Should a father be able to disclaim a child if he doesn't want it?

Napper Hawkins

silly wrote: »

i'm not generalising. The OP has said that his friend doesnt want the child. So thats what i am talking about. A...Man...That...Doesnt...Want...The....Child.

.......is what? .......should..........what?

haminka

Just a little Wiki wisdom :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods

Napper Hawkins

Zulu wrote: »

If abortion is legal, and she can abort without his permission (which I assume she can) then yes he should be able to legally walk away.

If a woman is enabled to physically abort a child, there's no good reason a man shouldn't be able to legally do so.

Bang on.

token101

token101 wrote: »

I don't think I'd be able to walk away in good conscience knowing that it's an innocent child's that's going to be impacted. But I'd still despise her. Absolutely and totally despise her.

Why would you depise her ? If contraception failed ? can't understand why you think thats a rational approach and depising the mother of your child would impact his or her life forever.

I just don't believe there are legions of psychotic woman getting pregnant just to trap a man

shanered

Father is a father is a father......
No way of changing it, the child will be of his flesh and blood, fathers should do their best to bring their child up to be healthy and intelligent. End of. If the father just opts out, it will have serious consequences on the life of another who is the product of their actions, its just a selfish act to do, looking after nobody but themselves is a rotten thing to do.

livinsane

I feel sorry for both of them.

Precautions were taken so from the get-go; the aim of both parties was not to conceive a child.

A child has been conceived.

They live in a country where abortion is legal, so they have a possible "way out".

Mother has decided to keep the child (must be extremely hard to carry a child and make a decision to abort, the maternal instincts probably kick in immediately)

Father has made his intentions known immediately. He does not want the child to be born. He doesn't want to be a father.

If she decides to have an abortion on his behalf, I think the guy should be present for it (if that is allowed) so he also suffers the consequences.

I think if she decides to keep the child, she will have to expect to go it alone.

It's not fair on the child. It's not an ideal situation. If she goes through with the pregnancy, hopefully his paternal instinct will kick in.

silly

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

.......is what? .......should..........what?

all i was saying was.
If he doesnt want the child its very easy for him to expect a woman to go though the emotional turmoil of having an abortion.
Of course if he DOES want the child, and she wanted to have an abortion, i understand that he would be the one that would go through the emotional turmoil.
but in this case, he doesnt want the child, so of course he wouldnt even consider or care how an abortion would affect her.

seriously like, my point was fairly simple.

eviltwin

Pressuring or coercing a woman to have an abortion is cruel. Abortion can be hard enough to deal with when you do it 100% off your own bat. If you want the baby but feel you have to abort because of pressure from another party the long term mental health issues can be huge.

Drumpot

smash wrote: »

The medical problems I'm talking about are the likes of bladder issues, prolapsed cervix etc which present themselves afterwards.


Not just below, but across their stomach, breasts, legs etc. I'm talking about stretch marks. These can lead to psychological problems because of concerns over image. A lot of women wouldn't even feel comfortable wearing a bikini.


It's never an easy choice but the fact is that it's a hell of lot more of a risk for a woman so she shouldn't be forced to term if he wants the baby and she doesn't want the baby.


That's my point.

Can't multiquote so excuse the reply.

I am speaking from an ethical view, not a force the woman to do something view.

I believe that when two people have consentual sex and understand what might happen then they are both morally responsible for a potential pregnancy.

Nobody can predict what may or may not happen after pregnancy so if you are worried about it then think about it before having sex and make a decision that you will suffer the consequences and give the child a chance or not have sex.

It's an extreme example but I am speaking from how I take person responsibility in everything I do very seriously.

Let's turn this around. What if a person then wants to have a child at a later time? The same after birth concerns arise but because they want a child now thu are happy to take the medical risk! That's a person choosing when it suits them to be concerned about the risk of pregnancy and they sims made a lifestyle choice.

I don't treat men or women any differently from a moral or ethical perspective. I don't think aborting a child is an easy decision , but I think the reason why a person chooses to abort and whether or not they discuss it with their partner is what defines a fair and right decision against a lazy selfish one.

