The financial abortion is an proposed idea where a man is able to opt out of being a father to the child he concieved. This is based on the premise that women are able to have an abortion therefore men should have a simlar choice. By having a financial abortion the man does not have to support the child which the mother has chosen to give birth to against the man's wishes.

Discuss

Should men have the right to a financial abortion and why or why not?

Good topic!

I'm actually against it, so I'll offer my pov. As much as I love equality and all that good gravy I think there is another dimension that is kind of forgotten. An abortion is a decision a woman makes about her body- will she abort or will she carry the baby full term and give both. Both abortion, pregnancy, and birth are not without risks, there are a lot of thing that can go wrong even in places with the best healthcare. To me abortion is not deciding whether a woman is exercising her right not to be a mother. She is exercising her right to what happens to her body. Where as a financial abortion is a man trying to exercise the right to what happens to his money which I don't think is comparable to a decision about health.

But in having and keeping that child, she is forcing legal responsibilities onto someone that may not have consented to actually having the child.

The only other option I could see would be re-writing child custody laws, so that a father can basically "un-adopt" his child if he doesn't want anything to do with it (at birth; similar to placing a child up for adoption at birth). Now that I think about it, parents who place their child up for adoption are seldom actually required to pay for whatever happens to the child after his or her adoption by new parents, so to require a non-consenting father to do that is contrary to what we require other parents. At least in this respect, it is not an equal practice.

So maybe it doesn't necessarily need to be about the money, but there still stands room for improvement.

Absolutely. ._. Why should anyone ever be forced into "parenthood", especially with a child he didn't want? It's the least that could be done (or I guess the most in this case) in a situation that would naturally leave him with few options. And that's simplifying it a great deal.

I would support this, as long as it is also given as an option in the case that a woman does not want an abortion but doesn't want the child either and the male does. It is highly unlikely though. It was tried in a case and lost, meanwhile a case involving statutory rape by a woman on a boy and then suing for child support was won. Not to mention several cases of men being forced to pay back owed child support even in cases such as being an Iraqi hostage for 5 months, being in prison for murder for 10 years until found to have been wrongfully imprisoned, and even after DNA results showed the child not to be the man's.

Originally Posted by Keyori

But in having and keeping that child, she is forcing legal responsibilities onto someone that may not have consented to actually having the child.

The only other option I could see would be re-writing child custody laws, so that a father can basically "un-adopt" his child if he doesn't want anything to do with it (at birth; similar to placing a child up for adoption at birth). Now that I think about it, parents who place their child up for adoption are seldom actually required to pay for whatever happens to the child after his or her adoption by new parents, so to require a non-consenting father to do that is contrary to what we require other parents. At least in this respect, it is not an equal practice.

So maybe it doesn't necessarily need to be about the money, but there still stands room for improvement.

That would be assuming that the mother tricked the father into pregnancy which isn't always the case. By releasing the unwillingly father of any legal obligation then all responsibility is automatically shifted onto the woman so she has to bare the brunt of the consequences alone for the choice they both made. Absolving him on the basis she could hypothetical have an abortion is unfair. Realistically he has no legal obligation to visit the child or take care of the child or even have a vague interest in his child. He can relinquish his parental rights to the child if he chooses to, but he still has to pay child support- which boils back down to money.
I don't see how a man's control over his financial security is equal to a woman's control over her bodily integrity.

@feral- I think there are aspects of child support laws that need to be altered. Men get thrown into jail for not paying child support because they have lost their jobs. You are suppose to be able to go to court and plead your case to the judge for a suspension but apparently that is very hard even if the man has a genuinely good reason.

@glitter- unexpected pregnancy is unexpected. Unless the woman tricked the man into getting her pregnant, then they are both forced into pregnancy. I don't believe the woman should be blamed for forcing the man into parenthood based on the premise she did not have an abortion.

Originally Posted by una

That would be assuming that the mother tricked the father into pregnancy which isn't always the case. By releasing the unwillingly father of any legal obligation then all responsibility is automatically shifted onto the woman so she has to bare the brunt of the consequences alone for the choice they both made. Absolving him on the basis she could hypothetical have an abortion is unfair. Realistically he has no legal obligation to visit the child or take care of the child or even have a vague interest in his child. He can relinquish his parental rights to the child if he chooses to, but he still has to pay child support- which boils back down to money.
I don't see how a man's control over his financial security is equal to a woman's control over her bodily integrity.

*clapclapclapclap*

I was going to post in here, but I became too upset to do so. Then I saw you post this and it's just so damn true.

In addition, I think if you say "IF THE MAN DOESNT WANT A BABY THE WOMAN HAS TO GET RID OF IT OR HE HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY," it's undermining the whole point of a woman's right to choose in the first place, because you're placing her in a position of pressure where she HAS to choose one option or risk facing hardship. That's all I'm going to say for now, and just as a warning it's potentially all I'll say at all.

It has nothing to do with her not having an abortion. It's about him being expected to pay for and care for a child that SHE chose to have, but HE did not.

