# Abortion: Who's opinion matter's and why?



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Jamaia said:


> @*Tropes* How does the easy fix fix?


You've presented the problem that the man can opt out at any time, the solution creates a window of opportunity in which he can only opt-out while she still has the option for abortion, given that he knew about the child during that window of opportunity. 
The other problem you've presented is of women not telling the men that they got pregnant to avoid that window of opportunity - the solution is that for this case, the time limit wouldn't apply at all. Meaning she has to tell him for their to be a binding option for him in the first place.



Jamaia said:


> A couple mutually wants to get pregnant, they succeed, after the first ultrasound father changes his mind and signs the papers to opt out. She shouldn't have gotten too attached to the embryo or agree to attempt to get pregnant, if she wasn't ready to be a single parent? Or a couple is not officially together, contraceptive measures don't quite work, she gets pregnant, maybe there are a few father candidates, she decides not to have an abortion and waits for a few months before "noticing" she's pregnant.


She can be a single parent without his consent - an option he doesn't have - or she can choose to not be a parent at all, an option he should have, and currently doesn't.



Jamaia said:


> His best case scenario is that there's no repercussions even though a pregnancy happens.


Actually no - his best case scenario is the exact same it is with the opposite situation - that if he doesn't want the child she'd respect that and have an abortion. The difference is that it's not a legally enforceable scenario (Or rather, enforcing it is worst than not having it).



Jamaia said:


> His worst case scenario (when not wanting a child, but having sex anyway and pregnancy happens) is that there's a kid out there who he has to pay child support for.


Nope, his worst case scenario is going to jail for not being able to pay child support.



Jamaia said:


> Her worst case scenario could be that after a lot of stress she can't go through with the abortion, the pregnancy fucks her up and she's a single parent. I don't think there's an imbalance.


If we agree that choosing to not have an abortion should be her choice, why can't we agree that dealing with the consequences should be her responsibility? She's not responsible to carry a child just because he wants her to, but he is responsible to support a child because she wants him to, and you don't think that is an imbalance?

The only arguments I've heard to excuse the imbalance is either from people who object to abortions in general (Which I suppose would resolve the imbalance), or that it's for it is that it's for the benefit of the child as a child (At the expanse of the child as a future adult). I've never heard it argued that the imbalance isn't there in the first place.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Ah, going to jail is a different issue, over here the society picks up the tab and provides minimum child support if the father can't afford it. And, you're right, his best case scenario indeed is that she gets the abortion as he wishes, and that's entirely plausible scenario which he has some control over by choosing who he has sex with. There's no imbalance.

*Actually with his best case scenario I thought of situations: 1) he never ever learns about the pregnancy 2) pregnancy is aborted either naturally or she gets an abortion. Close to not having any impact on his life I think would be the option that she informs him about the pregnancy and asks what he wants to do and then agrees and does just that.

** what do you mean "at the expense of the child as a future adult"?

*** Another part to the window problem is women legitimately not learning about pregnancy until it's too late to abort. Especially if she's on the pill. He'd still get to sign the papers. 

*** ^ @Tropes


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

Tropes said:


> The man:
> Can choose to not have sex
> Can choose to apply a condom


In a perfect world the man can legally opt out. Like sperm donors have to do in Sweden. Signing a paper where the state recognizes the donor isn't the legal father but he does accept the childs right to know who the father is.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

pwowq said:


> In a perfect world the man can legally opt out. Like sperm donors have to do in Sweden. Signing a paper where the state recognizes the donor isn't the legal father but he does accept the childs right to know who the father is.


This I think would be acceptable window, sign the papers before having sex.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Due to biological differences I doubt that it can ever be totally equal for both sides. For women, want it or not they are the one carrying the responsibility of the ultimate decision, while for men, want it or not they never get to decide the fate of the unborn fetus.

Things aren't as simple as "if you don't abort then I can still opt out of financing care for the child". Unless for the completely apathetic, or for those who really can detach any emotions from the abortion process, abortion is not an easy decision for women to make and it can haunt many of them.
And even if for men it can be emotionally scarring for losing a possible baby as the woman decided to abort, I'd dare to say that it might still not be the same as being the one having to decide to abort and get emotionally scarred for it, being the one having to carry out such a decision. This is not an easy burden, unless you can be unemotional to it.

As for the child that is already born, the child would require proper care so it's only right for the parents to provide. And if the mother is not fit to be the guardian, the father should have the right to assume it for the sake of the child.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

pwowq said:


> In a perfect world the man can legally opt out. Like sperm donors have to do in Sweden. Signing a paper where the state recognizes the donor isn't the legal father but he does accept the childs right to know who the father is.


That's what I am arguing for.



Jamaia said:


> And, you're right, his best case scenario indeed is that she gets the abortion as he wishes, and that's entirely plausible scenario which he has some control over by choosing who he has sex with. There's no imbalance.


Would you buy that as an excuse for anything you'd perceive as disadvantaging the woman? What if instead I made the male equivalent of your argument, "He should be able to force her to have an abortion / have the child, After all, she can choose who she has sex with"? Would that excuse be reasonable then?



Jamaia said:


> ** what do you mean "at the expense of the child as a future adult"?


I mean that if we agree that this is an unfair and unjust imbalance, which I guess from the above that we currently do not, the benefit of the child is a poor excuse to create a world which will later treat them unjustly as an adult.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Here's a story I made up: A guy and a girl are enjoying a nice car ride. They both wanted to go for a ride. She's driving, it's her car. Suddenly there's a cow on the road. "Shiiiit, I'm too young to die, luckily I have these papers I can sign to opt out and it's only fair seeing I have no control over the car and it's your car anyways," the guy says, signs the papers and *puff* he's gone. The girl now has the freedom to choose if she wants to steer to the left, to the right, or hit the cow. If she turns left she might be fine, there may not be any other traffic. If she turns right she might be fine, it might be an open field with plenty of space beside the road. Or it might be the case that there's oncoming traffic, trees by the side of the road, too late to stop, there's no way to avoid the collision. It's only fair that the papers the guy signed, that lifted him out of the car before the impact, do keep him at least financially responsible of part of the possible repairs.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Jamaia said:


> Here's a story I made up


Made up in more ways than one: Again, they both face potentially traumatic opt-out options, whether it's the trauma of an abortion or whether it's knowing you have a child you didn't want. You might be able to relate to one of those but not the other, that doesn't mean the other doesn't exist.