Dyr

haminka wrote: »

She is making the decision to keep the baby, he made a decision on creating by sleeping with her. No contraception is 100%, you sleep with a woman, you can potentially become a father. If you do, carry the consequences. The same for woman.

You sleep with a woman you can potentially fertilize an egg, in most countries there are a range of options after the fact to see to it that it goes no further. Unless of course she want's to keep the kid. Presuming that she knew they were using contraception that would show a serious change of heart/intention on her part. That's her decision not his.

If you want a modern sexlife then you can f**k off if you think that you can have it alongside morals that belong in the 1930s whenever they suit you

K-9

ibarelycare wrote: »

My friend has got a girl pregnant. Contraception failed. They're not in a relationship, they only slept together a few times. Girl told him she was pregnant, friend does not want her to have the baby but girl won't have an abortion.

This leads to my question. If necessary precautions against pregnancy were made, yet failed, and if the man is totally against the woman having the baby, is it fair that he should have to take on the responsibilities of being a father, and pay child support?

This is something I've been thinking about for the last few days since I found out. If no contraception had been used I would have said straight away that the man should own up and take responsibility, but since he 100% didn't, and still doesn't, want the baby, yet the choice has been taken out of his hands completely, I wonder whether he really should have to.

Contraception can never be 100% safe though, I think his attitude kind of presumes that. Might be a bit harsh, but having sex even with contraception, may result in a pregnancy for the mother. If he has a problem with that, he really shouldn't have sex!

After that, it really is the mothers choice. Been involved in a few debates on this with good points on both sides, to me they focus on the rights of the father or mother too much. The main right is right of a child to have a father, even if he doesn't give a bollicks!

Napper Hawkins

silly wrote: »

all i was saying was.
If he doesnt want the child its very easy for him to expect a woman to go though the emotional turmoil of having an abortion.
Of course if he DOES want the child, and she wanted to have an abortion, i understand that he would be the one that would go through the emotional turmoil.
but in this case, he doesnt want the child, so of course he wouldnt even consider or care how an abortion would affect her.

seriously like, my point was fairly simple.

Jesus Christ..

1) No, it isn't, you don't know every single man on the planet.

2) This is true, but a man can have as many kids with as many women as possible if he wishes. If his current partner doesn't want one, he can find another woman who will. A woman can't really, seeing as a woman can only be pregnant once at a time. Someone call me up on this if I'm not making any sense, please. (and not you, silly )

3) Utter bs.

4) Simple? I agree...

stovelid

Kid will be better off without a dad than having one that they only see occasionally and under duress.

smash

Drumpot wrote: »

Let's turn this around. What if a person then wants to have a child at a later time? The same after birth concerns arise but because they want a child now thu are happy to take the medical risk! That's a person choosing when it suits them to be concerned about the risk of pregnancy and they sims made a lifestyle choice.

No, it's not a concern about them choosing when it suits them to be concerned about the risk of pregnancy. It's a choice about them choosing when it suits them to be concerned about the risk of childbirth because it's what they actually want.

K-9

fundlebundle wrote: »

I don't understand, how can there be no repercussions if he breaks the law, surely he is taken to court.

If the mother follows it up it can be serious, non payment of maintenance can mean a prison sentence. Most people just pay though!

token101

Lexie Witty Map wrote: »

token101 wrote: »

I don't think I'd be able to walk away in good conscience knowing that it's an innocent child's that's going to be impacted. But I'd still despise her. Absolutely and totally despise her.

Why would you depise her ? If contraception failed ? can't understand why you think thats a rational approach and depising the mother of your child would impact his or her life forever.

I just don't believe there are legions of psychotic woman getting pregnant just to trap a man

Never said it was rational. Forcing someone to be father against their will isnt rational either. Exactly, its goibg to end badly however it goes, which is why she should have an abortion or face up to being a single parent. He used contraception. He didnt want a child. I couldnt walk away personally, but I wouldnt blame anyone who did.

K-9

token101 wrote: »

So every time someone has sex they want a child? :pac: Having sex with contraception usually means you don't want a child. So he didn't want a child. And now he's being forced into it by someone else. He's obviously not going to have much time for that person. And I wouldn't blame him.

