issues involved. Now, I haven't (and won't) read through 180+ posts to determine whether the OP-er has been so simplistic in his exposition(s) of the matter. If he has, well, I'd deride him/his stance too. The matter is not trivial, and there's nothing about it that merits making light of or oversimplifying.

The post you responded to, is entirely fabricated. No such thing has ever been stated. Said post was the result of being “triggered”. The OP clearly explains what I have to say on the matter.

Ahem

I mean if republicans are so concerned with loss of life, surely they wouid want laws that help to prevent gun violence. Do they really think the 2nd amendment trumps what a woman chooses to do with her own body?

Now I’m not saying that gun laws would have prevented the Vegas tragedy necessarily, but obviously that still means we can’t be defeatist pussies and not do SOMETHING about hoping to prevent future mass shootings. Gun control does work well in other countries. It doesn’t work here because any gun control law that is miraculously passed is watered down and useless.

My overall point is simple. Republicans are such douche bags for being nazis about abortion without having any sense of responsibility in trying to limit senseless gun violence. How do they not see this stupidity?

It has nothing to do with vaginas. Our constitution protects everyone’s life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. So protecting the unborn child who has no voice, becomes the responsibility of those with a voice.

Its none of your business. None of your business.[/

The oath I swore makes it my business. So yeah... it is. I don’t give 2 shits about you or your vagina. I care about preventing a murder.

The oath I swore makes it my business. So yeah... it is. I don’t give 2 shits about you or your vagina. I care about preventing a murder.

Context... That's why you had to go to a different thread to find your quotes... Context. It matters. As for the appropriate context, as it pertains to this thread; the legality of abortion is a given. Now. Do try and stay on topic.
Oh. And by the way... Never presume to speak for me.

 

[Vastator]

Ok, so let's recap this thread

Vastator, the OP, wants to make abortion illegal, force the woman to bear the child and the man never has to pay for nor support it. He calls this equality!

That is a gross oversimplification of the processes and issues involved. Now, I haven't (and won't) read through 180+ posts to determine whether the OP-er has been so simplistic in his exposition(s) of the matter. If he has, well, I'd deride him/his stance too. The matter is not trivial, and there's nothing about it that merits making light of or oversimplifying.

The post you responded to, is entirely fabricated. No such thing has ever been stated. Said post was the result of being “triggered”. The OP clearly explains what I have to say on the matter.

Ahem

It has nothing to do with vaginas. Our constitution protects everyone’s life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. So protecting the unborn child who has no voice, becomes the responsibility of those with a voice.

Its none of your business. None of your business.[/

The oath I swore makes it my business. So yeah... it is. I don’t give 2 shits about you or your vagina. I care about preventing a murder.

The oath I swore makes it my business. So yeah... it is. I don’t give 2 shits about you or your vagina. I care about preventing a murder.

Context... That's why you had to go to a different thread to find your quotes... Context. It matters. As for the appropriate context, as it pertains to this thread; the legality of abortion is a given. Now. Do try and stay on topic.
Oh. And by the way... Never presume to speak for me.

I can smell your type a mile away. You tried to be too cute by half and that is why I busted you earlier in this thread for being dishonest and not stating your extreme anti-abortion stand in the OP.

In other threads it is also evident you are against contraception, but you have never come out specifically that I could find. In most of your posts, you appear to take a libertarian stand on issues, you don't want to pay for them. Interestingly enough, libertarians are, unlike you, Pro-Mom!

Abortion is a woman’s choice and does not concern the state
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that libertarians can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question. We condemn state-funded abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another’s abortion. It is the right of the woman, not the state, to decide the desirability of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, and/or home births.Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party , Jul 2, 2000.
Libertarian Party on Abortion

Look. Ones "type", or opinion as to whether abortion should be illegal is irrelevant to this thread. This thread is about men. This is the last time I'll refer you you back to the OP...

 

[usmbguest5318]

That is a gross oversimplification of the processes and issues involved. Now, I haven't (and won't) read through 180+ posts to determine whether the OP-er has been so simplistic in his exposition(s) of the matter. If he has, well, I'd deride him/his stance too. The matter is not trivial, and there's nothing about it that merits making light of or oversimplifying.