I am surprised with you @Jamaia - momentarily try to divorce this from gender, think about the reality created by unconsensual parenthood, do you really not see anything wrong with that? For anyone? How do you feel about places where abortion is illegal in which this is the reality for women as well men? They have the same reasoning, the choice was the choice to have sex, would you be fine if that was the case in your country?


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Tropes said:


> Made up in more ways than one: Again, they both face potentially traumatic opt-out options, whether it's the trauma of an abortion or whether it's knowing you have a child you didn't want. You might be able to relate to one of those but not the other, that doesn't mean the other doesn't exist.


Isn't the trauma of knowing there's a child you didn't want incorporated in the abortion trauma? I really find it difficult to see how having an unwanted child who you've never interacted with be alive somewhere would be equal to having aborted a child you're carrying. Not saying the other doesn't exist. If the guy really can't stand the chance of having a live child somewhere he should get a vasectomy and/or not have sex.

(In the story the guy gets to watch the dramatic events unfold from a safe distance and gets to have nightmares.)


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Jamaia said:


> Isn't the trauma of knowing there's a child you didn't want incorporated in the abortion trauma? I really find it difficult to see how having an unwanted child who you've never interacted with be alive somewhere would be equal to having aborted a child you're carrying. Not saying the other doesn't exist. If the guy really can't stand the chance of having a live child somewhere he should get a vasectomy and/or not have sex.


 @Jamaia - If we surveyed mothers who both had the experience of aborting a child and the gave up a child for adoption - without a choice for the child's parents - to determine which one is more traumatic, do you think this would resolve the issue?

Because if that's the case, then your argument boils down to reasoning that because having if the choice to opt out carries with it a more traumatic experience for group A then it does for group B, group B shouldn't be given a choice at all. Would you be so willing to give up your own agency because executing the same basic agency is more costly for someone else?


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Tropes said:


> I am surprised with you @Jamaia - momentarily try to divorce this from gender, think about the reality created by unconsensual parenthood, do you really not see anything wrong with that? For anyone? How do you feel about places where abortion is illegal in which this is the reality for women as well men? They have the same reasoning, the choice was the choice to have sex, would you be fine if that was the case in your country?


Abortion is reality because it can be done and women will have it done one way or the other. If abortion was illegal I'd be sorry for the desperate people who try to induce it by illegal and dangerous means. I'd hope it was available for rape victims. Other than that I would not have a problem, have sex and you agree with the possible repercussions. I wouldn't have sex with someone who I didn't see as a decent father in case there was a child after 9 months. I wouldn't have sex if I didn't think I'd be able to mother the child alone if need be, preferably in some kind of co-operation with the father.
@Tropes in your previous question about group A and B are you asking if to a woman the act of giving a child up for adoption could be comparable to a man having an unwanted child (with child support duties)?


----------



## Belzy (Aug 12, 2013)

The mother.

Even if I would want the kid very much, I would not force her.

Then I have chosen the wrong person to make...


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Jamaia said:


> @*Tropes* in your previous question about group A and B are you asking if to a woman the act of giving a child up for adoption could be comparable to a man having an unwanted child (with child support duties)?


Not the point. I am saying your case boils down to the argument that because making a choice is more traumatic for group A, group B shouldn't be allowed the agency to make such a choice at all.

Even if we found a way to survey people who have had experienced both to determine which one was more traumatic for them, that by some margin people who experienced both said that the experience of abortion was more traumatic than the experience of opting out of parenthood with the child still alive - is that margin of difference in emotional suffering for one group a good when making a choice a good enough reason to not give another group any choice at all?


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

@Tropes it's really late, but our outlooks differ on forced parenthood. What you see as forced is voluntary to me. The man signing "sperm donor" papers in advance is fine by me, that doesn't save him from the pain of knowing his flesh and blood is out there, but it does protect him from the financial and legal responsibility. It would also most likely make sex very difficult to come by. I don't think it would be in the interest of men to diminish the male role to a sperm donor and I don't think equal right to opt out of parenthood when unplanned pregnancy is the physical, real result of consensual sex is a good thing.

I get what you're saying about comparing the trauma (or I think I did but not sure). You're saying the equality should be based on equal freedom to choose something rather abstract, resigning parental rights, and not on balancing the pain and suffering because it's not quantifiable. That makes sense when striving for equality but I think the physical price of reproduction is too high to validate anyone's right to such freedoms. The mother has certain possibilities or freedoms that the father can't have, because of having payed so much higher price. It sucks but I don't think it's imbalanced. The father has certain freedoms the mother can never have.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Jamaia said:


> I get what you're saying about comparing the trauma (or I think I did but not sure). You're saying the equality should be based on equal freedom to choose something rather abstract, resigning parental rights, and not on balancing the pain and suffering because it's not quantifiable. That makes sense when striving for equality but I think the physical price of reproduction is too high to validate anyone's right to such freedoms. The mother has certain possibilities or freedoms that the father can't have, because of having payed so much higher price. It sucks but I don't think it's imbalanced. The father has certain freedoms the mother can never have.


Would that reasoning stand for you when applied to anything else?

Let's try it the lowest scale: People slimmer than Louis C K shouldn't be allowed to put on socks

* *














Or at a highest end: People who haven't individually fought for and lost loved ones in a bloody and traumatic revolution for democracy within their life times shouldn't be allowed to vote, because other people have. 

At what level does it make sense to withhold agency from a group because it's more costly for another? 




Jamaia said:


> @*Tropes* it's really late


NO, THE ONE WHO STAYS UP THE LONGEST WINS

J/K

It's ok, we all have lives and I have no problem picking up the conversation another time (Well, I probably won't remember, but if you do and feel like continuing it in the future).