That would be why it's called an unplanned pregnancy! Can happen in life, people do things and things don't go to plan.

haminka

Bambi wrote: »

You sleep with a woman you can potentially fertilize an egg, in most countries there are a range of options after the fact to see to it that it goes no further. Unless of course she want's to keep the kid. Presuming that she knew they were using contraception that would show a serious change of heart/intention on her part. That's her decision not his.

If you want a modern sexlife then you can f**k off if you think that you can have it alongside morals that belong in the 1930s whenever they suit you

Well, the fact is, that the real possibility of contraception failure is not about morals, it's about physical reality. As in this case. It was their mutual responsibility.
Edited to add :
A modern sexual life as described by the OP means, you go around shagging whatever moves when you feel the urge to do so without thinking about consequences or without even liking that person. I am happy to be very old-fashioned about my attitude to my sexual life. And btw, I don't find anything modern or civilized about it. Go, shag and leave has been here for ages, even before the first mammals, it's how about most animals procreate.

token101

K-9 wrote: »

token101 wrote: »

So every time someone has sex they want a child? :pac: Having sex with contraception usually means you don't want a child. So he didn't want a child. And now he's being forced into it by someone else. He's obviously not going to have much time for that person. And I wouldn't blame him.

That would be why it's called an unplanned pregnancy! Can happen in life, people do things and things don't go to plan.

But only one person gets to decide what the outcome will be. And when you dont consider what the other person thinks and press ahead regardless, well he cant be blamed for not just going happily along.

Stupify

silly wrote: »

all i was saying was.
If he doesnt want the child its very easy for him to expect a woman to go though the emotional turmoil of having an abortion.
Of course if he DOES want the child, and she wanted to have an abortion, i understand that he would be the one that would go through the emotional turmoil.
but in this case, he doesnt want the child, so of course he wouldnt even consider or care how an abortion would affect her.

seriously like, my point was fairly simple.

what would be your opinion on this issue?

I understand that you disagree that a father cannot force the mother to have an abortion (I agree with you). But what about where the man wants the kid and the woman doesn't?

silly

K-9 wrote: »

fundlebundle wrote: »

I don't understand, how can there be no repercussions if he breaks the law, surely he is taken to court.

If the mother follows it up it can be serious, non payment of maintenance can mean a prison sentence. Most people just pay though!

After being through the court for 8 yrs I have yet to see a prison sentence. I also have yet to see any maintenance.

Drumpot

smash wrote: »

No, it's not a concern about them choosing when it suits them to be concerned about the risk of pregnancy. It's a choice about them choosing when it suits them to be concerned about the risk of childbirth because it's what they actually want.

Yes, In both cases the risks are the same, the key difference is the motive of the mother. So asssuming this is the ONLY reason why a woman wants to abort, it's prioritising what does or doesn't suit them at differant times, as opposed to it being about a medical concern.

silly

Stupify wrote: »

silly wrote: »

all i was saying was.
If he doesnt want the child its very easy for him to expect a woman to go though the emotional turmoil of having an abortion.
Of course if he DOES want the child, and she wanted to have an abortion, i understand that he would be the one that would go through the emotional turmoil.
but in this case, he doesnt want the child, so of course he wouldnt even consider or care how an abortion would affect her.

seriously like, my point was fairly simple.

what would be your opinion on this issue?

I understand that you disagree that a father cannot force the mother to have an abortion (I agree with you). But what about where the man wants the kid and the woman doesn't?

Well I would be of the opinion that it would be very unfair on a man that 100% wanted the child and would support the child etc, for that choice to be taken away from him.
The system is fcuked up, we all know that.
My opinion on this particular thread, where the man does not want anything to do with the child, is that if she had an abortion, it would have very little affect on him.

hondasam

If he wants nothing to do with the child that's his choice, mother and child are better off without him.
If she wants to have the child she should not expect financial help from him.
They are both responsible but like it or not it's the woman who will make the decision at the end of the day whether to have the baby or not.

smash

Drumpot wrote: »

Yes, In both cases the risks are the same, the key difference is the motive of the mother. So asssuming this is the ONLY reason why a woman wants to abort, it's prioritising what does or doesn't suit them as opposed to it being about a medical concern.

