Pro-lifer argument: "what if your parents decided to abort you?!"

[Machismo]

You say no one can demand something from the other but you support forcing a man to pay child support against his will. Again you're using pro life arguments which is ironic. If she doesn't want to be a parent then she should be responsible with contraceptives. It works both ways.. No where am I comparing an abortion to men giving up their rights. Simply stating men should have a way out just like the women do. Is that hard to understand? How is not wanting to pay for a child you don't want unreasonable?

12 steps to what? Not sure where you're even going with that one.



Same thing pro lifers say lol.

Women are also forced to pay child support against their will. The same can be said for taxes and fines.

[Thrundi]

These are 2 separate issues.

There may be work to do regarding men, obligations and child support. Sure
Don't link it to women rights on abortion "because I feel I can be shafted so women should be too". That's moronic.

[crewskater]

Women are also forced to pay child support against their will. The same can be said for taxes and fines.

Different scenario though. We are talking about when one parent wants to give up their right to the child. Who is financially responsible? The one who wants to keep it which would be the mother in this case.

- - - Updated - - -

These are 2 separate issues.

There may be work to do regarding men, obligations and child support. Sure
Don't link it to women rights on abortion "because I feel I can be shafted so women should be too". That's moronic.

Where did I say women should be shafted? All I'm asking for is an equal opportunity to opt out of being a father if a mistake happens.

[Machismo]

Different scenario though. We are talking about when one parent wants to give up their right to the child. Who is financially responsible? The one who wants to keep it which would be the mother in this case.

But, that can also be turned around, because the situation can be reversed.

So, they both make a willing decision to have sex, a voluntary action. If that action leads to a pregnancy, and no other actions are taken, a baby will result. Therefore, they are both equally responsible for the consequence of that action.

I like the analogy of two people choosing to detonate a bomb. One person sets the timer, and the other puts the bomb in place. Once they have both done it, then they are both responsible for it exploding.

[bloodykiller86]

There are no pro-life arguments.

Seeing that this is still a topic of contention and discussion in the US is evidence in itself that the US socially is a few decades behind on the rest of the modern world.

nothing new, as long as we have morons who push more and more for a theocracy ruled by right wing extremism, we will continue to live in a country that is behind the times.

[Endus]

Women are also forced to pay child support against their will. The same can be said for taxes and fines.

There is one single reason for discrepancy in child support payments, really.

That one reason is that women are far more statistically likely to want to retain custody. Men are far more likely to want out and feel they should be able to abandon their kid. This isn't biological, it's cultural.

In cases where men fight for custody rights, they have similar outcomes as women do, overall. Where they share child support, it's equally split according to their incomes (and if you've got an issue with women, on average, getting paid less than men, well, that's a different issue and most of the people bitching about this stuff would probably burst a gasket if we get into that topic).

Men and women have the exact same obligations and duties when a child is born. There is no discrepancy under the law.

[prwraith]

Uh I wouldn't exist? And I wouldn't know I had a chance to exist, because I didn't have any conscious thought.

So it wouldn't matter, in the least.

[Endus]

Where did I say women should be shafted? All I'm asking for is an equal opportunity to opt out of being a father if a mistake happens.

Women don't have that option.

That's the thing people keep pointing out to you, and which you keep ignoring.

Edit: At least, other than adoption, which requires equal consent from all known guardians with custody rights.

[Machismo]

There is one single reason for discrepancy in child support payments, really.

That one reason is that women are far more statistically likely to want to retain custody. Men are far more likely to want out and feel they should be able to abandon their kid. This isn't biological, it's cultural.

In cases where men fight for custody rights, they have similar outcomes as women do, overall. Where they share child support, it's equally split according to their incomes (and if you've got an issue with women, on average, getting paid less than men, well, that's a different issue and most of the people bitching about this stuff would probably burst a gasket if we get into that topic).

Men and women have the exact same obligations and duties when a child is born. There is no discrepancy under the law.