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

If you don't want a child, don't have sex. Married couples should not even have this conversation.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Difficult topic, usually ends up pretty bad or discussing what was not the point placed by the OP


pomPOM said:


> *I am interested in hearing what do you guys think- how much does each involved individual's opinion matter when it comes to abortion or keeping a baby?*


Your title says "*who's opinion matter* *and why*" and I do understand you limit the discussion to specific scenarios and the couple (man and woman). I can easily say both opinions can fail to matter because in sensitive topics when both disagree it becomes a mess, and usually will dominate the opinion of the most aggressive or the one with more power/access, in this case _usually_ the woman being the owner of the body having the baby. Many times there is little a guy can do, so opinions can matter very little when facing disagreements like this.

*Over the years I think the opinion that matters is the people around* (and it depends). Yes I know how it sounds, sounds terrible and out of context because no opinion should matter above the couple, not even the family but let me explain what I mean and why. Many times people in sensitive situations such as this one, make choices based on what they know and feel (and what they ignore and don't feel YET). In such cases their opinion might be (usually is) temporary, but the the exposure to more mature opinions is there, and you will always face it. It's like doing something lacking knowledge but meeting the person and light LATER, whoa, that hurts and big time, usually leading to regrets you never saw coming. 

I've seen cases of people making difficult choices and pretty confident about it, then later they get to know some people or some situations and understand:

- they had more options
- they didn't have to be so closed
- later doesn't seem so hard to concede 
- or just plain regret for such delicate choices

And the delicate lesson I've learned is... they... while not saying what they did, will face the opinions of many people around, and as they grow they will be exposed to more mature opinions over and over and it seems like a punishment. This concept wasn't so clear to me until I found some descriptions of real life cases (just like this one) on psychology books, where people later understand and their late knowledge makes them think "I screw up" because there were lots of choices. It's complex. Just like some text on ABCDE (won't tell here) say the day is not so difficult as the days later, one by one. My two cents.


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

I really wish they would make a contraception that has a 100% success rate for men but not a condom or something that reduces sexual stimulation so the man can decide whether theres going to be a baby or not to begin with thus bypassing this dilemma.


----------



## HGy (Jul 3, 2016)

Only God's opinion matters.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

ENTJudgement said:


> I really wish they would make a contraception that has a 100% success rate for men but not a condom or something that reduces sexual stimulation so the man can decide whether theres going to be a baby or not to begin with thus bypassing this dilemma.


Last I checked on the matter, a few versions of the men contraception are slated to go back into trials later this year. It's not yet in pill form (Currently requires injections), we don't yet know the success rate, and there's still a long way from FDA approval, but it's coming, and so far one of the symptoms is actually increased horniness. Following a 3-5 year road ahead, I expect to see it right about the time self-driving cars let couples fuck while in traffic. 

Sex is getting an upgrade.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Wellsy said:


> Your focus is that the practice of abortion in practice allows for some degree of choice to opt out of parenthood, but I'm trying to emphasize that in doing so the man and women are both treated equally in regard to the child, they either both have no parental duties because the child is aborted or they both have it because a child is born and requires care.


The same idea of equality that argued there's no discrimination in saying gay people couldn't get married (Just not to anyone they might love), black people had equal access to education, but just for schools of their own race (Which just happen to get less funding), etc.', you are applying the exact same enforcement of a superficial mental barrier that doesn't logically apply in order to ignore the resulting relationship between the reality that faces different individuals depending on gender because you on some level do understand that comparison challenges the expressed core beliefs within your dogma about what meanings social analysis of institutions are allowed to have and what narrative they have to tell. You can claim I am ignoring nuance while repeating what I already addressed and pretending that they are in anyway nuanced, you can claim that what you refuse to acknowledge or account for is shallow if doing so makes it easier to convince yourself you have a deep understanding of the topic, but in actuality the act of doing so demonstrates all the nuance and depth of a puppy failing to bite its own tail. Unfortunately, I can't say the same about the entertainment value, puppies are usually adorable. Are you adorable Wellsy?


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

SkyRacerX said:


> LOL, I guess dead people need love too. At least there won't be any non-consensual pregnancies to deal with later. Imagine trying to explain that one.


Well.. We know that relatively fresh and intact corpses can occasionally exhibit some level of orgasms, we know sperm can survive a few days...


----------



## the.soph.ia (Jul 21, 2015)

h


----------



## Warp11 (Jul 13, 2016)

Wellsy said:


> My point is that you don't make a logical link between abortion and men being absolved from enforced child support payments other than the most superficial appearance of choice. You're mistake is thinking that the appearance of freedom of choice in the context of pregnancy/abortion is somehow equivaelent in law to choices once a child has been born and misses the substantiative differences. It's the sort of thinking where one might say violence illegal is bad but not actually look deeper at the difference between someone who is charged with first degree murder and one who is charged with manslaughter.
> 
> Your focus is that the practice of abortion in practice allows for some degree of choice to opt out of parenthood, but I'm trying to emphasize that in doing so the man and women are both treated equally in regard to the child, they either both have no parental duties because the child is aborted or they both have it because a child is born and requires care.
> I'm simply not convinence that the superficial appearance of choice to have a child or not validates the that a man should opt out of abortion. Because in the first case there is no kid to care for, but once the kid is born it makes sense that we hold both parents responsible to the child's wellbeing... unless you of course argue directly that enforced child support is somehow inherently wrong in itself. Which would require arguing that children are undeserving of such support from those that are responsible for their creation.
> ...


I get some of what you're arguing, but...ya, men *should* have legal protection against forced fatherhood - which usually has *everything* to do with money and child support. Just go visit your local welfare office and conduct a survey with the baby-mommas as to why they decided to have a fourth kid with a fourth baby daddy. The results will not shock you.

Like women being protected against forced motherhood, if these men have failed to protect themselves (whether as a result of lustful stupidity or deception from a sexual partner), then the law must provide equivalent recourse.

Any argument that we should accept that because a man cannot get pregnant, then his role in reproduction is secondary and therefore reduced to the physical delivery of sperm and an acceptance of an outcome over which he has no control, is dangerous.
Hmmm... it actually sounds a lot like oppression.


