Abortion and Father's rights

Syth

First of all I'm not trying to start a thread on the morality of abortion. Please don't reply with "Abortion is murder".

What I am asking is, is it right that the woman gets total choice on abortion? Shouldn't the father get some say before hand? If the woman has the child, then the man has to pay child support, even though he gets no say in it. Surely if it's her choice, it's also her responsibility, right?

Arg but then you'd have loads of men just running off, is there a middle ground? Or should it be the woman's choice and the woman's resbonsibility.

And please no anti-abortion replies, that's a different issue...

Zombrex

Shouldn't the father get some say before hand?

What if the father says no and the mother says yes?

How can you force a woman not to have an abortion?

Syth

What if the father says no and the mother says yes?

Yes to what, the baby or the abortion?
If yes to the baby, then maybe the woman doesn't get any child support, unless they were in some kind of relationship and she was being totally supported by him for ages.

Sorry I didn't phrase the original post correctly. I don't really mean that you shouldn't force women not have an abortion, and force then to have a child they don't want. If they don't want a child they shouldn't have to have a child. More along the lines of forcing the father to pay child support for 20 odd years, when he has no choice on whether or not to have the baby. Whereas if the woman thinks that now she can't financially afford a baby, she can get the abortion, whereas the father has no choice. Is that fair and just?

Zombrex

Think that is a difficult one .. don't really know the answer

On the one hand, the man doesn't want the child, so should he have to support the child he didn't want in the first place, just because the woman wants to keep it? If only the woman wants to keep it then surely she should have to pay for it.

On the other hand, any man can say he doesn't want the child just to get out of child support.

Don't really know, but I am leaning towards the man paying child support even if he doesn't want it. The child is in the world whether he wants it or not and for the childs sake the father should give support.

Syth

any man can say he doesn't want the child just to get out of child support

Well then obviously he shouldn't really get any parental rights then, it's either all in, or all out.

for the childs sake the father should give support

Does it really matter to the child that their father gave money to their mother for their upbringing, as opposed to say the state giving money for their upbringing? Sole parents should be given extra state support if they can't manage to pay for a child, no child should have to suffer because of lack of money. But must that money come from the father?

Also what if the father, on finding out about the pregnancy, realises he wants a child, but the mother doesn't. She could have an abortion and the father is deprived a child he wants. Should the mother have the baby, then turn all custody over to the father, and have nothing more to do with the child and father (incl child support)?

LegacyUser

I'd hazard a guess that the vast vast majority of abortions were 1 night stands and the father just doesn't come into it

Syth

Ah, but what about 1 night stands where the woman decieds to keep the baby. Meet a girl once, then wind up paying her for 18 years, like a uber-expensive hooker...

Nevyn

yes but the tricky part if privng it is him that got her pregant. Paternity tests are done after the child is born.

LegacyUser

Originally posted by Syth
Ah, but what about 1 night stands where the woman decieds to keep the baby. Meet a girl once, then wind up paying her for 18 years, like a uber-expensive hooker...

ouch, rule number 1, use a pseudonyme, and never give em ur #
on a serious note though, there is a massive bios against the guy there, always will be though methinks 'It's my body and I'll do what I want'

Syth

It wouldn't be hard to prove paterniny in the event of an abortion. Just test the DNA of the stuff you sucked out of the womans womb. I'm not qualified in this field, but it seems resonable. I can't really see how it's that releveant, anyway, please enlighten me.

Exactly, your body, your choice, your responsibility. You want someone else to take responsibilty, give them a say.

LegacyUser

Originally posted by Syth
It wouldn't be hard to prove paterniny in the event of an abortion. Just test the DNA of the stuff you sucked out of the womans womb. I'm not qualified in this field, but it seems resonable. I can't really see how it's that releveant, anyway, please enlighten me.

Exactly, your body, your choice, your responsibility. You want someone else to take responsibilty, give them a say.

What Thaed was saying is there is no 'Father' till after the child is born. I can say the child is mine she can say no, I shagged Bill, Bob, Dave, Sam, Paul and Joe the same day, and I'm Fairly sure it's Dave's baby,

as for testing the dna of the stuff sucked out of the womb, well that won't be needing any child support

Syth

Ah I see... Well I'm more along the lines of let a woman have an abortion if she wants, or not have the abortion, it's up to her, but the father should not have to automatically pay child support unless he wants to be part of the childs life, and parentage can be determined after birth.