I think there are cases and jurisdictions where men are not given equal chance at custody, and that's a problem. They should have every bit as much of a chance to have custody as the mother. But, I agree, there is a much stronger culture in this country of men wanting to distance themselves from their children, than women.

[s_bushido]

Where did I say women should be shafted? All I'm asking for is an equal opportunity to opt out of being a father if a mistake happens.

The problem with that is that it effectively removes the woman's choice. By refusing to help support the child that a woman might want to keep, the man is potentially forcing her into an abortion or adoption.

[crewskater]

But, that can also be turned around, because the situation can be reversed.

So, they both make a willing decision to have sex, a voluntary action. If that action leads to a pregnancy, and no other actions are taken, a baby will result. Therefore, they are both equally responsible for the consequence of that action.

I like the analogy of two people choosing to detonate a bomb. One person sets the timer, and the other puts the bomb in place. Once they have both done it, then they are both responsible for it exploding.

Your scenario has nothing to do with abortion in any sense, man or woman.

But you're right, sometimes women are forced to pay child support because of whatever reason the court decided. Again, this has nothing to do with abortion.

Maybe I'm not explaining it that well? Let me try and be more clear.

Woman doesn't want to keep the baby but the man does. She should be allowed to abort it without his approval.
Woman wants to keep it but he doesn't. She should be allow to give birth but he should have the option to be financially responsible or not.

[Endus]

I think there are cases and jurisdictions where men are not given equal chance at custody, and that's a problem. They should have every bit as much of a chance to have custody as the mother. But, I agree, there is a much stronger culture in this country of men wanting to distance themselves from their children, than women.

If there's a specific jurisdiction where they're treated unfairly, or a specific case that was unjustly ruled, sure. Those can happen, because the courts aren't perfect.

But that's an issue of implementation, not of the law itself. I just meant that people often point to how often women have sole custody, compared to men, and ignore that in the majority of those instances, the men either don't know they're a father (generally because it was a one-time thing and they didn't keep in touch with the mother) or they've specifically tried to avoid being one and gave up custody rights. The latter isn't an argument for unfair treatment, and the former isn't a legal injustice, it's pretty much just down to women being the ones giving birth so establishing who's the mother isn't generally a question in the first place. I fully support men pursuing their parental rights, and I'm not making an argument that they deserve less-than-fair treatment in that respect.

[crewskater]

The problem with that is that it effectively removes the woman's choice. By refusing to help support the child that a woman might want to keep, the man is potentially forcing her into an abortion or adoption.

She still has the choice to keep it or not. He's not forcing her to do anything.

[Nurasu]

Woman doesn't want to keep the baby but the man does. She should be allowed to abort it without his approval.
Woman wants to keep it but he doesn't. She should be allow to give birth but he should have the option to be financially responsible or not.

This... actually kind of makes sense to me assuming the father provides in writing he doesn't want it prior to the typical 20ish week abortion cut off. And I still think there should be government assistance for single parents in such instances. Has nothing to do with a woman's right to abortion though.

[Flurryfang]

Then they at least tried. I dont have sympathy for people that shrug it off.

I don't have much either for people, who deliberately take the risk. But i do know a couple or 2, who have used birth control and forgot the pill during a stressful period of their life or because the birth control they used did not work correctly.

Mistakes can happen to grown ups and having a kid seems like hard punishment. Going through pregnancy is hard, so even just putting it up for adoption is still not an easy task.

[Machismo]

Your scenario has nothing to do with abortion in any sense, man or woman.

But you're right, sometimes women are forced to pay child support because of whatever reason the court decided. Again, this has nothing to do with abortion.

Maybe I'm not explaining it that well? Let me try and be more clear.

Woman doesn't want to keep the baby but the man does. She should be allowed to abort it without his approval.
Woman wants to keep it but he doesn't. She should be allow to give birth but he should have the option to be financially responsible or not.

If that's the case, then the woman should be able to have the kid, and have the option of being financially responsible, or not. That would mean she could deliver the baby, and turn to the doctors and say, "Nope, it's not mine... it's all his."