It's not the only reason, the reason is that she doesn't want a child and never planned to get pregnant. It's simple.

lividduck

ibarelycare wrote: »

My friend has got a girl pregnant. Contraception failed. They're not in a relationship, they only slept together a few times. Girl told him she was pregnant, friend does not want her to have the baby but girl won't have an abortion.

This leads to my question. If necessary precautions against pregnancy were made, yet failed, and if the man is totally against the woman having the baby, is it fair that he should have to take on the responsibilities of being a father, and pay child support?

This is something I've been thinking about for the last few days since I found out. If no contraception had been used I would have said straight away that the man should own up and take responsibility, but since he 100% didn't, and still doesn't, want the baby, yet the choice has been taken out of his hands completely, I wonder whether he really should have to.

It is absolutley fair, he knew risks, we all know that no form of contaception is 100% certain. If your friend doesn't want to risk being a father then he shouldn't be having sex, end of!
I note too the utter selfish disreagard for his soon to be son/daughter.

K-9

token101 wrote: »

But only one person gets to decide what the outcome will be. And when you dont consider what the other person thinks and press ahead regardless, well he cant be blamed for not just going happily along.

Then you get into an area that the father has a say, but for good reasons, not the final say.

The OP has said he asked if she would have an abortion, she said no.
She did consider it. Considering a proposition is different to agreeing to an ultimatum.

I suppose we could just let both the father and mother over rule each other and everybody is happy, except the child who never gets to know his/her father. I presume the Dad refusing here would be like an abortion, it's final? Equality and all that.

Lola18

OP what contraception was used??
Did he use contraception or was she on the pill or something?

Drumpot

smash wrote: »

It's not the only reason, the reason is that she doesn't want a child and never planned to get pregnant. It's simple.

Then why bring up medical reasons?

If you get pregnant and don't want a child, have it and give it up for adoption. The medical risks are no differant so it's all about suiting yourself.

In your above post if somebody just doesn't want a child I think it's a selfish, irresponsible and lazy attitude and no differant from the deadbeat dad taking the lifestyle choice. It's their right to choose this option but I haven't seen a decent argument that suggests its ethically or morally or the responsible thing to do. It's a lifestyle choice, everything else is just an excuse to justify the decision.

ash23

hondasam wrote: »

If he wants nothing to do with the child that's his choice, mother and child are better off without him.
If she wants to have the child she should not expect financial help from him.

Well while I agree if he's going to be a sh*t dad then they are better off without his presence in their lives. But obviously the child would be better off with a father who cared in the childs life.

Either way, financially the child should have the support of both parents. Having raised my child with no financial support from her father, it is the child who suffers because of it.
So I wouldn't agree that a woman shouldn't expect any financial support from the father because it is practically impossible to support a child alone without state assistance, especially when the child is very young.

Gummy Panda

I've never seen so many high horses in one thread..

smash

Drumpot wrote: »

Then why bring up medical reasons?

Because the discussion was whether or not the father should have a say in the matter, if the woman does not want to have the child.

Drumpot wrote: »

If you get pregnant and don't want a child, have it and give it up for adoption. The medical risks are no differant so it's all about suiting yourself.

The medical risks are there because you have actually given birth.

Drumpot wrote: »

In your above post if somebody just doesn't want a child I think it's a selfish, irresponsible and lazy attitude and no differant from the deadbeat dad taking the lifestyle choice.

That's bs. Do you think that people who don't want children should just not have sex just in case they get pregnant?

Drumpot wrote: »

It's their right to choose this option

Bottom line there.

Drumpot wrote: »

but I haven't seen a decent argument that suggests its ethically or morally or the responsible thing to do. It's a lifestyle choice, everything else is just an excuse to justify the decision.

That's subjective. Only your opinion.

token101

K-9 wrote: »

token101 wrote: »

But only one person gets to decide what the outcome will be. And when you dont consider what the other person thinks and press ahead regardless, well he cant be blamed for not just going happily along.

Then you get into an area that the father has a say, but for good reasons, not the final say.

The OP has said he asked if she would have an abortion, she said no.
She did consider it. Considering a proposition is different to agreeing to an ultimatum.

I suppose we could just let both the father and mother over rule each other and everybody is happy, except the child who never gets to know his/her father. I presume the Dad refusing here would be like an abortion, it's final? Equality and all that.

