Discussion in 'Debate Room' started by Justin Rocket 2, Mar 13, 2016.
"Male Abortion" is now being considered.
Now, we need this in the USA.
If the woman doesn't abort, there's going to be a child involved. Child support isn't for the benefit of the mother, it's for the benefit of the child.
So, no. It sucks that men don't have more of a voice in this situation, for sure. But they don't. If they want to be sure they're not on the hook for child support, they should take better care of birth control and be careful who they have sex with. Because once they've had sex, their decision-making power is gone. They don't get to force a woman to either have a baby or not have a baby. And once the baby is born, they don't get to punish the child by not supporting it.
It's a hard situation. As a matter of principal, it does not seem fair that the mother can choose to opt out (abortion) but the man cannot.
The argument about men having their choice end after copulation is absurd, because women also have that same option.
On the other hand, it's a fair argument to say that once the child is born, it exists, and needs the support of both parents. That's in the best interest of the child, and society in general.
So, it doesn't really seem wise to let either parent opt out of financial obligation for the child. Ultimately, it sounds like the only fair way to solve this issue is to have both father and mother agree on terms of the child, including whether a child is aborted, and who will finance it, if it is born, and this can be done in court on a case by case basis if needed.
I completely agree with what BayView has said.
Whilst it might seem unfair that the biological father has to financially support a child he doesn't want it would be even more unfair for that child to go without or for taxpayers to have to shoulder that burden.
My main problem with BayvView's argument is that it's also possible for the mother to place the child up for adoption, thereby shirking their own financial obligation and giving it to the taxpayer. While not commonly considered the ethical choice, it is still one they can take. If the mother can make the decision, then the father should have the right as well. If two adults or young adults make a stupid mistake one night, then both participants should have the right to forget it, not just one making the choice for the both of them.
The mother can't put it up for adoption without the father's consent. And adoption doesn't cost the taxpayer--the baby is adopted, and its expenses are paid by its new family. And I really object to your characterization of putting a child up for adoption as an unethical choice--I'd say it's almost always an incredibly generous act that benefits everyone involved.
Again, it sucks that women have more power over pregnancy than men do, but that's just a biological fact. We have the burden of it, so we have the choice of it. That means two adults should make damn sure they don't make a stupid mistake one night, because only one of them will be able to make many decisions afterwards.
I place no value on a father who doesn't wish to be a father. So, I don't think we're losing anything by having a "male abortion."
Further, an economic argument can be made here. The best indicator of a person's economic class is the age they had their first child. Granting the male abortion option will increase the number of people making it into the upper middle or lower upper socioeconomic class which will improve the economy (I don't know if it will be a net improvement or not). Plus, it provides an economic disincentive for women in the lower classes to have unplanned babies.
You're RIGHT! I didn't think of that. If you make "male abortion," legal, all that really means is that a woman will really have to think twice before she puts herself in a risky situation.
That still leaves orphanages, and, in all honesty, I think most people would be willing to pay a little more to ensure children don't starve, or I would at least. And while it may require both parent's permission, that's equal power, something I agree with.
I'm not going to debate who has power during pregnancy, that belongs to the person going through it, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about what happens after it, and if a parent doesn't want anything to do with it, be they mother or father, I believe they should be able to offer it to the other and not have to remember a reminder coming out of their bank account.
You understand that this isn't actual abortion, right? There will still BE a child, it will just be one much more likely to be raised in poverty.
How about we leave it as it is, and provide an economic disincentive for MEN in the lower classes to have unplanned babies?
Orphanages don't really exist in the developed world, at least not for healthy, non-disabled babies. There are way fewer babies than there are people who want to adopt babies.
So if the mother decides she doesn't want the kid, after she has the kid, she should be able to drop it off at the dad's house and walk away, no responsibilities, no child support?
I was unaware of that, always nice to know there's good people in the world.
I imagine there'd be a grace period, perhaps the eighteen weeks after the birth during which both parents see the child. If the mother decides she doesn't wish to keep it, then the father may without receiving any child benefit, however, she would have no legal to right to see the child or any possibility of regaining it as specified in the "male abortion system", treating both parents the same though giving the woman a larger grace period due to her having to carry it. Of course, if she doesn't want the child she could always abort it earlier.
Some women don't want abortions, for whatever reasons of their own. Their bodies, their decisions.
What's the point of the eighteen weeks?