In the end, you are either arguing that women should not have bodily autonomy, or men (and possibly women), should not be responsible for the consequences of their actions. It would appear you are arguing for the latter.

- - - Updated - - -

If there's a specific jurisdiction where they're treated unfairly, or a specific case that was unjustly ruled, sure. Those can happen, because the courts aren't perfect.

But that's an issue of implementation, not of the law itself. I just meant that people often point to how often women have sole custody, compared to men, and ignore that in the majority of those instances, the men either don't know they're a father (generally because it was a one-time thing and they didn't keep in touch with the mother) or they've specifically tried to avoid being one and gave up custody rights. The latter isn't an argument for unfair treatment, and the former isn't a legal injustice, it's pretty much just down to women being the ones giving birth so establishing who's the mother isn't generally a question in the first place. I fully support men pursuing their parental rights, and I'm not making an argument that they deserve less-than-fair treatment in that respect.

I agree, it's not the laws themselves, but merely how they are often applied, which has been problematic in the past, and is still an issue.

[crewskater]

This... actually kind of makes sense to me assuming the father provides in writing he doesn't want it prior to the typical 20ish week abortion cut off. And I still think there should be government assistance for single parents in such instances. Has nothing to do with a woman's right to abortion though.

Thank you! Yes he needs to give up the rights well before the child is born. It doesn't have anything to do with her right but they are closely related. Bringing it up during these conversation is the only way to shed light on the idea.

[Nurasu]

If that's the case, then the woman should be able to have the kid, and have the option of being financially responsible, or not. That would mean she could deliver the baby, and turn to the doctors and say, "Nope, it's not mine... it's all his."

In the end, you are either arguing that women should not have bodily autonomy, or men (and possibly women), should not be responsible for the consequences of their actions. It would appear you are arguing for the latter.

- - - Updated - - -



I agree, it's not the laws themselves, but merely how they are often applied, which has been problematic in the past, and is still an issue.

Well, I think he is saying the woman has the choice to abort or not to abort. If there's a baby at the end, that's the woman's choice; the man has no choice after penetration, and any choice given to him by society would have to be purely financial (lest we infringe on the woman's rights).

Ultimately, I think it's far more important that women have that choice than not, and lastly I should thank god every day that I'm gay.

[crewskater]

If that's the case, then the woman should be able to have the kid, and have the option of being financially responsible, or not. That would mean she could deliver the baby, and turn to the doctors and say, "Nope, it's not mine... it's all his."

In the end, you are either arguing that women should not have bodily autonomy, or men (and possibly women), should not be responsible for the consequences of their actions. It would appear you are arguing for the latter.

The latter also applies to women who abort the baby. Also what do you think adoption is? Not being responsible for the consequences for your actions. Not sure what your point is. No where did I even come close to your first point about body autonomy.

[Machismo]

Well, I think he is saying the woman has the choice to abort or not to abort. If there's a baby at the end, that's the woman's choice; the man has no choice after penetration.

Ultimately, I think it's far more important that women have that choice than not, and lastly I should thank god every day that I'm gay.

And yes, that is covered under the 14th Amendment, which also protects men. If he says a man can simply opt out, then a woman should be able to do the same, and dump a baby in a guy's lap and just take off.

The man does have a choice, a willful decision during sexual intercourse. the woman has that same choice, and they take the action together. They are both equally responsible for her getting pregnant, and that baby being born 9 months later. And I want to be clear, if no other actions are taken, that is the result. So, if one wants to argue that a man can give up custody quite easily, then the woman should also be able to do the same. Of course, that's arguing that people shouldn't be responsible for the consequences of their actions, which is quite the slippery slope when applied to other things.

- - - Updated - - -

The latter also applies to women who abort the baby. Also what do you think adoption is? Not being responsible for the consequences for your actions. Not sure what your point is. No where did I even come close to your first point about body autonomy.

I want to make sure you are clear, should a woman be able to say she doesn't want to have custody of a baby, and push all custody onto the man, just like he can do to her in your scenario?