Well shes made a choice to press ahead regardless of his feelings. So she has to be prepared to live with the consequences. Theres always adoption aswell. Not like shes backed into a corner here. But what im saying is that all this 'man up' stuff is just nonsense. If you dont want a child and the impact that has, no amount of feeling responsible will compensate. You ultimately end up with another unloved child. Horrible, but true. He never wanted it and took steps to stop it. You cant start castigating him now because somebody else has inflicted the sutuation upon him. She either has an abortion, gives up for adoption or becomes a single parent.

Zulu

Drumpot wrote: »

Interesting point but flawed.

You failed to point out how its flawed?!?

Two wrongs dont make a right.

There aren't any "wrongs" here, but it certainly there are rights, and lack there of.
The right for a woman to choose if she wants to have a child.
The right for a woman to kill a fathers child.
The right for a woman to lock a man into an economic obligation for the next 18 years.
Funnily, there aren't so many rights for the father.
He has no right to protect his child while the mother is pregnant.
He has no right to choose if he doesn't want a child.
He has no rights.

As I said before, assuming the woman can choose to have an abortion, then the man should be able to choose to have one also. Clearly he can't do this physically, so he should be afforded the opportunity to do so legally.

And despite my views, aborting a child is differant from choosing not to be in the child's life.

Sure it is. Abortion kills the child. Whats your point?

Choosing to have a child , whether you want it or not, for the right reasons should always be encouraged over having a lifestyle abortion. Choosing to be an absentee parent shouldn't be encouraged in any circumstances , unless you are a piece of ****e and the child would be better off without you.

So parents who offer children for adoption are "pieces of ****e"? Nice.

I agree that abortion is on a differant level to deadbeat fathers but only because deadbeat fathers choose not to give children time and support because it doesn't suit them. Some mothers choose not to give the child life because it doesn't suit them.

Are they "deadbeat" mothers? or just poor unfortunates?

Clearly, in your books, sauce for the goose is COMPLETELY different from sauce for the gander. I trust you don't have the audacity to claim to support equality for all & equal rights for all?

ash23

token101 wrote: »

Well shes made a choice to press ahead regardless of his feelings. So she has to be prepared to live with the consequences. Theres always adoption aswell. Not like shes backed into a corner here. But what im saying is that all this 'man up' stuff is just nonsense. If you dont want a child and the impact that has, no amount of feeling responsible will compensate. You ultimately end up with another unloved child. Horrible, but true. He never wanted it and took steps to stop it. You cant start castigating him now because somebody else has inflicted the sutuation upon him. She either has an abortion, gives up for adoption or becomes a single parent.

And he doesn't?

He might not want the child but it's still going to be born so he should, at the absolute least, help out financially if he can't bring himself to be part of the childs life.

kincsem

You did the crime, you do the time. Just change that sentence around a bit.

Haelium

If mantras like "It's a woman's choice" or "My body my choice" apply for abortion, then surely it should also be a woman's responsibility.
Why should a man have no choice in whether or not to have a baby when a woman is impregnated but still share the responsibility?

Biggins

ibarelycare wrote: »

My friend has got a girl pregnant. Contraception failed. They're not in a relationship, they only slept together a few times. Girl told him she was pregnant, friend does not want her to have the baby but girl won't have an abortion.

This leads to my question. If necessary precautions against pregnancy were made, yet failed, and if the man is totally against the woman having the baby, is it fair that he should have to take on the responsibilities of being a father, and pay child support?

This is something I've been thinking about for the last few days since I found out. If no contraception had been used I would have said straight away that the man should own up and take responsibility, but since he 100% didn't, and still doesn't, want the baby, yet the choice has been taken out of his hands completely, I wonder whether he really should have to.

ntlbell wrote: »

This is fair if he also has a decision in the abortion process but he doesn't.

You can't have the butter and the money for it.

If a person is willing to pick up a gun knowing there is deadly bullet in it, he should at least have the kop to know that if those bullets leave the gun, there is a risk of after effects maybe not to his liking.
No matter how good the safety trigger - if you use the item knowing the risks, you must be wiling to pay for those risks if your still opt to use the item!