The post you responded to, is entirely fabricated. No such thing has ever been stated. Said post was the result of being “triggered”. The OP clearly explains what I have to say on the matter.

Ahem

Its none of your business. None of your business.[/

The oath I swore makes it my business. So yeah... it is. I don’t give 2 shits about you or your vagina. I care about preventing a murder.

The oath I swore makes it my business. So yeah... it is. I don’t give 2 shits about you or your vagina. I care about preventing a murder.

Context... That's why you had to go to a different thread to find your quotes... Context. It matters. As for the appropriate context, as it pertains to this thread; the legality of abortion is a given. Now. Do try and stay on topic.
Oh. And by the way... Never presume to speak for me.

I can smell your type a mile away. You tried to be too cute by half and that is why I busted you earlier in this thread for being dishonest and not stating your extreme anti-abortion stand in the OP.

In other threads it is also evident you are against contraception, but you have never come out specifically that I could find. In most of your posts, you appear to take a libertarian stand on issues, you don't want to pay for them. Interestingly enough, libertarians are, unlike you, Pro-Mom!

Abortion is a woman’s choice and does not concern the state
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that libertarians can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question. We condemn state-funded abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another’s abortion. It is the right of the woman, not the state, to decide the desirability of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, and/or home births.Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party , Jul 2, 2000.
Libertarian Party on Abortion

Look. Ones "type", or opinion as to whether abortion should be illegal is irrelevant to this thread. This thread is about men. This is the last time I'll refer you you back to the OP...

OT:
I know what I'm about to post isn't part of the thread topic, but it is a genuine annoyance I have with USMB and the way the site is managed.

Ones "type", or opinion as to whether abortion should be illegal is irrelevant to this thread. This thread is about men.

I agree with you on this. I wish I had a dollar for each time a member on USMB made an off point remark that they construe as somehow germane to the thread topic. You name it....tu quoque, non sequiturs, hypothesis contrary to fact, red herrings, strawmen, etc....and ad infinitum goes the list of deflecting remarks.

Why it is that members here seem so often incapable of directly addressing a point, theme or topic and stick to discussing its specific merits and demerits I cannot say. I can say that one's routinely having no topically relevant remarks to contribute to a conversation brands one as little but a boor, that is, assuming the member is also an adult. (We expect that sort of behavior from children.)

 

[MarkDuffy]

The post you responded to, is entirely fabricated. No such thing has ever been stated. Said post was the result of being “triggered”. The OP clearly explains what I have to say on the matter.

Ahem

The oath I swore makes it my business. So yeah... it is. I don’t give 2 shits about you or your vagina. I care about preventing a murder.

Context... That's why you had to go to a different thread to find your quotes... Context. It matters. As for the appropriate context, as it pertains to this thread; the legality of abortion is a given. Now. Do try and stay on topic.
Oh. And by the way... Never presume to speak for me.

I can smell your type a mile away. You tried to be too cute by half and that is why I busted you earlier in this thread for being dishonest and not stating your extreme anti-abortion stand in the OP.

In other threads it is also evident you are against contraception, but you have never come out specifically that I could find. In most of your posts, you appear to take a libertarian stand on issues, you don't want to pay for them. Interestingly enough, libertarians are, unlike you, Pro-Mom!

Abortion is a woman’s choice and does not concern the state
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that libertarians can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question. We condemn state-funded abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another’s abortion. It is the right of the woman, not the state, to decide the desirability of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, and/or home births.Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party , Jul 2, 2000.
Libertarian Party on Abortion

Look. Ones "type", or opinion as to whether abortion should be illegal is irrelevant to this thread. This thread is about men. This is the last time I'll refer you you back to the OP...

OT:
I know what I'm about to post isn't part of the thread topic, but it is a genuine annoyance I have with USMB and the way the site is managed.

Ones "type", or opinion as to whether abortion should be illegal is irrelevant to this thread. This thread is about men.

I agree with you on this. I wish I had a dollar for each time a member on USMB made an off point remark that they construe as somehow germane to the thread topic. You name it....tu quoque, non sequiturs, hypothesis contrary to fact, red herrings, strawmen, etc....and ad infinitum goes the list of deflecting remarks.