----------



## Warp11 (Jul 13, 2016)

Tropes said:


> Well.. We know that relatively fresh and intact corpses can occasionally exhibit some level of orgasms, we know sperm can survive a few days...


This sounds like a premise for a Rob Zombie film.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

SkyRacerX said:


> I get some of what you're arguing


 _
"Abortion isn't comparable to opting out because it's done through controls over the child's existence, making it a superficial resemblance only, meaning you can only address questioning men opting out of child support as an entirely separate issue with no equivilance for women, and if you do that, TOTC_" ^ homeopathy.



SkyRacerX said:


> it actually sounds a lot like oppression.


He knows, thus the mental resistance.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Tropes said:


> Wait, so you object to the window to opt out of paternity, but you wouldn't object to opting out being the default unless a father opts in? I am confused, because *your previous arguments were countered that forced paternity is a negative in the first place, now it sounds like you only object to the window.*
> 
> Edit: On a curious note, the one situation you've mentioned that I didn't have a solution for also doesn't seem to have any solution in Sweden's bill. There's no mention of what if the woman doesn't know.


There will be no law and even if there was, they would not be able to solve the issue of "innocent" mothers. My previous arguments were not about forced paternity being a negative, they were that there is no forced paternity if he has agreed to have sex. His experience of being forced into paternity is probably negative to him, but that's up to him in my opinion. I'm sorry for any guy who has reason to believe their GF was on the pill when she wasn't or in some other way feels he was tricked into being a father. It's awful if she has lied about it. But in my opinion, the guy should have thought "how much would it fuck up my life forever if this thing got pregnant" and then take action to prevent that from happening (aka be clear of your intent, do not leave your semen unsupervised near her eggs, don't believe in your paternity until a test has proved it). And well, even in the case of feeling like being tricked into paternity, there are more or less healthier mindsets to the situation.

***

@Tropes I said it before (some pages back) and @Wellsy has said it before too. The window for the man to opt out by signing a paper is not equal. What you say is arbitrary social/mental barrier is a real physical barrier, it's not a kin to gay right to marry or schooling opportunities. It's like saying gay people should have biological children together and whites and blacks should be able to spend the same amount of time in the sun without their skin burning. It'd be nice if that was the case but it's not. What_ is_ a social construct is the father having a role, any responsibilities. You're saying there should be another social construct to balance the physical reality that is abortion, because it's not fair that everyone doesn't get to do abortions because of their gender. This is ridiculous but unfortunately you write too eloquently and fool yourself too. 

So, you think the father should for equality's sake have the opportunity to opt out of parenthood. For _equality's sake_ the mother should have the same right then, she should get to sign a paper saying she opts out of parenthood and leaves it all to him. Now what, he has an unwanted kid in someone else's body, will he abort it, or give birth and give it up for adoption or give birth and raise the child himself ("maybe I was meant to have this child"). What if he or she objects to abortion. She didn't want to be pregnant in the first place and has signed the papers opting out, but maybe since it was a basic right for an adult to get to opt out of parenthood, he'll then choose to make a deal with her, maybe she'll carry the child for some money anyway. He could get a loan to fund it. What you're suggesting is impossibility, because while the father could sign off his paternity with a paper, it's only because his ownership in the pregnancy is only a matter of agreement, not because it's possible for people in general incl mothers to sign off their parental role.

What you maybe notice is that the father's right or tie or right to the baby is "virtual", it's not real. For societal reasons and for men's sake too we've got this idea that the father has a strong premature agency, that he is responsible for the life he has created. And from there follows his child support responsibilities too. This is an attempt to shift the grossly unfair reproductive reality to slightly more equal footing. It's not founded on biological reality though and does cause all sorts if trouble. In reality he is by default a sperm donor until he acknowledges paternity and starts acting like a father. A clear solution would be clear off all agreements put in by society in an attempt to "balance" the biology. Having sex does not make anyone a parent, the mother's parental role begins with conception and she has all ownership to the pregnancy and the possible child, and she gets to choose if she lets the biological father know of his progeny. That'd be harsh but fair.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Tropes said:


> The same idea of equality that argued there's no discrimination in saying gay people couldn't get married (Just not to anyone they might love), black people had equal access to education, but just for schools of their own race (Which just happen to get less funding), etc.', you are applying the exact same enforcement of a superficial mental barrier that doesn't logically apply in order to ignore the resulting relationship between the reality that faces different individuals depending on gender because you on some level do understand that comparison challenges the expressed core beliefs within your dogma about what meanings, social analysis of institutions are allowed to have and what narrative they have to tell. You can claim I am ignoring nuance while repeating what I already addressed and pretending that they are in anyway nuanced, you can claim that what you refuse to acknowledge or account for is shallow if doing so makes it easier to convince yourself you have a deep understanding of the topic, but in actuality the act of doing so demonstrates all the nuance and depth of a puppy failing to bite its own tail. Unfortunately, I can't say the same about the entertainment value, puppies are usually adorable. Are you adorable Wellsy?


No, I'm well aware that in reality there is gender differences, that whilst something like child support hypothetically applies equally to both sexes, in practice we find the majority of men pay child support and women receive it, my awareness of this should've been hinted at by the previous link where I noted that mothers are increasing minority who pay child support in Australia.
And what I think would help clarify things would be what is specifically unjust and in what way.
I think the focus might be in the discrepancy between equality in law to the practice. Where both men and women are get parental responsibilities and rights upon birth of the child when they are both acknowledged as being the biological parents unless in exceptional circumstances ie adoption/surrogacy.
But in noting this discrepancy, it isn't made clear where the injustice is, the only injustice I can assume that is perceived is that one presumes equality of outcomes to be just. Because it certainly isn't a case of injustice in the law itself, because it treats the sexes equally in the abstract sense.
But I think the equality of outcomes doesn't make sense either because suggest that if a woman couldn't get an abortion then they would be on just terms, but that too wouldn't suddenly lead to an equality of outcome. 

I still assert that you have failed to articulate what exactly is wrong and that the association made between abortion and child support is rather vague. I've tried to clarify the possible ways of thinking about it to clarify what one might be trying to assert. As it seems to boil down to women can be absolved from parental responsibility when they have an abortion but I would assert that they in fact don't absolve themselves from parental responsibility as much as they never had a parental responsibility as no child was ever born.
Parental responsibility only occurs upon the childs birth, it does not necessarily exist legally prior to that or at least the duty of care doesn't exist for the father in that case. 

