Should men have the right, for legal-abortion?

[alturic]

... Because she's already supporting the child out of her own income? You know... by being the mother and sole caretaker?

I understand that, but why should I pay $200 a month if I make $1000 (rough number of course) compared to my (if we got divorced) $1277 PER KID a month? That figure of $1277 is with her not working at all, but STILL.

[Wells]

False, its not irrelevant.

Really? Its not your child because she had the chance to abort? Well then, I guess every child is under the sole custody of the mother.

[Deleted]

One can say since she decided to engage in consensual sex (protection can fail) she forfeits/gives some rights of the fetus to the male. The coin has two sides. It takes two to tango.

"forfeits/gives some rights of the fetus to the male"? How about, no? The fetus has no rights to start with up until abortion is barred.

[PizzaSHARK]

I understand that, but why should I pay $200 a month if I make $1000 (rough number of course) compared to my (if we got divorced) $1277 PER KID a month? That figure of $1277 is with her not working at all, but STILL.

What're you talking about? You'd be required to pay $200, or $1277?

[Halyon]

The female doesn't "have to" either.

You don't HAVE to have unsafe sex either. Man helps creating a fetus, he helps financing HIS child when it's born, simple as.

[alturic]

A woman not wanting to bear a fetus can abort it because she has bodily autonomy.

Someone (not sure why this thread thinks only women can use safe haven laws) who has possession of a child and can't take care of it can surrender it to the state because that is in the child's best interest.

"Only women" can use safe haven laws because unless you get custody (unless the mother is horrible, unlikely at least in PA) within 6 months you're not able to drop something off that you don't have...

The point is (in the case of safe haven laws) the mother can give up all rights and not have to worry about (apparently only in some states) paying child support if the father got custody. The father, without custody (again, within 6 months and unlikely unless the mother is horrible) doesn't even get to think about it.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Really? Its not your child because she had the chance to abort? Well then, I guess every child is under the sole custody of the mother.

Just because you want to conveniently skip options the mother has when you argue, doesn't make that point actually irrelevant. Thats like me just shitting out "irrelevant" every time you said 'BUT THE CHILD HAS NEEEEDS! THE HUMANITY!!!"

[alturic]

Really? Its not your child because she had the chance to abort? Well then, I guess every child is under the sole custody of the mother.

Until the father goes to court and says other-wise, that's 100% true. Hell, right now, as much as we're married and all, I can't just get up and take the kids without the cops coming after me.

[Wells]

"Only women" can use safe haven laws because unless you get custody (unless the mother is horrible, unlikely at least in PA) within 6 months you're not able to drop something off that you don't have...

The point is (in the case of safe haven laws) the mother can give up all rights and not have to worry about (apparently only in some states) paying child support if the father got custody. The father, without custody (again, within 6 months and unlikely unless the mother is horrible) doesn't even get to think about it.

Anyone who has possession of a child can use safe haven laws. Genital situation is irrelevant.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

You don't HAVE to have unsafe sex either. Man helps creating a fetus, he helps financing HIS child when it's born, simple as.

What a good argument against abortion.

[Velaniz]

You're saying he can tell her to abort it, otherwise he doesn't have to pay child support for the child he had a hand in creating.

That's getting off scot-free by every definition I can think of.

If he fails to provide her the means to an abortion, or isn't decisive within the acceptable legal time-frame, then he should be held accountable.

He had a hand in getting her pregnant, yes, but pregnancy doesn't necessarily translate to parenthood. Not even an equal hand, at that. Being that pregnancy primarily affects the woman, it would logically follow that the woman should be held more accountable for that state.

That is the unfortunate inherent biological inequality here, and we acknowledge it when it comes to abortion rights (as we absolutely should), yet, in the same breath, pretend it doesn't exist when it comes to dishing out accountability for it. If someone wolfed down unhealthy food at a food-joint day after day, knowing the risks they took, that shouldn't make the food-joint 50% responsible if that person suffered a cardiac-arrest from their resulting obesity.

[Halyon]

One can say since she decided to engage in consensual sex (protection can fail) she forfeits/gives some rights of the fetus to the male. The coin has two sides. It takes two to tango.

Women have all the rights when it comes to a child, and people are finally realizing how unfair the system is.

Erm...no. The man has absolutely zilch involved with 9 months of pregnancy and all the shit/insanity that comes with it. He has absolutely no right whatsoever to decide anything over the fetus.

The lengths some people will go to place blame/control women over their lack of responsibility is mind boggling.

[Wells]

Just because you want to conveniently skip options the mother has when you argue, doesn't make that point actually irrelevant. Thats like me just shitting out "irrelevant" every time you said 'BUT THE CHILD HAS NEEEEDS! THE HUMANITY!!!"

Except the child needs to be supported. That burden needs to rest equally on the people who created it.

And I really don't give a shit that you seem to think a father shouldn't have a right to say it's not something he is prepared for, but that when it comes to the women being able to 'throw up their arms and say "NOT ME"' and give the child away without the father's consent, it's perfectly fine.

There is no system that allows a woman to void the father's custody rights without due process. You simply don't understand safe haven laws.

[Halyon]

What a good argument against abortion.

Erm...ok...?

[chrisberb]

What're you talking about? You'd be required to pay $200, or $1277?

I think it's idea that by raising a child only cost 200$ a month, but child support (1200$ a month) is 80% waste, and not really for raising a child.

[Wells]

What a good argument against abortion.

Only if you don't understand the difference between a fetus and a child.

[alturic]

What're you talking about? You'd be required to pay $200, or $1277?

I'm saying and this was a rough example, if you make $1000/m you pay $200/m in support. My situation (obviously not divulging how much I make, I own my own business) I'd pay $1277/m.

What I'm saying I don't see how much I make should have any affect on how much I owe in support. It makes no financial sense to me.

In other words, the less you make the less you pay. It makes no sense for what child support is actual FOR.

[PizzaSHARK]

If he fails to provide her the means to an abortion, or isn't decisive within the acceptable legal time-frame, then he should be held accountable.

He had a hand in getting her pregnant, yes, but pregnancy doesn't necessarily translate to parenthood. Not even an equal hand, at that. Being that pregnancy primarily affects the woman, it would logically follow that the woman should be held more accountable for that state.

Why should she be held more accountable than the man? It's not like getting pregnant is 70% woman and 30% man - it's a 50/50 split right down the middle. Just because it's an uneven equation at the anatomical/physiological level doesn't mean that it should be uneven legally.

And "provide her with the means to an abortion"? Cool, so you're still advocating that the guy can force the woman to either abort the pregnancy, or have to go it alone.

Yeah, that's "getting off scot-free."

[chrisberb]

"Only women" can use safe haven laws because unless you get custody (unless the mother is horrible, unlikely at least in PA) within 6 months you're not able to drop something off that you don't have...

The point is (in the case of safe haven laws) the mother can give up all rights and not have to worry about (apparently only in some states) paying child support if the father got custody. The father, without custody (again, within 6 months and unlikely unless the mother is horrible) doesn't even get to think about it.

Nice lil double standard there eh?
The mother is horrible for not wanting a child, yet for the father "it's whatever"
No wonder society pressures pregnant women to have babies

[alturic]

Anyone who has possession of a child can use safe haven laws. Genital situation is irrelevant.

You guys seriously mis-read alot of something.

Let's see if I can make this clearer than I've already been required to, this entire thread is strictly about what rights does a male have to waive their rights as a parent and that's none without the mothers consent while a women has more than one, without the fathers consent.

This isn't about "ahh but he can IF he has custody", etc.