Why it is that members here seem so often incapable of directly addressing a point, theme or topic and stick to discussing its specific merits and demerits I cannot say. I can say that one's routinely having no topically relevant remarks to contribute to a conversation brands one as little but a boor, that is, assuming the member is also an adult. (We expect that sort of behavior from children.)

Perhaps you should actually read the thread. The specific point has already been addressed within the first few pages. I expanded upon it to show the OP's motivation.

The issues surrounding abortion can never be parsed out.

 

[Montrovant]

Since women have the legal right to dodge the responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy; shouldn’t men be given that same legal consideration? Whereby if a woman claims to have been impregnated by a man; that man should have the right to file a claim in court absolving him of responsibility for that mass of tissue, from that moment forward.

If yes; hit agree. If not; but the woman should still have the right to an abortion; explain why...

GO!!!

the woman should still have the right to an abortion

The notion of having or not having a "right" to an abortion has always struck me as a bizarre thing in the first place. It's not all that different from the notion of having the right to breathe air.

A pregnant woman who is committed to not giving birth has myriad ways of acting on her desire to that effect. The only real issue is which of them present the least amount of risk to her and of the options she has available, which she will choose.

Since women have the legal right to dodge the responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy; shouldn’t men be given that same legal consideration?

Strictly speaking, a man can voluntarily terminate his parental rights. As a practical matter, courts don't like granting the termination, making doing so notably more difficult than it is for a woman to abort the pregnancy.

So should men be afforded somewhat equal facility from freeing themselves of the burden of rearing a child he has no desire to raise? Yes. If a woman wants a child and her male sex partner definitely does not, she shouldn't be permitted to force him to be father and adhere to the minimum requirements of being one. There are ways for women to become pregnant (or she can adopt a child) without involving a man whom she knows and who has no desire to be parent.

Having said yes, I'd caveat that by saying to that such men should renounce their parental rights at their earliest opportunity prior to the birth. Waiting until there is new person on the planet and then deciding "oh, I don't really want to do this" doesn't hold water because whether one wants to be parent is an aspect of one's life intentions that one needs to understand quite well long before having sex, much less "unprotected" sex.

On the other side, there is a huge difference between a woman aborting a pregnancy and a man simply washing his hands of responsibility for a child. With the abortion, no one has to bear responsibility. If a man doesn't want to be involved, the child is still born and needs to be taken care of. I think there is a very good argument that the government has a strong interest in seeing that children are taken care of, and having both parents share responsibility for that is part of it.

I can certainly see exceptions: if a pregnancy happens based on intentional lies (and that can be proven); or if one parent is deemed incapable of taking care of themselves, let alone a child, perhaps because of physical or mental problems; or if both parents agree to have one of the parents abdicate all parental rights and responsibilities during the pregnancy. However, the fact remains that with an abortion, no party needs to be responsible for raising a child. With a father (or mother) who doesn't want the responsibility, someone still must raise the child.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Ahem

Context... That's why you had to go to a different thread to find your quotes... Context. It matters. As for the appropriate context, as it pertains to this thread; the legality of abortion is a given. Now. Do try and stay on topic.
Oh. And by the way... Never presume to speak for me.

I can smell your type a mile away. You tried to be too cute by half and that is why I busted you earlier in this thread for being dishonest and not stating your extreme anti-abortion stand in the OP.

In other threads it is also evident you are against contraception, but you have never come out specifically that I could find. In most of your posts, you appear to take a libertarian stand on issues, you don't want to pay for them. Interestingly enough, libertarians are, unlike you, Pro-Mom!

Abortion is a woman’s choice and does not concern the state
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that libertarians can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question. We condemn state-funded abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another’s abortion. It is the right of the woman, not the state, to decide the desirability of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, and/or home births.Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party , Jul 2, 2000.
Libertarian Party on Abortion

Look. Ones "type", or opinion as to whether abortion should be illegal is irrelevant to this thread. This thread is about men. This is the last time I'll refer you you back to the OP...

OT:
I know what I'm about to post isn't part of the thread topic, but it is a genuine annoyance I have with USMB and the way the site is managed.

