Men Want Say in Unplanned Pregnancy!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Japher
Child support, as far as I know, is a percentage of salary or as agreed on by the court. Not a set fee.

Depends on what jurisdiction.

I'm not aware of the situation in the US, but in Canada there are some horror stories of men being beggared by the courts and government guidelines for support.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by GePap
Your statement above is false. The only outcome in which the man bears any cost is if the woman choses to keep the child and then goes to court to get child support. If a woman gets an abortion, or puts the kid up for apodtion, the man bears no cost. Or the woman could seek no child support (very likely if she did not really know the guy), and the man remains scott free.

Yep. She gets to make a choice on costs. She gets to decide how much it will cost her AND how much it'll cost the man. He is at the whim of her choice. She can decide how much costs she'll sustain. The man can't decide any of his costs at all (well aside from distasteful & illegal measures).

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


She isn't, if he claims the child. The woman is the only one making the choice if the man makes no attempt to keep it.

She makes the choice for him if she decides to keep it. He pays. No choice.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, it's her body. Why does personal responsibility not attach so greatly to her?

What are you talking about? The woman has FAR MORE responsibility always, unless the man decided to kepe the child himself, and then child support is not an issue.

Where are you getting these things???

Hey, I can see Ben Kenobi making the same argument for women. If she fails to make her choice before sex, she's forfeited her choice.

I could care less what Ben Kenobi thinks. And the difference remains, as again, a woman bears far greater costs than a man. The situation is NEVER even remotely equivalent. There is a basic inequality in pregnancy. That is just how biology works folks.

Because the woman bears greater costs, she should be more careful. They should get equal choices.

They do have an equal choice: both can take the same steps to stop a pregancy. They also have RESPONSIBILITIES. If the man failed to take sufficent steps to avoid impregnating, then he has to bear the costs. And again, the cost to men in this situation are ALWAYS less.

Like you said, men have no costs if the woman chooses to abort or adopt, but have great costs if the woman carries to term. The woman gets to decide how much cost she will bear. She can terminate early and give up little costs or keep it to term and give great costs. The man has no say over costs whatsoever.

The women has even greater costs is she choses to carry to full term. The man could always, well, be a man and bear the responsibility he has for that situation, since he is responsible for what happened.

I also fail utterly to see the mania about abortion. The fact is, if the woman is not allowed to have an abortion, a deadbeat father will still have to pay child support. Abortions only help to free these irresponsible men from bearing any cost. They should shut their mouths and fight to keep abortion a legal options, instead of being whinners and demanding they be freed from any responsibility.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Yep. She gets to make a choice on costs. She gets to decide how much it will cost her AND how much it'll cost the man. He is at the whim of her choice. She can decide how much costs she'll sustain. The man can't decide any of his costs at all (well aside from distasteful & illegal measures).

Too bad and too late. If he failed to take the necessary steps to avoid impregnating the woman, then he is responsible for that child because half the necessary genetic material came from him. That seems a simple enough FACT.

And a court decides the cost, not the woman.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


She makes the choice for him if she decides to keep it. He pays. No choice.

As I told Imran, too late to whine about it. The guy is reponsible for half the genetic material necessary to make the child. That means he is RESPONSIBLE. Therefore, he will bear a cost for his action.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There is a basic inequality in pregnancy. That is just how biology works folks.

So women should be more vigilant, since it affects their bodies more. Doesn't change the fact that they get a second choice after the sexual act while the man does not.

Abortions only help to free these irresponsible men from bearing any cost.

And the irresponsible woman. Don't forget that.

At least if abortion was banned, both would have only one choice instead of one party having only one choice, while the other has two.

I know the argument will never work because of societal norms, but doesn't seem like equal protection of the laws to me.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Too bad and too late. If he failed to take the necessary steps to avoid impregnating the woman, then he is responsible for that child because half the necessary genetic material came from him. That seems a simple enough FACT.