Unless you're refering to my earlier post about the man wanting the baby and the woman not.

Is there no way to determine parentage while the baby is in the womb?

LegacyUser

Originally posted by Syth

Is there no way to determine parentage while the baby is in the womb?

If the woman consents then you could take a blood sample from the unborn child and that would do it, though I can't see any situation where this would arise.

Syth

If the woman consents then you could take a blood sample from the unborn child and that would do it, though I can't see any situation where this would arise.

Well I don't really think parentage would be a problem unless the man wants the baby and the woman doesn't.

In that case the woman should have to take a paternity test before an abortion and then see if the actual father wants the child, if so then she has to take the baby to term and hand he/she over to the father and has nothing more to do with both.

LegacyUser

Originally posted by Syth
Well I don't really think parentage would be a problem unless the man wants the baby and the woman doesn't.

In that case the woman should have to take a paternity test before an abortion and then see if the actual father wants the child, if so then she has to take the baby to term and hand he/she over to the father and has nothing more to do with both.

I agree, all children have two parents and both should have a choice, unfortunately this will never happen as you would be getting into the realms of forcing women to go full term, locking them up or whatever, will never happen, but in an ideal world ....

Gordon

Isn't it 50/50 or am I reading the original post wrong?

Syth

This is more of about practicalities. You easily prevent women from having an abortion if the father wanted the baby. You could make it so that when any woman wanted an abortion the abortion place has to ring up or check with some government list, only if the women is on the list, can she get an abortion. In order to get on the list, the father would have to say that he didn't want the baby. It could be done.

But the should it be done... that's the quesion. I think it should.

(edit)Isn't what 50/50?

LegacyUser

Originally posted by Syth
This is more of about practicalities. You easily prevent women from having an abortion if the father wanted the baby. You could make it so that when any woman wanted an abortion the abortion place has to ring up or check with some government list, only if the women is on the list, can she get an abortion. In order to get on the list, the father would have to say that he didn't want the baby. It could be done.

But the should it be done... that's the quesion. I think it should.

(edit)Isn't what 50/50?

hmm, if this big world was just one country sure, that might work, but its not, so if I want an abortion wherever I am and that means I have to go to a clinic where they phone a gov agency and check am I on a list when I know I won't be cos my boyfriend wants the kid then I'm on a plane to elsewhere, end of story, it's back to forcing women go full term, never happen,
but as I was saying I do agree with your sentiment, it should but it never will

Syth

Forgot about that. Yeah I suppose it'd be hard to force them to go full term. Even if all countries were to do this the woman could just get someone to beat her till she miscarraiges, or hit herself.
The best thing would be if some osrt of artifical womb was invented. Then the feotus could be transfered there and the woman could forget all about it. Or I suppose the man could find some woman that does surrogate pregnancies. Impregnate her and pay her to keep it to full term, but that might be illegal (prostitution and slavery laws). Women are lucky when it comes to children, more choice than men.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Syth
but the father should not have to automatically pay child support unless he wants to be part of the childs life, and parentage can be determined after birth.

But most men who are forced to pay child support don't want anything to do with the child. That is unfair on the child and the mother .. the father cannot just walk way saying well I don't give a toss so why should I have to support my child. Each parent has a responsibility to the child.

If a father refuses to be part of the childs life, the least he can do is provide some financal support to those who are raising the child (ie the mother or grandparents or whatever). Likewise if the father takes the child the mother should have to pay some form of child support. Raising a child is very time consumming and means the parent probably won't be able to work or at least won't be able to work well enough to make a lot of money. Raising a child is also very expensive.

Originally posted by Syth
In order to get on the list, the father would have to say that he didn't want the baby. It could be done.

What if you have no idea who the father is or how to contact him. Only the mother can tell you who the father is (most of the time) and you can't force her to give over that information, especially if she wants an abortion and knows the father will say no.

