Strange Famous

In cases of abuse, i think no one would disagree that the child should be removed from the absuive situation by the state.

However, in general what I am saying is that the male partner does not in my opinion have any moral rights over an unborn fetus. It is not a case of saying you want "equality" in rights - because the fetus is carried within the body of one person and not another.

Until the child is born, I believe the decision to seek abortion is entirely that of the women, although education and all available options should be there, it is ultimately her choice and no one else should have any input. It is the women who has to carry the fetus, who has to go through childbirth (which as I mentioned, would have killed my mother if she had been forced to go through with it in one occasion), and so on.

After the child is born, I would also agree that - as the natural relationship is between mother and child - the mother should have a automatic right to custody - unless unfit to care for the child. This is not about placing people in abusive situations, but if there are two fit parents, the mother always takes priority, because she is better able to care for the child than a man.

The male should provide some level of financial support for the child. and also should be entitled to some level of supervised time with the child. At the point where the child is able to make an informed decision, then they may decide if they want custody to be changed to the father.

In an ideal world, I probably would support something in line with the aholition of the family altogether, that children are raised in group homes and not in families - which causes many emotional and mental problems in my opinion... but if we are talking about the world and the way it is today, if my opinions were not clear, I will re-state them.

The mother is the sole person who has the right to make a decision on abortion. It is not correct for the potential father to either force an abortion on a woman who doesnt want one, or attempt to deny an abortion to a woman who does want one.

Care of a child will automatically be awarded to the woman, unless she is judged as unfit.

The man shall contribute financially to the upkeep of the child - this is fair, and when you have unprotected sex any adult should understand the potential consequence. However, in a real and moral sense, I believe the child "belongs" to the mother more than the father, that the mother has more right to custody of the child. While the father is asked only to contribute financially - to ensure the standard of living of the child, the woman is asked to contribuet time, love, dedication - therefore with right goes responsibility. The woman is asked to GIVE much more t the upbringing of the child, because her right and responsibiolity is greater,

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

analog

No, it was totally necessary. There is a lot of weighty estrogen being tossed around in here, and OF COURSE it doesn't necessarily apply to EVERY female in this thread. Obviously if your posts were what they were, then it doesn't very well apply to you, does it? To answer your question, yes, I have read every post in this thread, as I read every post in EVERY thread I post in, unlike many people who don't even properly read the FIRST post (i'm not talking about you, so relax), even if it means drudging through multiple pages.

You do realize, of course, that the entire idea of "being a man" and "accepting responsibility" is a totally sexist comment, right? It's about as close to total inequality as one can get. You want to talk about responsibility? Unless the woman was raped, "responsibility" is a fifty/fifty split down the middle.

And I have to add, as a person who dislikes children in general and will never have any-

It is thoroughly hilarious to me that all parents will argue to their death what a wonderful blessing/experience/unparalleled joy, and what a special thing it is to have a child and blah blah blah... but when it comes down to talking about other people and whose "responsibility" a possibly (though perhaps not mutually agreed upon) unwanted pregnancy is, and suddenly it's the dirtiest little act, reduced to simple penis & vagina hump talk. Some people are sooooooooo quick to reduce or inflate the significance of an event that's exactly identical to another's experience, simply because it happened to them. Many of you have taken what you consider wonderful and boiled it down to filthy lust just because it wasn't planned- lest we forget that many parents have had unplanned children and are insatiably happy with their decision to keep the child. In all sincerity, bravo for them.

As you've all so wonderfully elaborated in this thread, sex is sex, and having a baby REALLY IS just a sperm shaking hands with an egg. No more. Just because i'm pro-choice and dislike children, doesn't mean I want everyone to abort every unwanted child like it were a form of alternative birth control.

I'm not sure why you quoted my entire (lengthy) post... it doesn't seem to be relevant to what you've posted...

However, with all due respect, I am very curious how you consider what you've said here to not only be correct, but not incredibly sexist? Are you trying to insist that a father is not a "natural relationship" to a child? Are you trying to insinuate that a man cannot rear a child properly without a woman, or that he could never do as "good" a job as a woman? Lastly- are you, in fact, totally unaware of how completely one-sided, disrespectfully and illogically anti-male and unequal your comments just were?