To argue that a father should be able to absolve parental responsibilities entirely should just as equally apply to that of the mother on the same grounds, otherwise contradicting the equality of law. Making a double standard that men should be allowed to opt out but women can't rather than suggesting the condition that should validly nullify parental responsibility entirely. 

A good example of such a condition is the law being proposed, that I mentioned earlier, of nonconsensual use of sperm. Which means that a a child born from statutory rape of a boy, of stolen sperm or misuse of reproductive technology doesn't compel the male to pay child support or have any responsibility to the child as they didn't create the kid through legally valid means, thus protecting them from being compelled into responsibilities due to no fault of their own. 
But thats a condition that simply doesn't apply to the case of a man getting a woman pregnant through consensual sex because there is not culpable moral agent (the woman steals the sperm) who committed a crime like nonconsensual use of sperm to nullify the parental responsibility. 
Though could argue that its inconsistent that in the consensual case, the childs well being trumps that of the fathers but its suddenly negligible in the case of the father whose sperm was nonconsensually used. That both children's wellbeing are important but in the nonconsensual case, it is to protect men from having consequences for the criminal actions of the woman. But in the consensual context, the consequences of a child being born are partially attributed to the general intent to have sex of the man as well as the woman. Thus they are culpable for its creation and we deem those that create the children are responsible for the childs wellbeing unless a good reason is given otherwise, such as the duty of care transferred through adoption/surrogacy. Here would could say that nonconsensual use of sperm for pregnancy is unjust and thus invalidates compelling the father to parental responsibilities, but its not so clear what is unjust in the case of a man who helped create the kid out of consensual sex. Because when people bring up that the man implicitly consents to the risk of pregnancy, this isn't to say that they necessarily desired to have a kid, just as the woman may not have wanted a kid either. But the link between sex and reproduction are interwoven and can at best, be diminished with the exceptions of disrupting the reproductive organs themselves. And that a woman may not wish to get pregnant, but biology simply happens after coitus and thus she may be just in the same boat as the man of not wanting the child but it doesn't matter, the state puts responsibilities upon her as the state does for the father. 

So I have suggested beyond arguing why enforcing child support is wrong, I also suggest examining the basis on which parental responsibility is attributed ie biology. Which should be of great interest because biology is the very basis on which fathers can claim any rights to their children a lot of the time. If one is to dismiss biological links without exceptional justification such as nonconsensual/unjust use of sperm, one is undermining the laws that allow men to have a legal stake in their children's lives. Meaning that those that oppose such an allocation of rights and responsibilities based on biology are in conflict with those that want fathers to have legal rights based on biology. Which is fine, but just stating that people should be aware that is the conclusion of their want to dismiss biology's basis for attributing such rights based on the whim of not wanting to raise the kid. Men can't have their cake and eat it to in this regard, the law needs to fall in favour of one or the other or risk internal contradiction and inconsistency that needs to be resolved so that the justice system can function smoothly. 

You didn't address the matter because you didn't articulate what injustice is at play other than a complaint that women have a choice that men don't which stems from biological differences that simply don't apply to men so the legality of abortion means nothing directly to men's reproductive rights. And its difficult to see how the legality of abortion is an injustice against men as it simply grants rights to another demographic but doesn't deprive the man of any rights at all. 
What I assert your confusion comes from is that you are mixing two laws and arguing that the benefit of the legality of abortion is somehow an injustice against men in regards to having to pay child support. But child support is a law in it's own right that is for the benefit of the child no matter the sex of the parent who chooses to not take an active role in their care. You assert that they are related based on the appearance choice in whether one has abortion and claiming there's no choice in enforced child support and thus its an injustice that theres a choice to have an abortion for women but no choice for men in regards to child support. But the reality is that women similarly don't have a choice in the enforcement of child support should a man become the primary care taker and have sole custody which is what seem to miss, because it'd an injustice if one sex could be absolved of child support and the other sex simply couldn't. 
_I don't think you have a grasp of the law or what an injustice or justice would constitute because your concern is simply, women have a choice to abort that I don't. But no explanation as to how that choice is in fact unjust. _



SkyRacerX said:


> I get some of what you're arguing, but...ya, men *should* have legal protection against forced fatherhood - which usually has *everything* to do with money and child support. Just go visit your local welfare office and conduct a survey with the baby-mommas as to why they decided to have a fourth kid with a fourth baby daddy. The results will not shock you.
> 
> Like women being protected against forced motherhood, if these men have failed to protect themselves (whether as a result of lustful stupidity or deception from a sexual partner), then the law must provide equivalent recourse.
> 
> ...


That term, forced parenthood, seems vague and should be unpacked.
Whose forcing who in to what here? Because I can get in the case of nonconsensual use of sperm we could speak of forced parenthood in regards to the father, the father played no part in the creation of the child or did so in a way that was criminal to them (ie statutory rape/rape). Which the law should adequately address, as it presently doesn't. Though that sort of defense from being forced into fatherhood isn't what I contest, as there is a compelling basis for the law to protect men from enforced parental responsibilities when they didn't consent to the use of their sperm implicitly(consensual sex)/explicitly (legal contract for surrogacy). 
So in the scenarios you mentioned earlier


> Even if the male has taken preventative measures like using a condom, he is still at risk of becoming a father (e.g. how many women out there rummaged through the garbage after sex for the chance that they could get the semen and inseminate themselves with it? How many poked holes in condoms? How many women lied to their partners about going off the pill so that they could get pregnant for a paycheck? How many men are out there raising and paying for children that aren't even theirs biologically? Apparently it's about 10%) Surely one of these situations has happened at least once in human existence.


I think the law would be just in defending such men from having to pay child support and it seems coherent to law in many countries that such a law be introduced. What it implies is those that are seen as legitimately responsible for the creation of the child are presumed by default responsible for the child. 