LegacyUser

Originally posted by Syth
Forgot about that. Yeah I suppose it'd be hard to force them to go full term. Even if all countries were to do this the woman could just get someone to beat her till she miscarraiges, or hit herself.
The best thing would be if some osrt of artifical womb was invented. Then the feotus could be transfered there and the woman could forget all about it. Or I suppose the man could find some woman that does surrogate pregnancies. Impregnate her and pay her to keep it to full term, but that might be illegal (prostitution and slavery laws). Women are lucky when it comes to children, more choice than men.

true they do have more choice, but unless we have decided with our partners that we want to raise a family then appropriate measures should have been made to ensure it doesn't happen

yea women have more choice but to say thats lucky is a little bit much, would you feel lucky you were off to have an abortion ?

Syth

But most men who are forced to pay child support don't want anything to do with the child. That is unfair on the child and the mother

Is it unfair that the woman can choose to keep the child and the man has to suffer? How is it unfair? It's unfair for children to be disadvantaged because of lack of money, but why does it have to be the father's money?

you can't force her to give over that information

You just say "No abortion then". When she tells you, you do the test thing then check with the man. But as has been pointed out, it would be an impossible situation to enforce.

The argument in favour of making the father pay is that he has some responsibility to the child, but if he has no legal say in the existance of the child must he have a legal responsibility to the child? That's my point.

would you feel lucky you were off to have an abortion

Any choice is better than no choice.

LegacyUser

Originally posted by Syth


Any choice is better than no choice.

any choice is better than no choice undoubtedly, but i'd hate to find myself in the lucky position of heading off alone to some foreign country to abort my unwanted child,
I know what you are saying though, maybe I'm just being a little picky with your choice of words

Zombrex

Originally posted by Syth
Is it unfair that the woman can choose to keep the child and the man has to suffer? How is it unfair? It's unfair for children to be disadvantaged because of lack of money, but why does it have to be the father's money?

But the focus is on the child, no matter how fair or unfair it is that the child is actually born, once it is born the father has a responsibility to the child, even if the father wanted an abortion .. that is just life.

Once you have them you have to look after your children, whether you wanted them or not.

Nevyn

Well if a guy has sex he has to take on the responsibly that come with the fact he may get the person he is having sex with pregnant.

And the end result of that if there is a child
He is responsible for it. You really don’t want to be a father then don’t have sex,
Or well then work the odds in your favour condoms spermicidal and what ever other precautions that can be took. But there are times even theses fail.

If you don’t want the hassle of a child or resolving a pregnancy then don’t have sex
Have a **** instead.

rob1891

<flame>right back at ya, if you don't want to be a mother don't have sex or get your tubes cut!</flame>

On "man wants a child but partner getting abortion anyways", I'd say that would be the end of a relationship and a terrible way to end for both parties. Forcing someone to go full term is what I'd expect the church to come up with.

On "woman want's child but partner does not", as thaed so eloquently put, it is both parties responsibility. Even if there is a way out, again, forced abortion is something I'd expect the church to come up with

On the choice thing, the sexes aren't equal, that's life. We do try to even things up in all parts of life, but I think it might be going a bit too far to give a man rights over the body of someone he has impregnated!!

Nevyn

I wasnt flaming honest

but yes you are right it applies to girls as well.

but as for getting your tubes tied over here forget it. in the UK you cant get them done at 20 with no kids over here it takes a near mircle unless you already have 4 kids.

shanemac

The paternity test can be done early in the pregnancy (I think at 60 days), so there's no reason for confusion about the father.

Thaed's argument that the act of having sex implies a responsibility for any children thereby conceived carried to it's logical conclusion would mean that abortion is not an option. After all, the woman also had sex, so surely this principle applies to her, and she should have to handle the responsibility of going full term, giving birth and looking after the child until it's an adult.

I have male friends who were told by their female partners that they were on the pill...which turned out to be a deliberate lie, and those guys had no choice in whether the women had an abortion, or went ahead with the pregnancy...in which case the guy is responsible for paying for the child's life for the next 18 years.

It seems to me that with responsiblity should logically be linked with choice...if you don't choose a certain course of action, you shouldn't be held responsible for the consequences of that action (if I'm not mistaken the Americans fought a war over this principle in the 1770s). But this principle seems to have got lost in the cut and thrust of gender wars of the last 30 years.