Equality. How can anyone claim anything besides equality is "unfair"?
INequality is "unfair", but men have been dealing with that since this topic first came to bear.

SecretMethod70

It seems that it needs to be said again: no one is proposing that men can force or forcefully prevent an abortion.
Analog is right. Perhaps you don't realize this, but your statements here are incredibly sexist. "The natural relationship is between mother and child?" Seriously. Perhaps you've missed the ungodly amount of studies done showing the importance of BOTH parents in a child's development? Not to mention, the mother is better able to care for the child and the father has a financial responsibility? I thought most people arguing for women's rights were trying to get AWAY from this sexist and terribly wrong 1950's Donna Reed stereotype. Just like women are just as capable of handling finances as a man, men are just as capable of being loving, caring human beings.

Some of the posts in this thread - no offense - just baffle me. The men should take responsibility for their actions? They had sex and knew a child could come of it, so they should be responsible and face the consequences? How, exactly, does the female's role not apply to this argument as well? It would be great if abortion weren't used as birth control and if people only had sex when capable of facing the potential consequences, but it's just not the case. Yet, while women can "opt out" of responsibility, men cannot. This is not equal responsibility. Responsibility is 50/50 - both people willingly had sex, knowing of the possibilities of pregnancy. The current arrangement is not only sexist against males (which I think has been sufficiently pointed out here), but it is also sexist against females. Under this logic, sex is something that happens TO females and they simply choose whether or not they want to live with the consequences. The male has "responsibilities" for the pregnancy. The woman? Oh, well the male "got her pregnant," so she can choose to not have the child if she so wishes. She's not a person in control of her actions, she is a person to whom things happen. She needs the protection of choice because she is less capable of taking responsibility for her actions than a man is. This view is terribly lacking in dignity to BOTH people.

Case in point. The man, because he is fully aware of what he is doing, must "take responsibility for his actions." The woman, on the other hand, despite having the same ability as the man to choose to have sex, is somehow apparently not capable of being as "fully aware" as a man, because she still needs to be protected from being responsible for her actions.

Either women are morons and incapable of making intelligent decisions, or the situation needs to change. Personally, I think women are just as intelligent as men.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

KinkyKiwi

i don't think its right..and if without any stress to the woman it coul dbe moved to the guys body then i woul dbe all for that. but its her body, its the woman thats gonna have to deal with the actual pain of lador, the marks, the veins, the swelling, the hvaing to replace her entire shoe collection...

i love how some men are all for keeping it when its not their life that will get fucked up. after all most of teh time it still ends up being the mother who takes care of it.

men just dont get what a woman would have to go thru..lol and imma lil worked up over this because my best friend just told me that if he ever got a woman pregnant he "wouldnt let" her have an abortion and he "wouldnt let" her be drugged so that "his kid" would have a "natural" birth...*goes off to rant*

__________________
Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
Play with each other. Play with yourselves. Just don't play with the squirrels, they bite.

Nisses

As far as the 'use a condom', 'use birthcontrol' arguments go... Drop those, wouldn't ya? The point of this thread is not to prevent it, but what to do when it *has* happened.
And besides, the controls are never 100% effective, so even if you 'do the right thing' you can still have it happen.
I would agree with Maleficent in saying if you really, really don't want to have children, get yourself fixed, whether you're male or female. But that's not the point here, we're talking about afterwards.


As far as the abortion goes, you only have 2 stances here it seems. You're either for equality or you're against. Not saying in general, but in this scenario specific.

To me it doesn't seem worth it to try to talk analog or Strange Famous out of their ideas. They're different stances on the subject and not really reconcileable (if that's even a word).

So I would agree with Analog in saying that equality is a noble goal which we should try to achieve.

Now...
4 scenarios:
Father wants the child, mother wants the child --> no problem
Father doesn't want the child, mother doesn't want the child --> no problem

Father wants the child, mother doesn't want the child... In this case, you're forcing the mother to go through a painful process and 9 months of discomfort, you're controlling her body physically. Something that doesn't sit well with the controlled party, in this case women.

Mother wants to keep the child, father doesn't... In this case, the legal system forces the father to pay for the support of the child for 2 decades. Which may not be physical control, but at the very least mental control of a person. So in this case, you're controlling the man. Which, again, doesn't sit well with the controlled party...