Now if he was using an utterly 100% risk free bullet-less weapon, thats a whole complete situation.

ash23

Haelium wrote: »

If mantras like "It's a woman's choice" or "My body my choice" apply for abortion, then surely it should also be a woman's responsibility.
Why should a man have no choice in whether or not to have a baby when a woman is impregnated but still share the responsibility?

Because men can't get pregnant.
Until they can they just have to accept that their choice is made at the time of the sexual act. Just as a woman has to realise that if she ends up pregnant she only has 2 choices - abortion or pregnancy.
If I ever have a son I will be quick to get him to realise that his choice stops at having sex so he has to make sure that he is well protected.

It's not something that is going to change anytime soon so I fail to see why men don't realise it.

Zulu

Biggins wrote: »

If a person is willing to pick up a gun knowing there is deadly bullet in it, he should at least have the kop to know that if those bullets leave the gun, there is a risk of after effects maybe not to his liking.
No matter how good the safety trigger - if you use the item knowing the risks, you must be wiling to pay for those risks if your still opt to use the item!

That's fine in a society that doesn't allow either partner to pull the plug, but that's not the case here.
If your analogy were to hold true here the woman, who has agreed to have the gun pointed at her, and the trigger pulled, also has the ability to "matrix-like" side step the bullet, but chooses not to. Forcing the repercussions onto the trigger man!

stovelid

Gummy Panda wrote: »

I've never seen so many high horses in one thread..

New to the forum, right?

Carlos_Ray

This has always been the elephant in the room of the abortion debate. If you're really pro-choice, you should be in favour of the man having a choice if he wants to be a father or not. Most fathers want to be in their kids life's and are willing to support the child financially. The idea that allowing the father to walk away without any legal ties, will somehow lead to huge numbers of men doing the same, is ridiculous and insulting to men. Contrary to what many people try to portray, men are not all emotionless dogs without consciences or sense of moral duty. The extremely high rate of male suicide rate is indicative of male suffering that is largely ignored in the hypocritical society we live in. Woman cry. Men don't.

As abortion becomes more normalised and essentially becomes viewed as a merely a "late contraception" , women will have less and less grounds for forcing men to rear children they don't want. I'm not saying this is a good thing. Indeed, I think its terrible, however, the glaring hypocrisy of the current situation is clear for everyone to see.

K-9

token101 wrote: »

Well shes made a choice to press ahead regardless of his feelings.

She did regard his feelings. Choice? What choice? To not have an abortion and parent alone or to have an abortion, against her will?

That's a bit of a Hobson's choice to me. Either have a forced abortion or I'm walking.

So she has to be prepared to live with the consequences.

She is. He isn't.

Theres always adoption aswell. Not like shes backed into a corner here.

Indeed, sadly rarely used these days.

But what im saying is that all this 'man up' stuff is just nonsense.

It is. I'm just saying just as even protected sex has consequences, so has just walking away. He could always get the snip if he wants to be sure, to be sure!

If you dont want a child and the impact that has, no amount of feeling responsible will compensate. You ultimately end up with another unloved child. Horrible, but true. He never wanted it and took steps to stop it. You cant start castigating him now because somebody else has inflicted the sutuation upon him. She either has an abortion, gives up for adoption or becomes a single parent.

But how has she inflicted anything? I assume they both had sex thinking no pregnancy would result. She is in a situation that she doesn't want I'd say as well. There is another option and many men use it. Walk away now and given time, come back when you are ready. That's a good choice to have, rather than introducing abortion for men just because women can physically have one.

ash23

Zulu wrote: »

That's fine in a society that doesn't allow either partner to pull the plug, but that's not the case here.
If your analogy were to hold true here the woman, who has agreed to have the gun pointed at her, and the trigger pulled, also has the ability to "matrix-like" side step the bullet, but chooses not to. Forcing the repercussions onto the trigger man!

An abortion isn't like side stepping. It has emotional and physical and financial effects on a woman. It may also go against what they believe in. It's rather simplistic to portray it as an easy get out clause when for most women it isn't.

I am pro-choice. Always have been. And I always thought I'd have an abortion if I fell pregnant. But I didn't. I couldn't.
Not because of religion or spite or anything like that. It just wasn't the right choice for me because I knew I would never forgive myself. My ex wasn't happy about it and ultimately decided to f*ck off, ne'er to be seen again.