Ones "type", or opinion as to whether abortion should be illegal is irrelevant to this thread. This thread is about men.

I agree with you on this. I wish I had a dollar for each time a member on USMB made an off point remark that they construe as somehow germane to the thread topic. You name it....tu quoque, non sequiturs, hypothesis contrary to fact, red herrings, strawmen, etc....and ad infinitum goes the list of deflecting remarks.

Why it is that members here seem so often incapable of directly addressing a point, theme or topic and stick to discussing its specific merits and demerits I cannot say. I can say that one's routinely having no topically relevant remarks to contribute to a conversation brands one as little but a boor, that is, assuming the member is also an adult. (We expect that sort of behavior from children.)

Perhaps you should actually read the thread. The specific point has already been addressed within the first few pages. I expanded upon it to show the OP's motivation.

The issues surrounding abortion can never be parsed out.

Perhaps you should actually read the thread. The specific point has already been addressed within the first few pages. I expanded upon it to show the OP's motivation.

The OP is what defines the thread theme and topic, and what be the OP-er's motivation has nothing to do with the range of answers, and supporting justifications for them, to the normative question posed in the OP?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Since women have the legal right to dodge the responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy; shouldn’t men be given that same legal consideration? Whereby if a woman claims to have been impregnated by a man; that man should have the right to file a claim in court absolving him of responsibility for that mass of tissue, from that moment forward.

If yes; hit agree. If not; but the woman should still have the right to an abortion; explain why...

GO!!!

the woman should still have the right to an abortion

The notion of having or not having a "right" to an abortion has always struck me as a bizarre thing in the first place. It's not all that different from the notion of having the right to breathe air.

A pregnant woman who is committed to not giving birth has myriad ways of acting on her desire to that effect. The only real issue is which of them present the least amount of risk to her and of the options she has available, which she will choose.

Since women have the legal right to dodge the responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy; shouldn’t men be given that same legal consideration?

Strictly speaking, a man can voluntarily terminate his parental rights. As a practical matter, courts don't like granting the termination, making doing so notably more difficult than it is for a woman to abort the pregnancy.

So should men be afforded somewhat equal facility from freeing themselves of the burden of rearing a child he has no desire to raise? Yes. If a woman wants a child and her male sex partner definitely does not, she shouldn't be permitted to force him to be father and adhere to the minimum requirements of being one. There are ways for women to become pregnant (or she can adopt a child) without involving a man whom she knows and who has no desire to be parent.

Having said yes, I'd caveat that by saying to that such men should renounce their parental rights at their earliest opportunity prior to the birth. Waiting until there is new person on the planet and then deciding "oh, I don't really want to do this" doesn't hold water because whether one wants to be parent is an aspect of one's life intentions that one needs to understand quite well long before having sex, much less "unprotected" sex.

On the other side, there is a huge difference between a woman aborting a pregnancy and a man simply washing his hands of responsibility for a child. With the abortion, no one has to bear responsibility. If a man doesn't want to be involved, the child is still born and needs to be taken care of. I think there is a very good argument that the government has a strong interest in seeing that children are taken care of, and having both parents share responsibility for that is part of it.

I can certainly see exceptions: if a pregnancy happens based on intentional lies (and that can be proven); or if one parent is deemed incapable of taking care of themselves, let alone a child, perhaps because of physical or mental problems; or if both parents agree to have one of the parents abdicate all parental rights and responsibilities during the pregnancy. However, the fact remains that with an abortion, no party needs to be responsible for raising a child. With a father (or mother) who doesn't want the responsibility, someone still must raise the child.

I think there is a very good argument that the government has a strong interest in seeing that children are taken care of, and having both parents share responsibility for that is part of it.

The law requires that a, shall we say, "uninterested" parent cover a set of financial obligations re: the child. That's it. The state cannot require a parent to take an active, emotional, and loving role in a child's life, and a parent who doesn't want to be a parent won't. What the state/courts do is force men to bear a financial burden as though it's a surrogate, in part or wholly, for actually being a parent. Well, that's absurd.