So you've got 2 possible problem-situations.

Want a hard-ball opinion? With all the studies going around that show the influence of both parents in the raising of a child... Abortion unless both parties agree to raise the child (either together or separately).

Sure it may sound harsh. But in this case, it's not the father's rights, or the mother's rights that should come first.

It's the child's right to a good, decent and lasting upbringing. If you can't guarantee that, why go with the laissez-faire attitude and see what the result will become...

Stop and abort, do not pass Go, do not collect your alimony, and do not control anybody. Just pass by City Hall, the 2 of you, and put down in writing that both of you agree to raise the kid, problem solved.

Neither of you bothered to do so? Then either raise the kid on your own, or don't go through with the pregnancy.


my 2 cents.

PS, Kinky Kiwi: as far as the actual process of childbirth, there I agree with you, it's her body, it's her pain, the man shouldn't really have a say in that. The woman knows her pain-limits and should be able to use a painrelief if she wants to.

__________________
Moderation should be moderately moderated.

KinkyKiwi

nisses- great concept...but for some people.. like me for instance..not so applicable...like if i had an abortion i would need to be on antibiotics....lil issue there..lol i wouldnt need an abortion because i would be dead. severe. allergic. reaction. plus i know LOTS of kids that have one parent and are happier then kids with 2. and whos to say that even if you start with 2 parents who both want a kid that in a year down the line one wont run off? its easier to say you want a kid when you have no idea what that means then actually dealing with one.

__________________
Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
Play with each other. Play with yourselves. Just don't play with the squirrels, they bite.

Nisses

I know, and I agree totally that the possibility exist that later on, one of the might think a second time... But the point then is that he or she legally committed him/herself to it, and then deserves to get a big fat alimony deducted from the salary. And it would also do away with the woman not wanting to go through the pregnancy unless she wanted.

also, please explain?

"but for some people.. like me for instance..not so applicable...like if i had an abortion i would need to be on antibiotics....lil issue there..lol i wouldnt need an abortion because i would be dead. severe. allergic. reaction. "
--> severe allergic reaction to what? and antibiotics for what?

__________________
Moderation should be moderately moderated.

KinkyKiwi

i'm deathly allergic to antibiotics..like if i take them i swell up and my joints turn into giant red lumps..i cant breathe..and i end up passing out and i lose all control of my body...lol didnt know it till 2 years ago either...

__________________
Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
Play with each other. Play with yourselves. Just don't play with the squirrels, they bite.

KinkyKiwi

oh and antibiotics because they make you take them after you get an abortion..just liek any other surgery

__________________
Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
Play with each other. Play with yourselves. Just don't play with the squirrels, they bite.

tecoyah

In a perfect world, a descision of the magnitude should be made by concensus. We, unfortunately do not live in that world. That said, the woman will always hold the trump card here, as it is she that carries the risks, and the true responsibility of the childs health within her. Perhaps this will help shed light :

How would the men here feel if a woman you were involved with, TOLD you to to get a vascectomy. It is your body, yet she demands you undergo surgery that will prevent you from ever having a child.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

d*d

This isn't about forcing women to have an operation, that point was made earlier on, but all the people harping on about equality should stop to consider that we are (male and female) different, opposites in many respects. True equality can only be applied if the parties involved can truly be treated as equal in every respect, this is why sexism will always be present because there will always differences.

maleficent

Until men can actually get pregnant and give birth, or even have a more goof proof birth control than condoms, there will never be equality. This goes further than than the rights of either gender, what about the child that results. It's not fair to a child of an accidental pregnancy to not be supported just because the father wanted to absolve himself of his paternal rights. If he didn't want kids, he should have been responsible and had a vasectomy.

__________________

astrahl

Sorry, but if she doesn't want it, there is no ethical or logical way to excuse his will over hers being okay.

Pregnancy is something that takes over a woman's body forever, not for just the 9 months. It makes permanent changes, and that is something that a woman has to live with, not the man.

I was rather shocked to see the percentages in the responses, two to tango, eh? Not quite. If a man can have a say, then women can never own their own bodies...we are just vessels that the rest of society can use to their will.

