The Misandry Bubble

[GGG]

Originally Posted by rubecube

In the court's eyes, because it's in the best interests of the child to have financial support from both parents. And honestly, I've yet to hear a solid argument against that.

Since when have individual rights always been in the best interests of society. Indivdual rights regularly conflict with simple utilatarian calculus. That is one of the reasons they need to be protected.

Generally what you are saying is that it is okay to force men to become finacially responsible for a child but it isnt okay to do the same to women. I would agree that it is probably in the best interest of the children but it certainly isnt equal.

[To Be Quite Honest]

GGG and something are two of my favorite rational posters.

[GP_Matt]

I thought the law was pretty clear. Before the fetus is created it is not afforded rights of its own but is instead granted the rights of the mother. The fetus is part of the mother's body and only the mother has a say over her own body. I can imagine no sound argument that could force a mother to either have or not have an abortion as long as they remain legal. Once the baby is born however it becomes a person and is afforded rights. Part of those rights involves child support from an absentee parent. Allowing a father to abdicate their responsibility over said child is clearly not in the best interests of the child and would be inconsistent with the rights of the child.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by GGG

I agree with you that the law needs to remain the same however a womens right to make the choice certainly doesnt come from the discomfort or risk of child birth. It comes from the fact that you dictate how someone treats their body. However the morality of abortion and the legality of abortion are two completely different issues.

To your argument above if you think that a women shouldnt have an obligation to go through the horrors of preganacy for a child they do not want to have would you agree that men should be afforded an equal right to avoid the financial obligations and inconvenience of having a child that he doesnt want to have

I get that you think it isn't fair, because it really isn't. In this situation, one person has a 'veto' over what will happen to both of them (and the child).

However, it is biological that women have babies. Trying to complain about that is like women trying to complain that men can pee standing up.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I get that you think it isn't fair, because it really isn't. In this situation, one person has a 'veto' over what will happen to both of them (and the child).

However, it is biological that women have babies. Trying to complain about that is like women trying to complain that men can pee standing up.

A child should be welcomed in the earth with love not force. Sure it's the woman's right to give birth but the financial obligation must be symmetrical in the end. Once it is decided that if she wishes to have the child and he doesn't then that final decision is up to her. Keep it alone or abort or adoption.

Also some feminists do say that they too can pee standing up... Good for them!

[GP_Matt]

Except that you can't punish a child for the decisions of the mother.

[Rathji]

Just so I am clear, you are saying is that you want men have the right to relinquish all responsibility for a child they need to:

a) tell the woman to get an abortion, and then deal with any emotional consequences of that decision.

but for a woman to do so, they would have to either:

a) Have the baby to term, give birth and then surrender that baby to the father who has indicated that they will give full support for it. I assume you would also have some allowances to force the father into providing financial restitution for expenses, time spent off work, and 'pain and suffering', similar to that which a surrogate mother received when contracted to carry a baby. Also, what happens if the father changes his mind? Would he be forced to take care of the kid? How would that be beneficial to the child? Love, not force, right?

b) Get the father to agree to an abortion, then go have the procedure done and face the potential physical and emotional consequences of that procedure.

I might be off my rocker here, but that doesn't seem fair to the woman. The guy is getting off with nothing in that case. You solution, to a problem where the male partner in the baby making is treated unfairly, is to switch to a system where the woman is treated unfairly?

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Just so I am clear, you are saying is that you want men have the right to relinquish all responsibility for a child they need to:

a) tell the woman to get an abortion, and then deal with any emotional consequences of that decision.

Yes. Understand the consequences before sex is a good idea! Asking anyone to say its okay and there are no crosses to bare before doing the nasty is ignorant. It's better than 3 dealing with the consequences their entire life!

but for a woman to do so, they would have to either:

a) Have the baby to term, give birth and then surrender that baby to the father who has indicated that they will give full support for it. I assume you would also have some allowances to force the father into providing financial restitution for expenses, time spent off work, and 'pain and suffering', similar to that which a surrogate mother received when contracted to carry a baby. Also, what happens if the father changes his mind? Would he be forced to take care of the kid? How would that be beneficial to the child? Love, not force, right?

Whaaaat? I didn't go here. It's an interesting discussion but not at all what I was pointing too.

b) Get the father to agree to an abortion, then go have the procedure done and face the potential physical and emotional consequences of that procedure.