It seems that victory in the "feminist revolution" has given the female of the species the greater degree of choice, while the male bears the greater degree of responsibility.

shanemac

So what's my solution?

A contract that is signed when the child is conceived and paternity is known....

If both parties want to have the baby, both are entitled to access to the child through his/her childhood, and both pay for it.

If male wants the baby, but the female doesn't....she has an abortion.

If the female wants the baby but the male doesn't, she carries the baby to full term, and is totally responsible for the raising of the baby (including financially). The male has no right of access to the child...legally he is not considered the child's father.

The contract can be re-negotiated at a future time if both parties agree.

Simple.

Zombrex

Originally posted by shanemac
The male has no right of access to the child...legally he is not considered the child's father.

Think that might be the way it is now at the moment ...

Afaik if the couple aren't married the father has no rights to the child unless he and the mother actually go along to a register office with photo ID and both actually sign a piece of paper swearing he is the father of the child and is responsible for the child.

If he doesn't do that the mother can't do it for him (even if she swears blind that he is the father) and the father has absolutly no rights to the child (for example if the mother dies that child is give to the mothers parents, the father has no claim on the child).

I don't know if this means he won't have to pay child support though .. logically I would assume he doesn't unless the mother takes him to court.

BTW this situation has nothing to do with feminism .. it is to do with good old Catholic ireland where a child born out of wedlock is kinda in a limbo state where legally it cannot offically have a "father" because the woman isn't married and doesn't have a husband .. likewise it is legally assumed that a married man is automatically the father of his wifes child, even if the child was actually concieved during an affair with another man

Nevyn

nope what I said was

If you don’t want the hassle of a child or resolving a pregnancy then don’t have sex

yes Wicked you are right and there are a lot of guys names on birth certs that are not the Bio father and there are a lot of guys out there that have refused to be put on the birth cert of kids that are infact thiers and it is very very hard to get a court orderd dna paterinty test over here.

chill

It's a minefield of rights and wrongs and both ways round the roundabout.

But when it comes down to it... and I speak as a man..

a) It's the woman's body and the father's rights shouldn't start until the baby is born.

b) Having sex is the decision time for a man. If you have sex then you deliver your sperm to the woman imho. It's too late to complain afterward.

Someone said what about one night stands. Doesn't matter. Men need to think with our brain not our dick. The law is going in one direction and will continue to do so. If she tracks you down then do the crime and do the time

Mind you, I would personally suggest that it takes a special kind of bastard to reject his child and refuse support to it.

chill

Originally posted by shanemac: Thaed's argument that the act of having sex implies a responsibility for any children thereby conceived carried to it's logical conclusion would mean that abortion is not an option. After all, the woman also had sex, so surely this principle applies to her, and she should have to handle the responsibility of going full term, giving birth and looking after the child until it's an adult.

The theory may be logical on the surface but it ignores the fact that it is the woman who carries the child and it is the woman's body. Speaking as a man ultimately the woman should, has and always will have the untimate control. Nature made it that way and fairness doesn't count.

I have male friends who were told by their female partners that they were on the pill...which turned out to be a deliberate lie, and those guys had no choice in whether the women had an abortion, or went ahead with the pregnancy...in which case the guy is responsible for paying for the child's life for the next 18 years.

I agree this is a deeply serious problem for the law and for fairness. But unless you can prove it, I don't see how the law can be effective here.

And in my opinion we need to apply the principle that if a man delivers his sperm he is effectively handing control to the woman ! if a man wants to retain control then he needs to retain his sperm. It may seem pedantic but that's the hand that nature dealt.

It seems to me that with responsiblity should logically be linked with choice...if you don't choose a certain course of action, you shouldn't be held responsible for the consequences of that action. But this principle seems to have got lost in the cut and thrust of gender wars of the last 30 years.

No it's nothing to do with gender warfare. It is the simple fact of life that women carry the baby and therefore retain untimate control. Sometimes nature isn't fair, it just IS.

It seems that victory in the "feminist revolution" has given the female of the species the greater degree of choice, while the male bears the greater degree of responsibility.