You can't judge the decision to have a child against those women who have kids to anchor or trap a man. You can't justify condemning the many because of a few assholes. That is what our country is based on anyways, innocent until proven guilty.

__________________
Maybe it was over when she chucked me out the Rover at full speed.
Maybe Maybe...
~a-Ha

Seeker

A prenuptial type situation before sex then?

__________________
To those who wander but who are not lost...

~ Knowledge is not something you acquire, it is something you open yourself to.

shakran

so can premarital sex, but she wasn't thinking of that when she was in bed with that guy was she?

Yes, obviously, anything you do has consequences. What's your point. If a woman feels that an abortion has consequences which are too unpleasant, she needs to be prepared to deal with the consequences of THAT decision as well.

The way you're structuring it is this:

Man has 0 say in whether or not the kid is had.
Man then has 0 say in whether or not the kid is kept.
Man has 100% responsibility for the production of the kid.
Man has at LEAST (often more) 50% financial responsibility.

That doesn't make sense. If I have no say in whether something happens, then I shouldn't be held financially responsible when it does.

And your comment about men being allowed to run around impregnating women is ludicrous. You talk about being equality minded, then in one sentence you tell us all women are mindless sluts who have their legs open to any man who happens by. The woman has a brain too, ya know, and she can decide whether or not to be impregnated. I don't know how it works where you're from, but in my country you're not allowed to have sex with a woman unless she agrees to it. This image of men running around impregnating people is stupid - for every man that's legally impregnated a woman, there's a woman who allowed herself to be impregnated.

Cervantes

And if the woman doesn't want kids she should tie her tubes right? This line of reasoning is very narrow and exclusive. What about if a man/woman doesn't want kids at the moment because of his/her present finacial/social/relationship situation but would like to have kids later in life (like most males and females aged 14-25 I know of)?

A vasectomy isn't foolproof and it is far from always reversible, tying your tubes hold the same risks. Do you seriously expect a man to go through with the operation with the risks involved to aovid pregnancy at the moment? Do you expect a woman to go through with tying her tubes with the risks involved just because she doesn't want kids at the moment?

What happends when a lot of young men and women go through with a medical procedure that sterilizies them? My guess, more unprotected sex, more STD's and a major setback in the fight against HIV.

I don't know how it is in the US but where I live you are not even allowed to tie your tubes or do a vasectomy unless you already have kids since it is a high risk that you will remain sterile for the rest of your life. Though it wouldn't suprise me if there is a similar policy in most states to avoid lawsuits.

__________________
- "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.."
- "Religions take everything that your DNA naturally wants to do to survive and pro-create and makes it wrong."
- "There is only one absolute truth and that is that there is only one absolute truth."

d*d

So whats better? that you can leave the woman and kid no strings attached because 'You didn't wan't it', thats a bit selfish, an accidental pregnancy is just that - an accident - other accidents you are involved in require that you bear financial burden why not this, I'm surprised you can't get accidental child insurance (although it's probably only a matter of time)

Cervantes

Because an accidental pregnancy has a very safe (safer than going through with the pregnancy according to latest statistics) and simple solution for a woman. Whereas there is no such solution for men.

__________________
- "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.."
- "Religions take everything that your DNA naturally wants to do to survive and pro-create and makes it wrong."
- "There is only one absolute truth and that is that there is only one absolute truth."

maleficent

Abortion is not a simple solution.. ask any woman who has been thru one. It often stays with them for years...

__________________

AngelicVampire

The morning after pill perhaps (basically a mini abortion?)?

Also have you asked many fathers? How do they feel having nearly had a child and having then had that child removed from them? While they do not have the physical pain/trauma they do have mental anguish as well.

Nisses

yes, about 18 or so...

you'll at least have to agree that they have the option, and that the man in the same situation doesn't.

__________________
Moderation should be moderately moderated.

maleficent

How many pregnancies out there were actually planned? I know of many, many, MANY that were ooopses, and the fathers (who swore that they didn't want kids, weren't paternal blah blah) took responsibility and ended up being pretty damn good parents. Things happen in life and you deal with it - -by absolving yourself of responsibility from the get go, you might miss out on something pretty great in your life...

__________________

CandleInTheDark

I would be a good idea except for the fact that no practicing MD would ever fix a childless person.