I might be off my rocker here, but that doesn't seem fair to the woman. The guy is getting off with nothing in that case. You solution, to a problem where the male partner in the baby making is treated unfairly, is to switch to a system where the woman is treated unfairly?

Hardly! I said it is up to both of them, but ultimately it is up to the woman if she wishes to continue to term. However for this to happen it is decided that if she wishes to have the child and he doesn't then that final decision and obligation is up to her. Keep it alone or abort or adoption. There is no free ride to obligate another in a world where it is easy to get contraceptives, morning afters pills, abortions. Perhaps we should start signing contracts before sex to make sure all positions are clear!

..

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Hardly! I said it is up to both of them, but ultimately it is up to the woman if she wishes to continue to term. However for this to happen it is decided that if she wishes to have the child and he doesn't then that final decision and obligation is up to her. Keep it alone or abort or adoption. There is no free ride to obligate another in a world where it is easy to get contraceptives, morning afters pills, abortions. Perhaps we should start signing contracts before sex to make sure all positions are clear!

Actually, that the logical result of what you are said, (quoted below) so you might want to clarify that statement. You are not saying it is up to both of them, because regardless of what the mother decides when the father does not want to abort, she still must carry the baby to term. If she truly had a choice, she wouldn't be forced to do anything.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

A child should be welcomed in the earth with love not force. Sure it's the woman's right to give birth but the financial obligation must be symmetrical in the end. Once it is decided that if she wishes to have the child and he doesn't then that final decision is up to her. Keep it alone or abort or adoption.

As for the extra content, I realize you didn't go into the details I did, but I am drawing complete and logical conclusions from your statements, rather than just a small portion, which is why I was clarifying that it is what you meant.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Just so I am clear, you are saying is that you want men have the right to relinquish all responsibility for a child they need to:

a) tell the woman to get an abortion, and then deal with any emotional consequences of that decision.

but for a woman to do so, they would have to either:

a) Have the baby to term, give birth and then surrender that baby to the father who has indicated that they will give full support for it. I assume you would also have some allowances to force the father into providing financial restitution for expenses, time spent off work, and 'pain and suffering', similar to that which a surrogate mother received when contracted to carry a baby. Also, what happens if the father changes his mind? Would he be forced to take care of the kid? How would that be beneficial to the child? Love, not force, right?

b) Get the father to agree to an abortion, then go have the procedure done and face the potential physical and emotional consequences of that procedure.

I might be off my rocker here, but that doesn't seem fair to the woman. The guy is getting off with nothing in that case. You solution, to a problem where the male partner in the baby making is treated unfairly, is to switch to a system where the woman is treated unfairly?

My thought is that the goal where possible would be to treat the sexes equally while maintaining the personal right of the women to do what she wants with her body.

So Case 1:
Women wants child, Man does not want child
Man upon being informed that the fetus is likely his would sign some sort of document within a reasonable amount of time giving up all claim to the child and all financial repsonsibility. (Call it a Male Abortion) Then the women would be able to make a fully informed choice on what she wants to do keep, abort, adoot. This gives both the man and women the equal right to choose to become parents while maintaining a women's personal rights over her own body

Case 2: Both want child. Good, current law applies
Case 3: Both do not want child. Women chooses adopt or abort. This maintains womens personal rights to decide what she wants done to her body and maintains both parents rights to choose if they want to become parents.

Case 4 Women does not want, Men wants child
The womans personal rights over her body trump the mans rights to become a parent. Its unequal but you can't force a women to carry the baby. Here you have to rely on the empathy of the women. And really if the Women did not want the child and had no intention of carrying it to term then she shouldn't tell the father of the child.

I think that is as equal as you can make it while still repsecting individual rights. And since all of this occurs pre-birth the fetus is not a person and therefore has not rights. Now I don't know if this would be good for society but it would be more equal.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Your eye must be shut and your ears plugged. No, you haven't looked into it at all. Thus, you have not seen such.

LOL. Okay, bud. I can pretty much guarantee you I have much more experience/knowledge in this area than yourself. I'm not going to get into it here, because it's not generally something like to broadcast publically, but you can PM me if you'd like.

Originally Posted by GGG

Since when have individual rights always been in the best interests of society. Indivdual rights regularly conflict with simple utilatarian calculus. That is one of the reasons they need to be protected.

