Originally Posted by una

He has the choice not to be a father. He doesn't have to see the child or physically take care of it. All he has to do is pay a contribution to the child's upbringing. That's really the issue. Equality is not about letting people act irresponsible.

Then why is it acceptable for women to act irresponsibly? Turning this very argument around, why can a woman have a say in what she will or won't do for her child, but the man MUST take care of it.

No. Like I said if the woman is allowed to choose rather or not she will take care of the child, contribute or even give birth to it, then the father has the say in rather or not he wants to contribute or not. Don't say one shouldn't act irresponsibly but the other has free reign.

So if a women gives her child up for adoption of abandons it, she should still pay contribution to that child? It doesn't work that way.

Originally Posted by KimJoonGi

Then why is it acceptable for women to act irresponsibly? Turning this very argument around, why can a woman have a say in what she will or won't do for her child, but the man MUST take care of it.

No. Like I said if the woman is allowed to choose rather or not she will take care of the child, contribute or even give birth to it, then the father has the say in rather or not he wants to contribute or not. Don't say one shouldn't act irresponsibly but the other has free reign.

So if a women gives her child up for adoption of abandons it, she should still pay contribution to that child? It doesn't work that way.

I wish to applaud you.

Why is it fair that a woman can have the choice to be a mother or not, but the father doesn't? I don't care what situations people make up that could or couldn't happen, what's fair is fair. A child can ruin a father's life just as much as it could potentially ruin the mothers life, and it's not fair to force a father to pay money to a child he didn't want and has no part of other than a DNA donation. The cut off is when the mother can no longer have an abortion, the father can no longer have a financial abortion. Let's not be sexist against men now.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

I wish to applaud you.

Why is it fair that a woman can have the choice to be a mother or not, but the father doesn't? I don't care what situations people make up that could or couldn't happen, what's fair is fair. A child can ruin a father's life just as much as it could potentially ruin the mothers life, and it's not fair to force a father to pay money to a child he didn't want and has no part of other than a DNA donation. The cut off is when the mother can no longer have an abortion, the father can no longer have a financial abortion. Let's not be sexist against men now.

This is my point EXACTLY. Through and through. Thank you.
I think the best way to work with this situation is either a) not have an unwanted pregnancy or B) Plan ahead and make an agreement. Hell I would even go as far as a written contract saying, 'if a happens, then b happens'. That way it's not, 'oops I'm knocked up! Baby Mama drama court cases!'

Originally Posted by KimJoonGi

This is my point EXACTLY. Through and through. Thank you.
I think the best way to work with this situation is either a) not have an unwanted pregnancy or B) Plan ahead and make an agreement. Hell I would even go as far as a written contract saying, 'if a happens, then b happens'. That way it's not, 'oops I'm knocked up! Baby Mama drama court cases!'

That would be ideal yes, but sometimes you have the occasional party sex which there is no planning for(obviously) and you then have choices afterward.

But saying Mommy can say no, and Daddy can't is quite simply SEXIST. Equal rights people, Men should have the same options women do.

I doubt the sentiments expressed above are genuine on their face. If a couple agrees to abort any future pregnancies, should that agreement be honored even if the woman changes her mind? I assume we would all expect a birth agreement to be honored under similar conditions.

Let me go ahead and guess that this is all anti-abortion posturing under the guise of "equality."

Originally Posted by Hayzel

That would be ideal yes, but sometimes you have the occasional party sex which there is no planning for(obviously) and you then have choices afterward.

But saying Mommy can say no, and Daddy can't is quite simply SEXIST. Equal rights people, Men should have the same options women do.

Ideally, yes. But that would just be irresponsible and thus put us in the great problematic situation we have at hand. 'OMG there's a baby now, FRACK what to do!?"

I agree though, as before. Maybe then people will start being careful about who they sleep with? I doubt it, but it's a hopeful gesture.

Okay...................everything that people have been writing has just......ugh. Okay. All the anti-abortion bullshit I've been reading...I'm going to just ignore it to make my point.