And to some degree, this issue is recognized, like the example of a child not being biologically their own. Many cases, courts already accept a mans right to not be responsible for the child that isn't biologically theirs, particularly if produced out of deception. Because the very basis on which men are forced into paying child support is because of their biological link, the idea being that they are responsible for the child. Though the new law proposed above would allow for the biological link but argue that they should be exempt from child support/responsibilities because though biologically related, they aren't actually responsible for the child's creation. 
The poked holes in a condom thing seems like it could be more persuasively argued because of the intent of the person who poked a hole in the condom which increased the chance of pregnancy. Though its more dubious in that the failure of a condom to work doesn't stop one in the case of consensual sex to be responsible for their kids, but perhaps the maliciousness could defend a man in that case. And perhaps it could also be a defense for a woman who was impregnated through such means and argue that the man is primarily responsible for the child. In practice, I wonder the difficulty in arguing such a case and how it'd stack up against burden of proof. In all these cases I imagine there would still be the concern of what is to be done for the child, because I can also imagine that despite the injustice involved in the creatino of the child, depending on judge or jury, their sympathies might be who is to raise the child. So for example, when a woman had a child to a boy that she statutorily raped, there was concern that a rapist had custody of the child, even though the kid was seen as so not ready to be raising a kid.

When it comes to consensual sex though, the father consented to a sexual encounter which risked pregnancy, as did the woman. But of course a difference comes in that a woman can intervene between early stages of pregnancy and child birth with an abortion whilst men can't. For some reason this is perceived as an injustice against the man whilst not depriving him of any rights. Though you might contest that, considering in the previous page people are speaking about Swedes arguing for men to have abortion rights. But I think something need to consider is that whilst nice to say that both parties can have rights, need to recognize that many rights come into conflict with one another. So for example anyone who asserts a developing child has a right to life simultaneously to a woman having the right to an abortion is not realizing that when a woman wants an abortion it is direct conflict with the child's right to life and the justice system needs to set a precedent of one trumping the other or its left ambiguous and confused on how to resolve such conflicts. So when saying men have abortion rights, while one could of course implement such rights, it should be foreseeable that if one has abortion rights for women that the courts are gonna have a rough time having to negotiate between the two conflicting rights say a woman wants an abortion and a man doesn't want her to, or vice versa. 

It's not exactly clear what the argument for a man's right to have a say in aboartion is based on that trumps what ever the reasons are for the woman's right to have an abortion. If law asserts a woman's autonomy in the matter, then it is difficult to see what of the man's position has anything to trump it unless we trump the woman's autonomy on the basis of the man's interest (conflicting rights and interests). So perhaps, in-spite of the OP's request


> Disclaimer: This is not a thread to discuss pro-life or pro-choice opinions.


It is impossible to resolve some of the difference of opinions without in fact discussion abortion rights and the basis on which they are legitimized and why we think one is greater than the other. Though it could be a matter that we're all dogmatic in that we treat something like a woman having the complete legal right in their abortion or whether a man has a legal right in a woman's abortion is an intrinsic good which doesn't rely on our justifications, as we treat it as inherently good regardless of the circumstances. Whether we value these as an end because of the evidence we've accepted or whether its an unconditional end, where it doesn't require evidence to justify it. 

But if it's accepted that the woman has a greater legal claim to abortion than the father in all circumstances, so that it's actually impossible for the courts to force a woman to have an abortion because there can be no one but the woman to decide to have the abortion, as opposed to a court ruling in favour of a conflicting party. 
This then ends up like complaining that disabled persons should not have rights specific to their disabilities because it isn't a practical choice for people without disabilities. Here, I am thinking of injustice as being deprived of a legal right. That unless the woman's legal right to an abortion unfettered is challenged, then I can't see an injustice based on how I'm using the term here, because the man isn't being deprived of a right because no such right exists. To which then one might argue that men should have a right that takes precedent over the woman's right to an abortion in certain contexts and why.

You seem to characterize women as entrapping men with the intention of getting pregnant in your recent post, and explicitly detail it in your initial post which I addressed up above. But there's a world of difference between the cases for nonconsensual use of sperm and that of a man who has consensual sex with a woman and she gets pregnant. In fact, both may have not wanted a pregnancy to occur, the biology doesn't care for their consent to its function. Unless one can argue that the woman committed some malicious act as exemplified in the nonconsensual use of sperm scenarios. Then the idea of a woman entrapping the man makes no sense as could say that the man impregnating the woman is just as entrapping her to pregnancy and a child. But to think of trapping someone, one needs to first show that an individual had the intention of some malicious act to get pregnant or get the other pregnant. In the case of two people simply having sex and accidentally getting pregnant, there is no malicious/criminal intent on which to justify exemption from parental duties to the kid, of even a limited kind such as child support. And so such an argument doesn't apply and need to produce a new argument as to why in the case of two consenting people who just happen to get pregnant in spite of their desire for it to not happen means either part should be exempt from parental responsibilities. 
Because it would seem the law considers those responsible for the childs creation are by default responsible for its care unless a good reason as to why they shouldn't be. With nonconsensual use of sperm, what is challenged is that one is responsible for creating the child.

Without having clarified, it also seems that some might have the idea that women are entrapping men because they refuse to have an abortion. 
But a woman refusing to have an abortion to me doesn't really seem like she forced the man into fatherhood, otherwise we are diminishing his role in the creation of the child, where unless its shown he couldn't have consented to participate in it's creation, the only one who compelled him into fatherhood was himself, just as it was the mother who compelled herself by having sex. The option for the woman to have an abortion to me needs to be tease out as to how exactly refusing it means the woman is culpable for 'forcing' the man into father hood. I imagine the defense is well she could've had an abortion and then he wouldn't be a father, her refusal shows that she pushed him into it. But I'd reiterate it was he who had sex and impregnated her, he helped created the child, what actually forced the child was biology itself. To which people aren't sympathetic to people's claims of injustice when it was nature taking its course as its nonsensical as someone trying to argue that any other force of nature is an injustice against them. But I would state that an injustice requires a moral agent to have done or not done something that fails to adhere to some expectation of what is considered just and thus one would have to argue what is the just standard they expect and who specifically is the one that denies them this justice. 
To which one might say that the injustice is that men don't get a say in abortion, but then we're back to debating abortion where there's a possible conflict in rights between the woman and the man's interest and the court has to rule in favour of one. And if one wants to argue the court should rule in favour of the man over the woman's interests, then they have to articulate why they thing that should be.