Generally what you are saying is that it is okay to force men to become finacially responsible for a child but it isnt okay to do the same to women. I would agree that it is probably in the best interest of the children but it certainly isnt equal.

Of course it's not equal but, as Rathji said, you can't punish a child for the decisions of the mother. If you want to take a utilitarian angle to it, I'm sure you'd agree that children who grow up in a more financially stable environment tend to create less of a burden on society as a whole.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Actually, that the logical result of what you are said, (quoted below) so you might want to clarify that statement. You are not saying it is up to both of them, because regardless of what the mother decides when the father does not want to abort, she still must carry the baby to term. If she truly had a choice, she wouldn't be forced to do anything.



As for the extra content, I realize you didn't go into the details I did, but I am drawing complete and logical conclusions from your statements, rather than just a small portion, which is why I was clarifying that it is what you meant.

No you didn't go to the "logical" step. But you did switch the roles which is fantastically amusing. Not giving the woman a choice. Welcome to the real world for men!

[rubecube]

Hypothetically speaking, a woman is religious and doesn't believe in abortion. She has sex with a man who claims to want to have kids with her, but once she's pregnant he decides he's no longer interested. Should she be forced to go agains her personal beliefs, or have her child be denied financial stability because the father flaked?

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Hypothetically speaking, a woman is religious and doesn't believe in abortion. She has sex with a man who claims to want to have kids with her, but once she's pregnant he decides he's no longer interested. Should she be forced to go agains her personal beliefs, or have her child be denied financial stability because the father flaked?

Really, your pulling this topic on this forum?

Don't remove her responsibility here. If she is religious then she should follow her beliefs and wait. If she goes through with it her "morals" are already compromised.

[To Be Quite Honest]

By the way. This is a fantastic discussion and I thank everyone who is able to contribute maturely. Really, this is great and a wonderful learning experience for me at any-rate.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Of course it's not equal but, as Rathji said, you can't punish a child for the decisions of the mother. If you want to take a utilitarian angle to it, I'm sure you'd agree that children who grow up in a more financially stable environment tend to create less of a burden on society as a whole.

But these decisions are all made when the child is not a child but a fetus. The decision to abdicate parental rights is made to a fetus and not a child. After the abdicaton of rights what the mother does with the fetus is her decision. So you are not punishing a child for the decisions of the mother anymore than you are punishing a child when a fetus is aborted. I agree though that likely this isn't in the best interests of society.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Hypothetically speaking, a woman is religious and doesn't believe in abortion. She has sex with a man who claims to want to have kids with her, but once she's pregnant he decides he's no longer interested. Should she be forced to go agains her personal beliefs, or have her child be denied financial stability because the father flaked?

My previous girlfriend and I had a mature discussion that if she were to get pregnant she would get an abortion. So, if she decided to all of a sudden keep the baby even though it goes against our agreement that I still stood by what happens here? I'd be on the hook which is wrong.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Hypothetically speaking, a woman is religious and doesn't believe in abortion. She has sex with a man who claims to want to have kids with her, but once she's pregnant he decides he's no longer interested. Should she be forced to go agains her personal beliefs, or have her child be denied financial stability because the father flaked?

I would take out the religous angle because if she is having sex out of wedlock then she probably isn't following her religion to closely anyways. So lets just say she is against abortion. I would argue that since the man stated that he wanted to have kids with her he would have already exercised is parental rights. Now this would have to be decided by the courts if he said he wanted to have kids someday with her likely he would still be able to abdicate his rights as there was no specific intent but if they were actively attempting to get pregnant I think he would have already made the choice to become a parent and therefore couldn't opt out later.

[GP_Matt]

In both of the above cases, the child wasn't part of the agreement. You can't make an agreement to deny a child rights any more than myself and Rubecube could sign a contract denying rights to GGG.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by GGG

I would take out the religous angle because if she is having sex out of wedlock then she probably isn't following her religion to closely anyways. So lets just say she is against abortion. I would argue that since the man stated that he wanted to have kids with her he would have already exercised is parental rights. Now this would have to be decided by the courts if he said he wanted to have kids someday with her likely he would still be able to abdicate his rights as there was no specific intent but if they were actively attempting to get pregnant I think he would have already made the choice to become a parent and therefore couldn't opt out later.

That's a legal quagmire in a common law system.