If the father can't have any say in what the woman does with the unborn child then why should he be obligated to pay for it? If a woman can decide she doesn't want a baby then so can a man. Fair is fair.


He can't stop her from having an abortion and he can't stop her from having a baby. I think he has just as much right not to be a parent as a woman does.

I think I'd have to say then that I'm undecided.

I don't think a "financial abortion" is necessarily the best alternative, but I don't think it's right to leave all of the decisions about the child's fate up to the mother. I can understand abortion rights--that's the right to a woman's body. But beyond birth? The mother still has the sole decision-making power about whether to keep the child or put it up for adoption (at least, if the mother is single; I'm not sure what the laws are for married couples).

The thing is that our current system heavily favors women when it comes to child custody, and although in many cases this may be entirely warranted, it is concerning that men have little to no power over children. Even if the couple decides to keep the child or children, that's not where the custody battle stops. In the case of single or divorced parents, paternal custody rights are an uphill battle. I would rather the system at LEAST be neutral to both parties in the case of jurisprudence, but the status quo favors mothers by default. That's where most of my concerns lie.

If a man wants a "fiscal abortion," I feel that then mother must agree to it.
I do not think that he should be able to go "Okay well I don't want a kid so too bad sucks to be you I'm not helping."
Especially if he had previously promised to help with a baby.

That said, if the woman refuses to grant him one, or she lied to him about using protection of her own or something to "entrap" him by getting pregnant, he should have every right to appeal it.

I'm kindof undecided, but so far, that is what I think.
I think having a baby should be a joint decision by both parents, even the other way around and the mother wants to abort the fetus, I do think she has some responsibility to talk to the father (if she knows who it is) first.

There are some valid points on both sides, but my most salient issue is this:

The woman has all of the power in this situation, because she is the baby container, and in many cases this is unfair to the other person. There needs to be some recourse for a man who wants the baby even when the woman doesn't, and a woman should not be able to fleece a man simply because she unilaterally decided she was ready for parenthood when he wasn't.

I don't think the 'father' should be forced to care for a child, nor do I think he has any say in the choices the 'mother' takes when it comes to either abortion, or adoption, or keeping the baby.

For my reasoning, I'll use myself and my boyfriend as an example. We like talking about possibilities, so we have talked about the possibility of me getting pregnant. I could not take care of a child, I know I couldn't, but my boyfriend would continually tell me that if I did get get pregnant, he would help me with the kid.

I don't think he has any right to tell me to keep it, but nor, would I have any right to force him to help me take care of the child, if I kept it.

I know my opinion seems very much based on everyone getting along, and there being zero complications... call me a romantic, but thats how I feel about it.

"Financial abortion," gee, talk about selling a story :P

I agree to an /extent/. I believe the woman would have to consent to this.

The only reason why I'd resent this is because:
#1 How would the welfare of the child be affected?
#2 If a man can withdraw his financial responsibilities anytime, then wouldn't that make null child support and divorce settlements over children?
#3 What if the man had originally agreed to have a child, but then later chickened out of the responsibility and would use this?
#4 I just find there to be a difference between a physical abortion, and a man's financial priorities.

Originally Posted by Saisei

There are some valid points on both sides, but my most salient issue is this:

The woman has all of the power in this situation, because she is the baby container, and in many cases this is unfair to the other person. There needs to be some recourse for a man who wants the baby even when the woman doesn't, and a woman should not be able to fleece a man simply because she unilaterally decided she was ready for parenthood when he wasn't.

Yessss. XP

And on an intersting side note; men CAN have babies (through implantation), but because they lack a womb, it's very dangerous, therefor not practiced. :(

Originally Posted by monstahh`

Yessss. XP

And on an intersting side note; men CAN have babies (through implantation), but because they lack a womb, it's very dangerous, therefor not practiced. :(

And probably not covered by insurance like a woman having a baby is.

@ Glitter- He does not have to care for the child, as I already said he can relinquish his parental rights and choose not to be a father, but he would still have to contribute child support. The whole point of a final abortion is that the man can relinquish all parental rights including child support.

@Faulkner- The man has no legal say in what a woman can do with her body because it is her body which is perfectly fair. There are risks with pregnancy, abortion, and labour and the woman needs to decide what she is going do because it will be her body which is affected.

@Keyori- Yeah, I agree that changes are needed because the current system is discriminatory towards men. As for financial abortion, I think it is a difficult topic to decide on because there is a wide spectrum of circumstances that we can use for an against it. This is probably because people's love lives and bad choices can resemble that of a soap opera. Ideally I like to think prevention is better then cure by promoting contraception, responsible safe sex, and encouraging couples to discuss what would happen if an accident was to happen. But I know that is wishful thinking. I think I could go along with the idea that a father could have an abortion on the grounds that the mother consents but the devil advocate inside me thinks what if he regretted his decision, or the woman coerced him into doing it.

@monstah- In instances where either party is decieved I agree that there should be some way to make it right, but realistically I think that would be hard to prove in a court of law because people lie and make stories up. So it would be hard to get to the bottom of the truth.