The reason that the biological father doesn't have a choice in giving financial support of their child because in most cases where financial support is given, the biological father and mother are not together, and the mother usually doesn't have a spouse or partner to help financially take care of the child. A single parent can't financially support a child by themselves. I'd say make the biological father accountable and pay child support. And it isn't because it's a woman and she can't get a decent paying job or anything. Any single parent will have extreme difficulties financially supporting a child by themselves, even with a decent paying job.

The reason that the biological father doesn't have a choice in giving financial support of their child because in most cases where financial support is given, the biological father and mother are not together, and the mother usually doesn't have a spouse or partner to help financially take care of the child. A single parent can't financially support a child by themselves. I'd say make the biological father accountable and pay child support. And it isn't because it's a woman and she can't get a decent paying job or anything. Any single parent will have extreme difficulties financially supporting a child by themselves, even with a decent paying job.

But the thing is, if the woman doesn't want the child, she won't give birth and hand the child over to the father and only financially support the child, she'll simply abort it. But the father just has to go along with whatever the mother's decision is. The only time he gets a say is when the mother wants to put the child up for adoption. He has no say on whether or not to keep the child or abort it, and there have been many cases where a woman purposefully gets pregnant and keeps a baby to keep the father with her, which is incredibly unfair to a guy who thinks they're taking precautions. So now you have a father who doesn't want a child and is being forced to pay for a child he doesn't want. Saying the father cannot have a way out is Sexist against men.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

But the thing is, if the woman doesn't want the child, she won't give birth and hand the child over to the father and only financially support the child, she'll simply abort it. But the father just has to go along with whatever the mother's decision is. The only time he gets a say is when the mother wants to put the child up for adoption.

If you can't accept that pregnancy is (a) a medical condition that (b) often has long-term effects on a woman's body and mental health, occasionally positive but more often negative, (c) has no impact whatsoever on the "father" or any other external person, and (d) for which all expenses (prenatal care being the most burdensome) fall entirely on the woman, then I can see how you've reached your conclusion.

If medical science had progressed to the point of allowing the creation of artificial wombs, you'd have an excellent point. But it hasn't, and you seem comfortable in assuming that the extreme physical and psychological burden that women shoulder entirely alone throughout pregnancy is meaningless when it comes to figuring out how decisions regarding pregnancy should be handled. Even more bizarre is your assertion that simply taking a woman's extraordinarily disproportionate risks, responsibilities, physical deterioration, and pain involved in pregnancy into account is somehow sexist against men. Hrmm.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

He has no say on whether or not to keep the child or abort it, and there have been many cases where a woman purposefully gets pregnant and keeps a baby to keep the father with her, which is incredibly unfair to a guy who thinks they're taking precautions. So now you have a father who doesn't want a child and is being forced to pay for a child he doesn't want. Saying the father cannot have a way out is Sexist against men.

You're ignoring the fact that birth control sabotage is often carried out against women, as well. How common would you say that is?

Fully 15% of women have been subject to birth control sabotage. If these women become pregnant, they have to choose between having an abortion - which, depending on their circumstances, may not even be financially or socially feasible for them - and dealing with all of the consequences of pregnancy.

I find the entire line of reasoning moot because I think it obvious that men should be freed of financial obligations if they can prove that they were victims of birth control sabotage. Ideally, birth control sabotage would be considered a form of sexual assault and would be criminally prosecuted, whether committed by a man or a woman.

Originally Posted by KimJoonGi

Then why is it acceptable for women to act irresponsibly? Turning this very argument around, why can a woman have a say in what she will or won't do for her child, but the man MUST take care of it.

No. Like I said if the woman is allowed to choose rather or not she will take care of the child, contribute or even give birth to it, then the father has the say in rather or not he wants to contribute or not. Don't say one shouldn't act irresponsibly but the other has free reign.

So if a women gives her child up for adoption of abandons it, she should still pay contribution to that child? It doesn't work that way.