Once the child is born though, I think it would be the state, rather than the woman whom is argued as 'forcing' parenthood. As its the state that legally attributes parental responsibility to the biological parents. Because if the state didn't enforce this legal standard then we would have a legal possibility to allow this sort of thing to happen. But I assume the reason we don't allow for an opt into parenthood rather than opt out, is so that the consequences of biological parents having sex and creating new life means that they care for the new life that they created rather than make it allowable that they let a kid starve and no one be accountable. Our sympathies for the child's well being and vulnerability, to not simply be left without care is what makes us enforce parenthood on biological parents of both sexes once a child is born. Though from this assumption could also then diminish the enforcement of child support on the basis of arguing that a child is adequately cared for by the single parent, to which we'd have to discuss what is considered adequate care, considering many single mums live in poverty for a myriad of reasons. Whether because the custodian parent is wealthy enough, whether the courts could compel the other to pay because the custodian already possesses enough wealth to care for the child that it invalidates the sense that child support is required for their well being which is already provided for. 
But perhaps child support is also concieved in a different way where its like the payment of opting out of caring for your child is that you are still required to financially contribute, that opting of actively caring for the child has its cost. To which I believe the reason this might be justified is that it seems impractical to not have any consequences for men who have sex, that they could have lots of kids to who, they do nothing for, leaving many women to do all the work of raising these kids and what is ti inhibit the man from fucking anyone and anything having shitload of kids. The state and the tax payer wouldn't be happy with that because they'd likely be footing the bill through welfare if not in other social costs as it would likely lead to poverty for many. 

Overall, my verbosity is an attempt to make the point that I don't believe those who posted in here have made a clear argument, leaving many assumptions implicit and unexplained or justified. And that many points seem confused by a superficial notion of choice or lack of choice = injustice with no explicit explanation to what makes it unjust.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Jamaia said:


> So, you think the father should for equality's sake have the opportunity to opt out of parenthood. For _equality's sake_ the mother should have the same right then, she should get to sign a paper saying she opts out of parenthood and leaves it all to him.


...She already can, that's the exact same case of a mother giving up child for adoption which leaves the father as the sole caregiver unless he signs away his parental rights to give the child to adoption as well. She can actually do this regardless of any window. 



Wellsy said:


> I think the focus might be in the discrepancy between equality in law to the practice. Where both men and women are get parental responsibilities and rights upon birth of the child when they are both acknowledged as being the biological parents unless in exceptional circumstances ie adoption/surrogacy.
> But in noting this discrepancy, it isn't made clear where the injustice is, the only injustice I can assume that is perceived is that one presumes equality of outcomes to be just. Because it certainly isn't a case of injustice in the law itself, because it treats the sexes equally in the abstract sense.


You seem to be confusing 3 things:

Equality within how a law is articulated:
Everyone has an equal right to marry someone of the opposite gender
Everyone has the same right to go to a school of their own race
Everyone has the same parental responsibilities for a child once born
Everyone in North Korea is free to express themselves if they can prove that they are Kim Jong Un.

Equality of a law's direct outcome:
Only hetrosexuals and lucky bisexuals can marry people they are attracted to
A loop hole is created to allow different investment in education depending on race
One gender can actually control whether a child is born and thus the responsibilities 
North Korea is kind of a Tyrannical dictatorship harshly censoring everyone else

Equality of social outcome:
Hetrosexual & homosexual marriages must have the exact same divorce rates
People of all races must have the exact same socioeconomic status
Willing parents should have an equal gender distribution 
Everyone should get to be a tyrant and censor everyone else in North Korea

Acknowledging that the first - the law's literal articulation - is not sufficient without accounting for the law's direct outcome in how it is manifests in practice, is not the same as demanding an equal social outcome in how society adapts to the law, and refusing to acknowledge a law's direct outcome is probably the most consistent form of stupidity within law making in general, it takes only a minimal level of creativity to articulate ANY social state as equal through laughably transparent context management that ignores the obvious circumstances within the sentence, that's an absurdly irelavant standard for equality under the law.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Tropes said:


> ...She already can, that's the exact same case of a mother giving up child for adoption which leaves the father as the sole caregiver unless he signs away his parental rights to give the child to adoption as well. She can actually do this regardless of any window.


Regardless of any window, are you kidding? What about the 9 months before the window to give the child away even appears? Do you agree that the father's parental role in reality only begins once the kid is out and any role he has prior is just a matter of social agreement, not comparable to the role of the mother who is literally tied to the child from the moment the pregnancy is observable? 

Hidden because of unnecessarily repeating myself: 
* *




Saying the father to be allowed to opt out of that agreement too if he wishes is only "equal" is fair only in a situation where to the mother the getting to that point and having an abortion are equally troublefree. That is in some other reality where pregnancies are virtual until the mother decides to keep the baby, not this reality where the pregnancy exists without asking for permission.

The woman having an abortion is to the guy a situation where he dodges a slowly approaching financial bullet that hasn't touched him yet, to him there's been no child and thanks to the abortion there won't be one in the distant future. The woman having an abortion dodges the same or worse financial bullet but she's already been hit by the physical, growing kid. To some women having an abortion is not an emergency, it's just a standard procedure that removes a tissue that is growing in a wrong place. That's fine, but even if she sees it that way, having the tissue grow in her uterus and having it removed is not the same as the father somewhere signing papers that allow him to dodge the financial bullet.




I was impressed with Wellsy's walls of text but your last sentence there is pretty indomitable too .


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Jamaia said:


> Regardless of any window, are you kidding? What about the 9 months before the window to give the child away even appears? Do you agree that the father's parental role in reality only begins once the kid is out and any role he has prior is just a matter of social agreement, not comparable to the role of the mother who is literally tied to the child from the moment the pregnancy is observable?