I don't think what he did was right. Not because of me. But because of the person who is at the heart of the whole thing. The child. The older she gets the harder the questions get. Trying to explain why she wasn't wanted by her father, the teasing she sometimes gets in school, explaining why I can't afford to send her on that summer camp, the lack of a male role model in her life.
That's not about me. It's about her. She didn't deserve any of that.

token101

ash23 wrote: »

token101 wrote: »

Well shes made a choice to press ahead regardless of his feelings. So she has to be prepared to live with the consequences. Theres always adoption aswell. Not like shes backed into a corner here. But what im saying is that all this 'man up' stuff is just nonsense. If you dont want a child and the impact that has, no amount of feeling responsible will compensate. You ultimately end up with another unloved child. Horrible, but true. He never wanted it and took steps to stop it. You cant start castigating him now because somebody else has inflicted the sutuation upon him. She either has an abortion, gives up for adoption or becomes a single parent.

And he doesn't?

He might not want the child but it's still going to be born so he should, at the absolute least, help out financially if he can't bring himself to be part of the childs life.

Well he lives with the fact that he disowned his child. But the child was ultimately the mothers choice. She had choices too. And to be honest, if he's walking away then hes signing away all rights but also the responaibilty aswell I wouls think. So no he shouldnt be forced to pay up. Again, im not saying thats morally acceptable, but in the context of the original question, why should he have reaponsibilities without rights? Birth mothers dont have a financial responsibility to their adopted kids.

Gummy Panda

stovelid wrote: »

Gummy Panda wrote: »

I've never seen so many high horses in one thread..

New to the forum, right?

Worse then a dole bashing thread

Biggins

Zulu wrote: »

That's fine in a society that doesn't allow either partner to pull the plug, but that's not the case here.
If your analogy were to hold true here the woman, who has agreed to have the gun pointed at her, and the trigger pulled, also has the ability to "matrix-like" side step the bullet, but chooses not to. Forcing the repercussions onto the trigger man!

Well sticking with my analogy, firing the gun, the bullet has to land somewhere and have an effect!
If a woman steps up and allows herself to be a target, yes, she must accept the price too - but we are not arguing about that here anyway.

---

Put it another way:

If a person jumps off a cliff wearing a parachute, they jump knowing a rare chute might not open - but they jump knowing there is that rare risk and they are obviously willing to do that jump, hoping not to pay a price they might not like - but at least know it may happen.

...And if they know it may happen and they still jump, they are accepting the risks - ALL risks, not just the parts they like.

smash

Biggins wrote: »

Well sticking with my analogy, firing the gun, the bullet has to land somewhere!
If a woman steps up and allows herself to be a target

Giggidy.

Biggins wrote: »

If a person jumps off a cliff wearing a parachute, they jump knowing a rare chute might not open - but they jump knowing there is that rare risk and they are obviously willing to do that jump, hoping not to pay a price they might not like - but at least know it may happen.

It's still not the same though is it because you can't reverse the effects of a bullet hitting you or your parachute not opening.

strobe

Zulu wrote: »

If abortion is legal, and she can abort without his permission (which I assume she can) then yes he should be able to legally walk away.

If a woman is enabled to physically abort a child, there's no good reason a man shouldn't be able to legally do so.

The element not being mentioned by you above though Zulu is that in scenario one, the woman aborts and then there is no more child. In scenario two there is a child and if the woman can't support it on her own it is society/the state/whatever that picks up the bill.
So the two aren't perfectly comparable. It's not like for like in pragmatic terms, maybe in terms of ideals of fairness but not in actual real world application.

Biggins

smash wrote: »

It's still not the same though is it because you can't reverse the effects of a bullet hitting you or your parachute not opening.

You can't reverse the fertilisation of an egg either - you can only opt later, afterwards to get rid of what its growing into!

A person willing to take an action must in doing that action, be willing to accept all consequent of his actions.
...Be it a crash in a car that normally they drive safely, a woman they have sex with or someone doing a crime with a weapon!

You take the risks knowingly, you should pay the price of the outcomes