__________________
Where there is doubt there is freedom.

maleficent

My brother had a vasectomy at age 25... He's 37 now, never wanted 'em at 25, still doesn't want them now - -he and his wife have their dog-child and are perfectly happy.

__________________

animosity

Most doctors will not give a vesectomy to a young, unmarried man. I want one. But I will have to make due with condoms for now.

As for the question, I think that men should have more rights. Obviously a man should have no legal rights over a woman's body, but he should have the right to "abort", on paper, all responcibitlies if he was not with the woman. If the baby was not planned a woman can simply get rid of it with out any consent from the father. I think it is only right that the father be able to deny the same responcibilities. I say this, even being raised by a single mother. And my father never once paid child support.

Cervantes

Poor choice of words I apologise. But the solution is readily at hand. I would imagine that a legal "abortion" would cause a similar doubt and "what if" anguish for a man that the woman goes through. Not as severe perhaps but still present.
This isn't about making a simple choice on a split second, this is, at least the way I think about it, a very serious decition made during serious circumstances.

__________________
- "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.."
- "Religions take everything that your DNA naturally wants to do to survive and pro-create and makes it wrong."
- "There is only one absolute truth and that is that there is only one absolute truth."

Lockjaw

Everything you are saying here can be flipped and used as an arguement against a woman's right to choose.

And it's also fairly presumputous to say that the after shocks of an abortion will stay with a woman for years(presumablely you are speaking of mental anquish) but not assume that a man wouldn't be bothered one bit to having signed away his rights to ever even see or be involved with his potentially only progeny just because he was young and stupid.

analog

The ability to actually bake the child inside your body has nothing to do with equality of responsibility. Just because it's growing inside you, does not absolve YOU of YOUR HALF of the responsibility.

The unwanted child is JUST AS MUCH HER FAULT AS HIS. Just as a man can put on a condom, so can a responsible woman ask that a condom be put on. If you're so adult and mature, there's zero issue with asking a condom be used. Again- unless it's rape, the woman is just as at fault for the penis being in there as the man is.

As far as having a vasectomy goes: Vasectomies are less than 5% reversible. Most all doctors will stress to you to not plan on it being able to be reversed at all, so don't sit there talking like men can unload and reload the pistol any 'ole time they want to, as many of you are. Also, I honestly find the suggestion that a man should be "responsible and have a vasectomy" to be utterly ludicrous. I don't drag out a tank or a flamethrower every time there's a fly on the wall, like you're proposing. That's just horridly overkill of an idea. If a pregnancy happens, they were both being careless, or some crazy shit happened- in either event, fault is the same on both parties.

A. I'm not picking on you.
2. This isn't Tilted Parenting. We're talking about people who don't want kids.
D. "Sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I wouldn't know, because i'll never eat the filthy motherfucker." - Jules, Pulp Fiction. People don't want what they don't want, and I find the constant assertion of parents that having a child is blah blah blah wonderful to be inappropriate and disrespectful. Just as uncalled for as hearing a person preach a religion you don't want to hear about, or if someone was trying to sell you on the idea of taking it in the ass when you had no intention of going there. It's crass.

Matter of fact, next person to preach kids to me will get preached on anal. That should be interesting. The arguments are all the same. "You just don't know, because you haven't had the joy yet," and "if you're ever in a spot to experience it, it will change your world." It's a feeling you can't describe... and when it finally comes out... you're speechless.

Da Munk

Many people are saying that it would be selfish for a man to just walk away from his partner and potential child, and you're right. But it is equally selfish for a woman to abort her pregnancy when the father wishes to keep it, and no one questions her right to do so.

jorgelito

But the problem is, your tubes aren't a life. The woman is carrying another life.

analog

Technically, our tubes harbor about a few billion more opportunities for life during the reproductive cycle of our lives than any woman. So, your argument is moot. Also, AGAIN, this discussion is not about making women have abortions, but about the role of the father with respect to "responsibility". So, again, i'm unsure the point behind your post.

Of course, this all harkens back to the real point here, which is: conception is a two-person job. Equal cause, equal responsibility.

maleficent

Pick on me all you want to darlin' I still think you are cute, and I still love ya ()crap I mean like ya bunches)... For the record, I AM NOT a parent. I never wanted to be a parent, I never played with dollls or house as kid, maternal is not a word that would ever be used to describe me. (and with my lack of patience it would be considered a good thing that I can't have children) So ptooey!