Having raised four children, I can tell you that doing nothing but writing a check every month hardly constitutes being a parent. It constitutes being a benefactor. That's all it is. When my wife passed. Sure, we lost a meaningful source of household income, but the money is not what my kids and I would rather have back. Whether she worked or not, I'd sooner have my wife and my kids their mother.

Quite simply, the most important and enduring aspects of parenting are free and can performed regardless of whether one is also obligated to write checks. More importantly, it cannot be purchased or compelled.

 

[Montrovant]

Since women have the legal right to dodge the responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy; shouldn’t men be given that same legal consideration? Whereby if a woman claims to have been impregnated by a man; that man should have the right to file a claim in court absolving him of responsibility for that mass of tissue, from that moment forward.

If yes; hit agree. If not; but the woman should still have the right to an abortion; explain why...

GO!!!

the woman should still have the right to an abortion

The notion of having or not having a "right" to an abortion has always struck me as a bizarre thing in the first place. It's not all that different from the notion of having the right to breathe air.

A pregnant woman who is committed to not giving birth has myriad ways of acting on her desire to that effect. The only real issue is which of them present the least amount of risk to her and of the options she has available, which she will choose.

Since women have the legal right to dodge the responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy; shouldn’t men be given that same legal consideration?

Strictly speaking, a man can voluntarily terminate his parental rights. As a practical matter, courts don't like granting the termination, making doing so notably more difficult than it is for a woman to abort the pregnancy.

So should men be afforded somewhat equal facility from freeing themselves of the burden of rearing a child he has no desire to raise? Yes. If a woman wants a child and her male sex partner definitely does not, she shouldn't be permitted to force him to be father and adhere to the minimum requirements of being one. There are ways for women to become pregnant (or she can adopt a child) without involving a man whom she knows and who has no desire to be parent.

Having said yes, I'd caveat that by saying to that such men should renounce their parental rights at their earliest opportunity prior to the birth. Waiting until there is new person on the planet and then deciding "oh, I don't really want to do this" doesn't hold water because whether one wants to be parent is an aspect of one's life intentions that one needs to understand quite well long before having sex, much less "unprotected" sex.

On the other side, there is a huge difference between a woman aborting a pregnancy and a man simply washing his hands of responsibility for a child. With the abortion, no one has to bear responsibility. If a man doesn't want to be involved, the child is still born and needs to be taken care of. I think there is a very good argument that the government has a strong interest in seeing that children are taken care of, and having both parents share responsibility for that is part of it.

I can certainly see exceptions: if a pregnancy happens based on intentional lies (and that can be proven); or if one parent is deemed incapable of taking care of themselves, let alone a child, perhaps because of physical or mental problems; or if both parents agree to have one of the parents abdicate all parental rights and responsibilities during the pregnancy. However, the fact remains that with an abortion, no party needs to be responsible for raising a child. With a father (or mother) who doesn't want the responsibility, someone still must raise the child.

I think there is a very good argument that the government has a strong interest in seeing that children are taken care of, and having both parents share responsibility for that is part of it.

The law requires that a, shall we say, "uninterested" parent cover a set of financial obligations re: the child. That's it. The state cannot require a parent to take an active, emotional, and loving role in a child's life, and a parent who doesn't want to be a parent won't. What the state/courts do is force men to bear a financial burden as though it's a surrogate, in part or wholly, for actually being a parent. Well, that's absurd.

Having raised four children, I can tell you that doing nothing but writing a check every month hardly constitutes being a parent. It constitutes being a benefactor. That's all it is. When my wife passed. Sure, we lost a meaningful source of household income, but the money is not what my kids and I would rather have back. Whether she worked or not, I'd sooner have my wife and my kids their mother.

Quite simply, the most important and enduring aspects of parenting are free and can performed regardless of whether one is also obligated to write checks. More importantly, it cannot be purchased or compelled.

While it is certainly true that the most important parts of parenting are not financial, that doesn't make the financial portion meaningless. Depending on the situation of the parents, it can be incredibly important. That a parent isn't willing to be an active part of a child's life doesn't mean they should not have any financial obligations. It is far from absurd. And while men may be the vastly larger number of parents who only play a financial role in their children's lives, that doesn't mean women don't have the same sort of responsibility should the father be the one to raise the children.