Nothing to do with the feminist revolution. Nature did it.

And it seems to me, as a man, that we men get plenty of advantages from nature denied to women. So we have no grounds to complain.

Syth

All of this argument comes down to the father's resbonsibility. Does the father have responsibility for his child? My main problem is that women have full choice in having the child. They can have the child or not have the child.

Noone has really explained why the father has a responsibility to a child if the mother has total choice.

This isn't really like some kind of 1950s catholic ireland plan, back then there were no abortions and the father could just feck off and leave the woman, but now women (alone) can choose to have a abortion and fathers must now pay for their children, largely I'd say as a result of feminism.

It seems that victory in the "feminist revolution" has given the female of the species the greater degree of choice, while the male bears the greater degree of responsibility.

I agree women want/have choice but not responsibility. How very childish. It takes two people to make a baby, but many people now regard the man resbonsible for 'getting her pregnant'. whereas women have loads more choice in getting pregnant. Men are always fertile, women not always, men have few birth control options, women have many, if anything it's the womans 'fault' if she gets pregnant.

chill: Yes women have total control when it comes to pregnancy, that's undeniable. Should the woman have total responsibility then? Is it right and fair to force responsibilty on someone when they have no choice or control? You could say he had sex with her, so he had some say, but because of abortion, the woman has a veto on the pregnancy.

chill

Originally posted by Syth
chill: Yes women have total control when it comes to pregnancy, that's undeniable. Should the woman have total responsibility then? Is it right and fair to force responsibilty on someone when they have no choice or control? You could say he had sex with her, so he had some say, but because of abortion, the woman has a veto on the pregnancy.

Yes but you are trying to apply rational logical fairness to a situation with an inbuilt bias.
Women cannot get pregnant without the man donating his sperm. This is his conscious choice. The act that a woman has an extra choice is because nature gave that choice to her due to her being the one carrying the baby.

Until that fact of nature is changed, women will always come out with one extra choice.

Syth

chill: Women cannot get pregnant if they choose one (or more) forms of available birth control. It's not allways the man's fault. I'm not dening that women have more choice, of course they have more choice then the man, the question is should they have more responsibility because they have more choice?

chill

Originally posted by Syth
chill: Women cannot get pregnant if they choose one (or more) forms of available birth control. It's not allways the man's fault. I'm not dening that women have more choice, of course they have more choice then the man, the question is should they have more responsibility because they have more choice?

I would suggest that the burden of being the gender that actually carries the child for 9 months is more than a balance for any minor numerical supremacy in choices of birth control.:cool:

athena 2000

<< Syth: Noone has really explained why the father has a responsibility to a child if the mother has total choice.>>

Because the father participated in the creation of a life.

He would hopefully participate in the responsibilities and joys because that child is also part of himself.

Nevyn

Originally posted by Syth
chill: Women cannot get pregnant if they choose one (or more) forms of available birth control.

lol lol oh oh my .

ok then Syth please please please tell me of the 100% effective form of birth control?

Beacuse quite frankly there IS none , even
sterilsation is not 100%

1 to 3 in every 1000 get pregant after having thier tubes done.

http://www.ifpa.ie/contraception/index.html

Zombrex

Originally posted by Syth
chill: Women cannot get pregnant if they choose one (or more) forms of available birth control. It's not allways the man's fault. I'm not dening that women have more choice, of course they have more choice then the man, the question is should they have more responsibility because they have more choice?

When the man has sex that is when he makes his choice ... just because the woman has an extra choice afterwards is irrelivant to the mans choice. Also a man should never just rely on the woman to do birth control. If he chooses not to wear a condom, then he takes the risks .. no point blaming the womans birth control. If you are stupid enough to believe a woman you don't know that well to provide the only birth control then that is your fault.

The man can't force a woman to have an abortion and if the women decides to keep the child then the man, having made his choice to sleep with her and take the consequences he has to support his child, not for the sake of the mother, but for the sake of the child.

The man makes his choices, rolls his dice and lives with his consequences ... the womans choices don't come into it.

The man may be tied to what the woman decides, but that is his choice to get involved .. no one made him sleep with her.

shanemac

A man has 10 times the amount of testosterone that a woman has...this makes the male of the species 10 times more horny... in these circumstances mistakes are bound to occur in the bedroom - its the nature of man.