Woah, you are applying gender to a genderless situation. It makes no difference if it is a man or woman who abandons their child, BOTH still have to pay child support to the parent who is taking care of the child. The woman cannot not simply 'walk away' that is utter fallacy. In the adoption process legally she needs the man's signature to give their child away. If he opposes he can take custody of the child and she is liable for child support payments. The court will not allow her act irresponsible either.
This discussion has nothing to do with the 'choice' not to be a parent. The man can relinquish his parental rights, he doesn't even have to see his child if he does not want to. No court of law can force him to have father relationship with his biological child. But they will make him pay contributions towards that child's care. This is what the discussion is truly about. These men want to safeguard their wallet. They want sex without risk of impunity and they are using a woman's right to abortion as a way of making a case of inequality. But as I said before a man's right to control his finances is no way the same as a woman's right to what happens to her body. Both pregnancy and abortion have risks even in the most developed countries things go wrong. A woman's right to abortion is about the right to bodily integrity not the choice to be a parent.

Woah, you are applying gender to a genderless situation. It makes no difference if it is a man or woman who abandons their child, BOTH still have to pay child support to the parent who is taking care of the child. The woman cannot not simply 'walk away' that is utter fallacy. In the adoption process legally she needs the man's signature to give their child away. If he opposes he can take custody of the child and she is liable for child support payments. The court will not allow her act irresponsible either.
This discussion has nothing to do with the 'choice' not to be a parent. The man can relinquish his parental rights, he doesn't even have to see his child if he does not want to. No court of law can force him to have father relationship with his biological child. But they will make him pay contributions towards that child's care. This is what the discussion is truly about. These men want to safeguard their wallet. They want sex without risk of impunity and they are using a woman's right to abortion as a way of making a case of inequality. But as I said before a man's right to control his finances is no way the same as a woman's right to what happens to her body. Both pregnancy and abortion have risks even in the most developed countries things go wrong. A woman's right to abortion is about the right to bodily integrity not the choice to be a parent.

There's a lot more than money at stake for a man who has a child, there's also reputation and for father who are younger, how are they supposed to pay for college AND a child?

And the same argument could be used for women, that abortion is just a way for them to protect their wallets and have sex without strings. =/

Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

A woman isn't usually thinking about her body when she has abortion like you make it seem. It's usually about the child, 93% of the time it's social reasons, not medical.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

There's a lot more than money at stake for a man who has a child, there's also reputation and for father who are younger, how are they supposed to pay for college AND a child?

And the same argument could be used for women, that abortion is just a way for them to protect their wallets and have sex without strings. =/

Why is there no stigmata in this society for single mothers? Why is his reputation more important then hers? Equally how is she supposed to go to college and pay for a child? Is his education more important then hers? Why is his future more important than hers? He should be entitled to walk away because she did not to submit to his wants? Men do not face the same stigmata as women. There are double standards in this society. He does not have to see his kid let alone disclose socially to other people that he has a kid. Promiscuous behaviour in men is far more acceptable then promiscuous behaviour in women.

Women are still making a choice regarding their bodies, you can't splice it too create some flowery dichotomy.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

Abortion Statistics

A woman isn't usually thinking about her body when she has abortion like you make it seem. It's usually about the child, 93% of the time it's social reasons, not medical.

I never said why she was having the abortion. Her motivation is completely irrelevant. Whatever she chooses will effect her body. If she chooses to have an abortion then she chooses to put her body through a medical intervention that can have negative physical and emotional side effects, and the exact same can be applied to pregnancy. Those are the risks she is willing to put her body through to either keep the baby or get rid of it. The reasons for her choice are of no interest. As I said before you can't splice this choice into a dichotomy, the risks to the woman health will always be present. In a crude analogy its like getting a boob job, there are various reasons why people get them but you are always aware that this procedure will have an impact on your health whether it be temporary or permanent and there are unpredictable side effects. Things like pre-eclampsia, post-natal depression, infertility, post abortion syndrome, even death are all possible negative side effects. This is why I say a woman's choice of bodily integrity is no way on par with a man's right to control his finances.