I am, however, an extreme advocate of responsibility, on the part of both parties. I think an abortion as a means of birth control or a matter of convenience is so unbelievably wrong it's not even funny. I don't think that a person should have gotten into that situation, I think they should have been sexually responsible. Condoms are no where close to 100 percent effective, I'm not even sure they are 90 percent effective when used properly.

Birth control, unless falls almost entirely on the woman, if we are talking casual relationships, why would a man beleive a woman when she says she's taking precaustions, why wouldn't he be responsible and protect himself in any way possible, up to and including not having sex unless he was absolutely sure.

There's no good answer except to ensure that it doesn't happen to begin with.

__________________

analog

Excellent.

And I said I wasn't picking on you partly because I know you have no kiddies. And I like you bunches too.

kutulu

I don't see it as sexist. I see it as the difference between a boy and a man or if you prefer child and adult. Since attempt at argueing semantics over substance. You are right, 'responsibility' is shared, that's why I'm not condoning men acting like pieces of shit and abandoning their kids.

Because I can't remember what you've posted on other threads about it, I'm not specifcally calling you out. However, there are many people that have drawn the sexist card here that love to complain about PC trends. Ironic hardly describes it.

I don't know what the hell you are saying there.

Is a man capable of breast feeding 10x per day in the first couple months and a few times a day for the next two years (the WHO recommends breast feeding up until age 2)? Have you ever read about the benefits of breast feeding and how superior it is to formula? Are you aware of the psychological benefits of breast feeding for infants?

Nobody is saying that women can't work or that men cannot provide love but for the first two years, unless the mother is a total fuck, the baby is better off with the mother. Other posters, however, are doing their best to spin it this way though.

Also, how is a woman taking care of the baby and working avoiding responisbility? Oh that's right, she IS the one taking responsibility while the man acts like a child saying 'it's not fair, it's my money and I don't want to'

Spare me the either for x or against it unless you plan on throwing in a 'you don't hate x' line in for extra humor.

If the mother bears the child, is willing to provide all emotional support and continue working to support herself and as much towards the child as she can and is only asking for money to assist with raising the child, how exactly is the man expected to give "100% responsibility for the production of the kid"? Financial responsibility is simple, half of all child related expenses: food, diapers, day care, clothes, furniture, health care costs, education costs, and an amount that would pay for half of the additional space required for the baby. Those numbers are easy to estimate. If that amounts to 1% of his income, fine, otherwise he needs to get a second job.

The fact that you don't like the analogy does not make it untrue. There are many men out there in the real world that have fathered children with multiple women and haven't done shit to make things right. If men are able to opt out of responsibility, not only the amount of useless fathers increase exponentially increase, it will be perfectly acceptable.

Also, I never implied that women are mindless sluts, you inferred that. It's not my fault that you thought that meant I said all women are sluts, maybe that reflects your bias.

Yes you are right. And if the child is carried to term and the mother keeps it she is devoting her life 100% to the child while working to support herself and the child. The man only needs to write a check. Exactly how is the man being given an undue burden?

Because until it pops out it's in her body and people have the ultimate authority over what is allowed to happen to their bodies.

No but the fact that women can have an abortion and men have no way to terminate their involement has been brought up several times so it is relevant. It may not have been part of the original thought but 100 posts and there are bound to be related issues dragged into it.

lol, if men who desert their kids were asked for equal responsibility they'd be forced to do more than write a check that covers half of the bills related to the child. At best, they are being asked to share 25% of the responsibility. It's an inconvenience for them. The mother is still devoting her life.

100+ posts and I haven't seen one reply from those who support deadbeat dads that doesn't boil down to 'it's not fair that she can choose an abortion and I don't have an out' Is it fair for the child to have a mother that cannot give it all it needs because daddy was a piece of shit?

Again, how would allowing men to skirt their responsibility make society better?

jorgelito

Because people keep bringing up "it a woman's body, it's her right etc." I think it is only natural to express concern from a pro-life point of view.

It is very much a part of the discussion and is highly relevant. People keep claiming, "what about the kid", but seem to have no problem with killing the kid.