Being a benefactor may not be the best choice, but there's only so much the law can do. You seem to be advocating a perfect solution or no solution.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Since women have the legal right to dodge the responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy; shouldn’t men be given that same legal consideration? Whereby if a woman claims to have been impregnated by a man; that man should have the right to file a claim in court absolving him of responsibility for that mass of tissue, from that moment forward.

If yes; hit agree. If not; but the woman should still have the right to an abortion; explain why...

GO!!!

the woman should still have the right to an abortion

The notion of having or not having a "right" to an abortion has always struck me as a bizarre thing in the first place. It's not all that different from the notion of having the right to breathe air.

A pregnant woman who is committed to not giving birth has myriad ways of acting on her desire to that effect. The only real issue is which of them present the least amount of risk to her and of the options she has available, which she will choose.

Since women have the legal right to dodge the responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy; shouldn’t men be given that same legal consideration?

Strictly speaking, a man can voluntarily terminate his parental rights. As a practical matter, courts don't like granting the termination, making doing so notably more difficult than it is for a woman to abort the pregnancy.

So should men be afforded somewhat equal facility from freeing themselves of the burden of rearing a child he has no desire to raise? Yes. If a woman wants a child and her male sex partner definitely does not, she shouldn't be permitted to force him to be father and adhere to the minimum requirements of being one. There are ways for women to become pregnant (or she can adopt a child) without involving a man whom she knows and who has no desire to be parent.

Having said yes, I'd caveat that by saying to that such men should renounce their parental rights at their earliest opportunity prior to the birth. Waiting until there is new person on the planet and then deciding "oh, I don't really want to do this" doesn't hold water because whether one wants to be parent is an aspect of one's life intentions that one needs to understand quite well long before having sex, much less "unprotected" sex.

On the other side, there is a huge difference between a woman aborting a pregnancy and a man simply washing his hands of responsibility for a child. With the abortion, no one has to bear responsibility. If a man doesn't want to be involved, the child is still born and needs to be taken care of. I think there is a very good argument that the government has a strong interest in seeing that children are taken care of, and having both parents share responsibility for that is part of it.

I can certainly see exceptions: if a pregnancy happens based on intentional lies (and that can be proven); or if one parent is deemed incapable of taking care of themselves, let alone a child, perhaps because of physical or mental problems; or if both parents agree to have one of the parents abdicate all parental rights and responsibilities during the pregnancy. However, the fact remains that with an abortion, no party needs to be responsible for raising a child. With a father (or mother) who doesn't want the responsibility, someone still must raise the child.

I think there is a very good argument that the government has a strong interest in seeing that children are taken care of, and having both parents share responsibility for that is part of it.

The law requires that a, shall we say, "uninterested" parent cover a set of financial obligations re: the child. That's it. The state cannot require a parent to take an active, emotional, and loving role in a child's life, and a parent who doesn't want to be a parent won't. What the state/courts do is force men to bear a financial burden as though it's a surrogate, in part or wholly, for actually being a parent. Well, that's absurd.

Having raised four children, I can tell you that doing nothing but writing a check every month hardly constitutes being a parent. It constitutes being a benefactor. That's all it is. When my wife passed. Sure, we lost a meaningful source of household income, but the money is not what my kids and I would rather have back. Whether she worked or not, I'd sooner have my wife and my kids their mother.

Quite simply, the most important and enduring aspects of parenting are free and can performed regardless of whether one is also obligated to write checks. More importantly, it cannot be purchased or compelled.

While it is certainly true that the most important parts of parenting are not financial, that doesn't make the financial portion meaningless. Depending on the situation of the parents, it can be incredibly important. That a parent isn't willing to be an active part of a child's life doesn't mean they should not have any financial obligations. It is far from absurd. And while men may be the vastly larger number of parents who only play a financial role in their children's lives, that doesn't mean women don't have the same sort of responsibility should the father be the one to raise the children.

Being a benefactor may not be the best choice, but there's only so much the law can do. You seem to be advocating a perfect solution or no solution.

You seem to be advocating a perfect solution or no solution.

You should reread my reply to the OP's question. I didn't propose a solution of any sort.