Should one have to pay for such mistakes? Evidently so....but only if you're male. If you're female and you make such a mistake you may choose to terminate the pregnancy without anyone being able to tell you otherwise. Fair?

Some say nature is not fair, and that's just the way it is. Yet many of the same people complain bitterly about unfairness when statistics show a proportionately higher number of men in high-paid jobs, or that men occupy disproportionate positions of power (govt, the courts, the boardrooms, etc).

Could it be that these facts are also due to nature being "unfair"?

Syth

OK I know there are no 100% succesful forms of contraception, but at least women have more than one choice available, I'm just trying to show that if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant then she has more ways of making sure than a man does. It's not 100% the man's fault if she winds up pregnant. Still tis a side issue.

Because the father participated in the creation of a life.
Yes I suppose he did, but there should be more to it than that. Men have sex because they are horny, so one could take that argument to the extreme and say any thing that makes the man horny participated in the creation of life. There has to be another reason as to why the man is responsible.

If you are stupid enough to believe a woman (snip)
So what suspect everyone? What about sex in relationships where it's longer than a one-night stand? There should be some trust.

Men don't really 'choose' to have sex, men get horny. A Boardster's sig is something along the lines of "Men have sex when they can, women when the want". So men aren't totally 100% rational and clear headed when it comes to sex.

The man makes his choices, rolls his dice and lives with his consequences
But if the woman is pregnant she can easily have an abortion, and not have to live with any roll of the dice, yet the man has to live with the consequences of another person's choice. One could say that that's just the way nature made things with women haveing the babies, but it wasn't nature that makes the man support the child, it's the state via the laws.

Nevyn

What on earth maeks you think it is EASY for a women to have to go to decide to have an abortion and travel to a differnt country for it ?

Because the father participated in the creation of a life.
Yes I suppose he did, but there should be more to it than that. Men have sex because they are horny, so one could take that argument to the extreme and say any thing that makes the man horny participated in the creation of life. There has to be another reason as to why the man is responsible

no there doesnt need to be another reason that is the reasona nd that is how how it works.

So what suspect everyone? What about sex in relationships where it's longer than a one-night stand? There should be some trust.

yes you can trust the person but as you have said not all contraception is 100% and if you do take all the precautions there is still the chace of that person getting pregnat so sould like you had best make sure and but aside money towards a termination inscase you did get that person pergant.

Men don't really 'choose' to have sex, men get hornyt. So men aren't totally 100% rational and clear headed when it comes to sex

now that is a very silly statement which implies that a guy has no control over himself or his urges , a guy can be as horny as a possible but he still has to think of the consequences of his actions .;and saying sorry Your honour i couldnt help myslef i was horny wont get you very far at all. You can be as rational as you need to be about sex
if are willing to acept the resposibilties that go with it for both you and your partner.

Syth

I know being horny doesn't mean you have zero control over your actions, but you don't tend to think ahead either. I merley said that in response to the claim that men choose to have sex, impling that men make a rational decision and must stick by that (rational) decision. It's not that rational. Sorta off the point any way.

Right so men should accept the consequences of having sex? So if because of that the woman winds up pregnant, those are the consequences, and you have to live by them. But women don't need to live by the consequences of having sex, they can get an abortion, no consequences there (baby wise, there might be STD consequences). And I know that's just the way it is, the women get pregnant, not the men.

But if the decision to keep the baby directly effects the men (through child support), then shouldn't the man have a say? For years feminists said to allow abortion because it was the woman's body, and if you force her to have the baby, you're making a decision that directly effects the woman.

It's the same here, the abortion-decision effects the man, so to be fair why not give him a say, or make it so that it doesn't effect him. One or the other. I think women should be able to have abortions if they want, so the man shouldn't have to be effected by the decision, ie he shouldn't have to pay child support.

athena 2000

So Syth,
it seems the bottom line for you is money.

Is that true? Is your heart in your pocketbook?

Babies and other hazards of sex...

Zombrex

Syth you seem to have this idea that child support is some form of punishment against the man ... or that it is some kind of win lose situation with the mother.