@ Saisei- I think a man can take custody of his child if the mother does not want it. Legally she cannot put the child up for adoption with out his signature. However the guy has no say when it comes to abortion, which I explained to Faulkner above. Child support is suppose to support the child and unless the father is obscenely rich the amounts of money we are talking about is nothing really to get excited about.

@ Syrannabelle- The father does have a say when it comes to adoption, he gets custody if the mother does not want the baby and he does. I think the mother even has to pay child support. But the father can not force the mother to give the baby up for adoption which is former scenario reversed. As I mentioned earlier, your boyfriend can relinquish his parental rights absolving him from any care of his child but he would still have to pay child support.

@ Deviant- Like I said to Keyori, I like this idea better. I think if a mother is happy to raise her child alone without the father's financial support then I can see a place for financial abortion. But likewise people's lives are soap operas and there is the potential for abuse.

@ monstah- when you said male implantation, all I could think of was arnold schwarzenegger in that awful movie junior which still haunts me to this day O_o

Originally Posted by una

@monstah- In instances where either party is decieved I agree that there should be some way to make it right, but realistically I think that would be hard to prove in a court of law because people lie and make stories up. So it would be hard to get to the bottom of the truth.

@ monstah- when you said male implantation, all I could think of was arnold schwarzenegger in that awful movie junior which still haunts me to this day O_o

Yeah, pretty much. :(
But that's also why I don't have sex with "just anyone." In the off chance I do get pregnant, I want someone who I can trust to help me though it, and be supportive regardless of what I choose to do.

Thank goodness I've never seen that movie. xD;;

----------

Originally Posted by Keyori

And probably not covered by insurance like a woman having a baby is.

Probably not. :? It'd be too costly and too unsafe a procedure, for many many years for any insurance company to even think about covering it.

Originally Posted by una

@ Saisei- I think a man can take custody of his child if the mother does not want it. Legally she cannot put the child up for adoption with out his signature. However the guy has no say when it comes to abortion, which I explained to Faulkner above. Child support is suppose to support the child and unless the father is obscenely rich the amounts of money we are talking about is nothing really to get excited about.

I'm curious if that's an opinion regarding child support based on anything in particular or just your feelings on the matter. Having been involved in payroll at a couple different companies, I can tell you that you're significantly in the wrong in a whole bunch of situations.

Originally Posted by Saisei

I'm curious if that's an opinion regarding child support based on anything in particular or just your feelings on the matter. Having been involved in payroll at a couple different companies, I can tell you that you're significantly in the wrong in a whole bunch of situations.

I haven't really forwarded any scenarios and my understanding of child maintenance is that it is calculated based on financial and social factors like earnings, dependant children, benefits ect. I'm interested though in your own experience :)

Generally speaking, I've found that anyone who is self employed is usually required to pay more than I personally would consider reasonable and many times more than they can afford.

Though it's mostly outside the scope of the topic at hand, anyone who has to pay child support on more than one child tends to get fleeced, even moreso if he's paying support to two different women.

People who get behind get really fleeced, too, which seems like just desserts for the real sleezebags out there, but also throws a blanket over the well-meaning ones that are on hard times, ignorant of the law, etc.

In a perfect world, the child support system only takes a certain percentage, leaving enough for the non-present parent to live on. Alas, this is not a perfect world, and men are very often required to pay more than they can afford on children they never wanted.

This doesn't even take into account the way custody cases are inherently skewed toward the mother, and in the rare cases where a man gets custody of a child, that women are held to a different standard regarding support payments.

Originally Posted by Saisei

Generally speaking, I've found that anyone who is self employed is usually required to pay more than I personally would consider reasonable and many times more than they can afford.

Though it's mostly outside the scope of the topic at hand, anyone who has to pay child support on more than one child tends to get fleeced, even moreso if he's paying support to two different women.

People who get behind get really fleeced, too, which seems like just desserts for the real sleezebags out there, but also throws a blanket over the well-meaning ones that are on hard times, ignorant of the law, etc.

In a perfect world, the child support system only takes a certain percentage, leaving enough for the non-present parent to live on. Alas, this is not a perfect world, and men are very often required to pay more than they can afford on children they never wanted.

This doesn't even take into account the way custody cases are inherently skewed toward the mother, and in the rare cases where a man gets custody of a child, that women are held to a different standard regarding support payments.

I understand what you mean. I can see why male activist groups are angered by the way the system treats them and I support that changes that they want- except financial abortion. I wonder if the mother's wage is taken into consideration when calculating child support? If the father is really struggling while the woman is financially stable then I think maybe he shouldn't have to pay child support. Having said that many men want to be apart of their children's lives and want to help support their kids. Complex subject really.

I'm not going to get into the nitty gritty here. Your thoughts are all valid.
What I do want to say is the child is alive. And as such, it must be maintained if it is to stay alive. I do not think that a concept of abortion can be properly applied to this situation, either by the father, or us.

Paying child support is considered one form of helping to care for/raise a child. I do not believe that someone should be forced to do this when that person has opted not to be a part of that child's life.