Like I said before... seems like a good rational for banning abortion. She failed to take the necessary steps to avoid impregnation, then she is responsible for the child because half of the necessary genetic material comes from her.

[Jaguar]

Thread summary: blah blah I want to get into semantic arguments about what constitutes responsibility blah blah blah mostly I just love to hear myself pontificate about gametes blah blah

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

So women should be more vigilant, since it affects their bodies more. Doesn't change the fact that they get a second choice after the sexual act while the man does not.

What does the fact women need to be vigilant have to do with the fact men have to? Its called RESPONSIBILITY FOR BOTH.

That FACT you mention is based on biology, because for a man the act of getting someone pregnant is done in second. For a woman it goes on for MONTHS. Therefore, it is only obvious and logical that the person who must deal with a situation for months will have more options than the person who deals with it only for seconds. The person who deals with it only for seconds has no reason to ever assume they will have the same choices as the one who must deal with the situation for months on end.

And the irresponsible woman. Don't forget that.

The woman must pay for a procedure whose cost and medical risk varies according to the time of the pregancy, and must bear the psychological cost.

The man bears 0 cost.

Even in abortions, there is not even the mearest hint of equality in cost.

At least if abortion was banned, both would have only one choice instead of one party having only one choice, while the other has two.

If the man wants nothing to do with the child, the woman still has TWO CHOICES, the man one. You forget giving the child up for adoption.

I know the argument will never work because of societal norms, but doesn't seem like equal protection of the laws to me.

The law must work within the realm of reality. The law for men and women regarding pregancy CAN NOT BE EQUAL because men and women ARE NOT EQUAL IN PREGANCY. That simple.

It is insane to make laws create "equality" where can exist given basic biology. And it is beyond perverse to attempt to do so in order to free men of all responsibility.

[Shi Huangdi]

The women has even greater costs is she choses to carry to full term.

The costs are by no means always going to be greater for the women. If the man in question was Derek Jeter or some wealthy guy, he would end up paying far greater costs over the long run.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Like I said before... seems like a good rational for banning abortion. She failed to take the necessary steps to avoid impregnation, then she is responsible for the child because half of the necessary genetic material comes from her.

Except that the reason given for banning abortion has nothing to do with presonal responsibility, but instead has to do with whether the fetus is a human being entitled to life by itself, therefore removing the notion of choice.

I know of NO ONE who wants to ban abortion simply to teahc irresponsible people a lesson.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


The costs are by no means always going to be greater for the women. If the man in question was Derek Jeter or some wealthy guy, he would end up paying far greater costs over the long run.

Not proportionally to their total earnings. And you utterly ingore the time spent by both parties )ie, 18 years vs NONE), plus the fact the woman bears the full physical and psychological costs associated with pregancy while the man bears none.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Jaguar
Thread summary: blah blah I want to get into semantic arguments about what constitutes responsibility blah blah blah mostly I just love to hear myself pontificate about gametes blah blah

I think you can get past alot of the blah blah blah and boil it down to a specific, simple, question: Does consent to have sex imply consent to care for a child?

If it does, then the government has the right to stop the woman from getting an abortion. If it does not, then the government doesn't have the right to make the man pay child support.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Its called RESPONSIBILITY FOR BOTH.

Yes, it's called responsibility for both. Women get an extra choice in order to decide if they want to be responsible for their actions of unprotected sex. Men don't.

Therefore, it is only obvious and logical that the person who must deal with a situation for months will have more options than the person who deals with it only for seconds.

The man has to pay for the child for 18+ years if she decides to keep it. Sounds quite a bit more than dealing with a situation 'for seconds'.

Even in abortions, there is not even the mearest hint of equality in cost.

Nor is there equality in choice under the current system. Nor equality in whether choice to have sex binds you to whatever consequences of that sexual relation, since the woman can decide to minimize the consequences, while the man cannot.

And it is beyond perverse to attempt to do so in order to free men of all responsibility.

But to chain them as slaves of the woman's second choice is a-ok?