As far as a father's responsibility? Well, that's between a rock and a hard place: I think men should be responsible for their actions but at the same time should also have rights. That's the tricky part. So far, I think the best idea thrown out here is the "legal abortion" (really needs a better term) option. Thus far it seems to be the most equitable and makes the most sense without trampling on anyone's rights.

kutulu

That's because until the 'kid' is born (or maybe at least viable outside the womb), the kid is not a kid yet. At that point it is similar to a parasite.

Men have rights. If the woman doesn't want an abortion but doesn't want the kid he can take the kid. In that case the woman needs to provide child support.

jorgelito

This is an interesting point: So far no one has really addressed the issue from this particular angle. That's equality - same expectations as of a man. If the guy gets the kid, he gets child-support too. Although my guess is that it doesn't happen too often. But it is still one option out of a possible 4?

On your first point, I disagree (that of course is the controversy), I believe the the unborn child is a life. We'll have to agree to disagree or at least acknowledge the discrepancy, otherwise open up a new thread ad nauseum.

kutulu

If by four options you mean:

abortion - mother's decision
adoption - doesn't this require the approval of both?
mom keeps, dad pays
dad keeps, mom pays

The only situation that doesn't involve the man is abortion. If the baby is kept, both parents are given the option of being a parent or a check.

Strange Famous

I do not share your understanding of the ideal of equality, first of all - when two things are not equal, equality does not mean necessarily levelling, we do not seek to be impartial between the fire hose and the fire. Men and women do not have equal roles in child birth, from this they do not have equal rights or responsibilities.

In answer to your direct questions - no, I do not believe the relationship between a father and child is of the same worth as a relationship between a mother and a child.

A child raised by a man alone if not raised in a natural relationship... individual men may fulfill this role well, and care adequately for the child, but in general the man is not as "good" a parent as the woman. The same instinctual bond does not exist between fathers and children as exists between mothers and children. if all things are equal, it is always better for the child to be with the mother.

There may be exceptional cases where the mother is less capable a parent do to abuse or fitness issues - and of course these should be treated accordingly. if a mother is unfit to raise a child, the child should be taken into care of the state, or other relatives that are fit to care for the child - a judgement must be made in each case,

Some of the talk here seems to come from the view that children are objects, or possessions, that must be divided "fairly" - my concern is that the child has the best environment, and this is imo with the mother in 95% of cases... of course, the man has SOME degree of responsibility. If the mother is expected to make the HUGE "sacrifice" of parenting alone, the father should be expected to make a smaller "sacrifice" in terms of financial support.

Lastly, in my opinion, within a patriachal society, it is not possible to talk of sexism AGAINST men. Sexism is the exercise of power against one gender, and in all of the major societies I can think of, this power is exercised against women. The fact is simply that women DO NOT have the same career prospects, do not have the same power relationships, are more frequently the victims of violence by men than the other way round, are discouraged and discriminated against in many ways and so on...

It is possible for some women to be chauvenistic, bigoted, or anti-male - but a woman cannot be a sexist, and a pro-female attitude cannot be described as sexist in my opinion. The defence of reproductive and family rights as a laying within the female sphere is, in my interpretation, a defence of the natural order and a defence against a society that claims equal parenting rights for men and women (a concept which to me is sexist).

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

AngelicVampire

Equality means equal, such that skin, gender, race etc do not matter, a man is slightly less fit than a woman to raise a kid for the first two years (due to a lack of breasts however technology has pretty much solved them not being able to feed kids) however to say that a woman is better at raising kids is bulls**t, parenting is unnatural to both genders its only by doing it that you can improve.

Sorry for really heading off topic, the whole point is that one sex has a way out of a situation that the other sex does not, as this involves someone else's body you cannot dictate physically however there should be a non-physical option for removing your participation. The other way is harder (as forcing a woman to have a child is again problematic) however in general situations what rights should a man have to not having a child (as opposed to actually wanting one, people who did want their child and then abandon them are not covered in this topic), divorce is another interesting point when a male may lose all contact (or a female) and are not allowed to see their children at all should they still pay towards the upkeep of these children (or should they instead contribute to something like a trust fund that the child gets when it turns 18)?


edit- spelling
edit 2: Second Paragraph added