Are you still thinking of this from the parents' perspective? Like, that should give them enough time to figure out if they really want a kid? But my point is that this isn't about the parent, it's about the kid. The child support isn't a punishment for one parent and a reward for the other, it's support for the child, making it more likely the kid will have a chance at a good life. I can't see any benefit in allowing one parent to walk away from that responsibility, leaving the other not only with all the work of child rearing but also all the cost.
So if one parent makes a good living and the other parent is unemployed, the parent making a good living can just walk away, leaving his or her child to live in poverty? I mean, only an asshole would even think about doing it... and I don't generally like laws that let assholes be assholes.
Eighteen weeks popped to mind as that's the time period men have to decide, women have the time they're carrying plus that eighteen weeks.
Yes, and I'm fine with paying that little bit more tax to ensure a child gets a good basis of life, and your placing the child above the parents, another innately unfair act. It's not a punishment or a reward, but to hamper someone for something they did without intention of malice, and that rather they'd distance themselves from is unfair, and as I said, if they don't wish for the work or the cost, then they can put it up for adoption.
As for assholes being assholes, I'd probably put a limit on the amount that could be done. A stupid mistake of this magnitude can happen one time, if it happens over and over again then they lose the right as they haven't learnt, or, as you put it, they're being a dick. Secondly, the amount of social pressure that will be put on people should prevent it from being a regular occurrence.
You don't get to bring a child into existence and then check out. When you have sex, you're dealing with the fact that there are always consequences. Does the woman have more say in the situation? Sure. Is it fair? No. Is it fair to the child that their father is a coward who can't take responsibility for his actions? Nope.
Here's an idea. Before you get with a girl, ask her what her stance on abortion is. If she's against it, don't sleep with her. If she's for it, pray she can go through with it.
Or reliable birth control... it really is pretty good these days!
I'm personally against abortion, but I don't see a problem with this male abortion concept. Is that weird? The reason I'm against abortion is because I don't think that humans should get to decide who lives or dies, and I think it's too difficult to decide when exactly life begins, but that's a debate for a different topic. However, a "male abortion" doesn't choose whether someone lives or dies. If the woman can legally decide whether or not she wants to keep the child, why can't the man? Both men and women need to be responsible for their actions.
I think the exception should be if the couple is married he shouldn't be able to have a male abortion. I'm not really sure why, it just seems like it would be exceptionally crappy of him to refuse to support his wife's child. And I think doesn't the woman's husband's name automatically go on the birth certificate? Maybe I'm wrong about that.
I'm kind of confused by the last sentence - I mean, I agree that both men and women need to be responsible for their actions, but I don't see how letting a man walk away from a child he fathered is making him responsible for his actions...?
The man has a choice, it just occurs before conception, not after. Tough titties guys, if you know you don't have an abortion option, take other precautions if you don't want a kid.
Just because the woman has an additional option is just as fair as the fact women carry the pregnancy and men don't. Talk about unfair!
As @BayView says, child support is because parents have a responsibility to the child. It has nothing to do with who gets a say in the abortion.
To let men out of their responsibility to that child because they have a get out of jail free card better be accompanied by the state stepping in to support the child. Both parents owe the child no matter who did what when to conceive of that child.
You want to carry the baby? How unfair is that? Don't you think it's a wash: men have a choice before conception, women have a choice after but they also have to carry the baby?
Both parents have to give a child up for adoption and should the man decide to keep the child, the woman would be obligated for child support.
If the mother doesn't know or admit to knowing who the father is, she can relinquish the child alone. But it's not a guaranteed option and usually that is happening because she is the sole supporter of the child.
What are you talking about? Men forcing women with extortion, get an abortion or pay for the child yourself?
And economic disincentive? Because what, the women get pregnant in some scheme to get a guy to pay child support?
I am confused as to what you are saying here.
Extortion is defined as "the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats." I am ABSOLUTELY against anyone using force or threats to get money. This male abortion is not extortion. Male abortion does not use force or threats to get money.
Are you asserting that that never happens?
The forced threat is get an abortion or pay for the child yourself. If you don't get that, pick whatever word you want to replace extortion.
I am asserting it's rare if it occurs at all, but it is a common myth.
Actually, men AND women have a choice before conception* and male abortion doesn't involve violating a woman's control over her own body.
*That's actually false
Woman Steals Ex-Boyfriend’s Sperm, Has Twins, Sues For Child Support and Wins
Woman Used Sperm From Oral Sex To Get Pregnant, Gets Child Support
Police searching for three women accused of raping man and stealing his SPERM in cool box
Separate names with a comma.