The man pays child support because there exists in this world a child of his making that needs to be looked after.

Just because the man didn't want the child, doesn't change the fact that the child exists in this world and needs help.

You seem to think that any man should have to right to simply say "well I didn't what the child in the first place" and just walk way. When a woman has an abortion the fetus is ended, it doesn't still need child support at the end of it all. If the man walks away there is still a child left, needing to be raised and supported.

chill

Originally posted by Syth

It's the same here, the abortion-decision effects the man, so to be fair why not give him a say, or make it so that it doesn't effect him. One or the other. I think women should be able to have abortions if they want, so the man shouldn't have to be effected by the decision, ie he shouldn't have to pay child support.

It ain't going to happen. Men have to grow up and lose the juvenile 'horny man' syndrome because it's not going to wash any more.
Delivering your sperm to a woman commits you to the outcome whatever it may be.
Men will never end up with a part of the decision on keeping a child, as ultimately it is the woman's body and she cannot be make to carry something inside her that she doesn't want.

If a baby comes in to this world it has a right to be cared for and partly financed by the father - period. And any self respecting man should be delighted to do so.

Beruthiel

they can get an abortion, no consequences there

what about the consequences of living with the decision?
you make it sound like she’s is trying to decide between vanilla or chocolate ice-cream today?

DeVore

Aye, too many people (including a lot of pro-choice women) think its just a simple shake'n'vac job. It can psychologically destroy someone and has inherent risks for future pregnancies if it goes wrong...

Trying to forcibly stop women having abortions is silly though. You'll just force them back to backstreet-abortion clinics and NOONE wants that.

I do think its hypocritical for the man to get no say and yet be expected to shoulder the support cost (and frequently is still denied access to his child too!).

The argument that guys just get horny and cant help it is patronising bollox though. Its like the "I couldnt help raping her as we went to third base and only then did she say she wanted to stop" argument. It portrays men and zombies to their primal urges. I can guaruntee that if a fire alarm went off at that time, the guy would have his pants on and be out the door in 5 seconds.

Anyway, what would I know, I'm a "pig-headed mysoginist" after all

DeV.

Syth

it seems the bottom line for you is money.
No, it's the principal of the man having responsibility.

the child exists in this world and needs help.
As I have said, no child should be disadvantaged jusrt because of a stupid thing like not having enough money. Yes the child needs to be supported financially, but must it be the father's money? If a child's family needs extra financial support, it can come from the state, there already is children's allowance, perhaps more if there is only one person contributing?

this idea that child support is some form of punishment against the man
Well, if I had to support a child that I was unable to visit or have anything to do with for 20 years, I'd consider it a form of punishment, granted someone benifits, but I'd still suffer, and wouldn't be able to see that benifit.

OK abortion isn't a quick fix 'solution', I understand that now. But that's not the main issue here, no?

As for the whole make-a-woman-keep-the-baby issue, I have already aknowledged that that's impractical, and unworkable.

Delivering your sperm to a woman commits you to the outcome whatever it may be
But it's not left up to the roll of nature's dice, is it? The outcome (baby or no baby) depends 100% on a decision the woman makes, abortion or no abortion. So it's a human decision (perhaps a difficult one, but a human decision nontheless).

Again it all comes down to only being responsible for the choice you make (wholley, or partially). The final say is on the woman, so should the responsibility.

Arg, this discussion seems to be going in circles.

athena 2000

<< Syth: "Yes the child needs to be supported financially, but must it be the father's money? If a child's family needs extra financial support, it can come from the state,..." >>

Why should the state (the people's tax money) provide supplemental support for a child who has a father capable of providing financial support? Both parents should support the child.


<<Syth: "Again it all comes down to only being responsible for the choice you make (wholley, or partially). The final say is on the woman, so should the responsibility.">>

I see the hypocrisy and frustration of not having a say while having to provide support with no visitation or parental rights, but the child's needs supercede all other rights once s/he makes their appearance.

Abortion is not an easy or desirable option for many people, regardless of its availability in the UK or elsewhere. The fact that it's available doesn't make it a deciding factor in determining a man's responsibilities.

The final responsibility rests on the two people that created a new life.