Except if she was tied to it, there wouldn't be a medical procedure to serve as the basis for this topic. We invented a way for her to cut the tie, now we are discussing whether we should use the advanced technology known as a society to invent a way for him to do. Now you are insisting that equality would then only be if the same social tool was accessible to her without the physical tool and without the physical consequence? If we had a social problem where cars were only built for people who are 4 feet tall, and someone said, hey, let's also build cars that people who are up to 7 feet tall can get in, would you say "that wouldn't be fair unless the people who are 4 feet tall can reach the gas pedal in the larger cars"?


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

I suppose yes that's what I'm arguing all along, the solution that allows him to abort goes beyond equality into favoring him. And actually I was thinking something like tall people insisting they must get equal opportunity to find as good hiding places as short people while also retaining their superior ability to reach places better than short people. Or straight people saying they deserve the same ease of birth control as gay couples enjoy. Not sure why you need a car when this is a question of physical differences not related to any external equipment. But to finally bite: No I wouldn't say for equality's sake let's have every car suit every possible user, instead I'd say everyone buy the kind of car that suits their height range. I also would say a family of very varying heights shouldn't blame the world if they have trouble finding one family car everyone in their family can drive comfortably, even though all their neighbors with less variation within their families can buy just one type of car. It seems to me like your saying every household and person deserves equal opportunity to move around, so society should pay for the additional cars families with big height differences may need to buy, because else bigger part of their income goes towards cars and that is unfair.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

I am repeating myself perhaps, in trying to rearrange the same points in hopes of making it clearer. I can accept that one might find intrinsic value in an end such as men not being forced to pay child support, me disagreeing with this doesn't necessitate that can't comprehend that one could have a different conclusion. I am just not seeing the points flowing to the conclusion all that well and have tried to clarify my own point of view so by making it explicit, so one could pinpoint exactly where one disagrees with and sees things differently. 
What I had hoped to understand is the nature of what one considers unjust and how it can be considered unjust.


Tropes said:


> Acknowledging that the first - the law's literal articulation - is not sufficient without accounting for the law's direct outcome in how it is manifests in practice, is not the same as demanding an equal social outcome in how society adapts to the law, and refusing to acknowledge a law's direct outcome is probably the most consistent form of stupidity within law making in general, it takes only a minimal level of creativity to articulate ANY social state as equal through laughably transparent context management that ignores the obvious circumstances within the sentence, that's an absurdly irelavant standard for equality under the law.


I agree with what you say but still think what's left unclear is what injustice is at hand that needs to be made just.
It would seem to me that your concern is with 


> One gender can actually control whether a child is born and thus the responsibilities


and accepting this statement as true, the injustice is that women and not men in practice (due to abortion) have control over whether parental responsibilities are attributed. We could debate about just how accessible abortion is in practice as well, but it'd be better resolved if it's just assumed within the context of women in general having easy access to abortion (ideal conditions).
I can accept that a woman has the power to make a decision to abort which effects whether both she and the biological father are attributed parental responsibilities when she has the capacity to have an abortion. 
But what needs to be further clarified is how this comes to justify that a father should have an option to opt out of child support simply because they don't want to pay it. Unless also would like to elaborate on contingencies like it being too burdensome on men in poverty and so poor men shouldn't have to pay. 

In both cases the mother and father have an equal outcome from the abortion and when the child is born they have an equal outcome in being attributed parental responsibility and their capacity to opt out of that role in some degree by diminishing it (child support) or transferring it (adoption). It would seem then that the law is rather just in that it treats the sexes exactly the same in such conditions.
From this I claim there is no injustice needing to be made just. Because allowing women the right to abortion doesn't deprive the man of any right, he isn't wronged in any of this. And I reject that because in practice a woman can do something that man cannot as a result of biology and legalized abortion that allowing double standard in regards to attribution of parental responsibilities once a child is born is effectively argued.

Because it seems that want men and women to have equal capacity to absolve themselves of parental responsibility (Equating women absolving parental responsibility through abortion to men absolving responsibility once the child's born). Which they already do in many cases upon the birth of the child. Hence why there's cases of both men and women paying child support. 
But there can be no comparable right for men to have an abortion because they can't get pregnant just as it'd be nonsense for someone to argue that non-disabled persons should have a right to have employers make reasonable accommodations for their non-existent disability.
If such a person argued that, we'd reasonably mock their assertion that "it's unjust that non-disabled people don't get the same rights as disabled people" because they are treated differently. 

Implicit in this is that injustice is unfair treatment. Differential treatment can be considered unfair/unjust. But differential treatment can be just if it is justified based on differences considered relevant (ie disability justifies specific rights sensitive to one's disability). When the differences are deemed irrelevant (race/sex/religion), differential treatment may be considered unjust. 
In the case of women being allowed to have abortions, the differential treatment is justified in that we simply can't give men abortions since they don't get pregnant and so no equivalent right to abortion can be put in practice for men and so the differential treatment is justified.

I can accept that people may want men to not be forced to pay child support, but I think the idea that it's unjust hasn't been made clear by anyone here. Because it is no where to be found, not in a woman's ability to have an abortion and men's inability and not in the allocation of parental responsibility which applies to both parents.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Wellsy said:


> I am repeating myself perhaps, in trying to rearrange the same points in hopes of making it clearer.


Yes you are, but is this post not a fair and accurate representation of your argument? And if I have already done that for you and expressed your own points with greater clarity, why would further repeating and rearranging them bring anything new? It seems a rather stubborn insistence when your claim is that your points are being misunderstood by someone who can express them for you. From my perspective I have already addressed your counter-argument and explained why they are wrong, and only got new rearrangements of the exact same previously addressed arguments in turn, and I now did again, which leaves me to do what? Do the same and repeat myself as well?

I'll try to correct some possibly lack of clarities on my part:


> I can accept that a woman has the power to decide whether both she and the biological father are attributed parental responsibilities when she has the capacity to have an abortion.
> But what needs to be further clarified is how this comes to justify that a father should have an option to opt out of child support simply because they don't want to pay it.


Because he did not consent to have a child, for the exact same reason she can choose not too through an abortion should she chose to have one, thus the window. It's giving up on the responsibility as well as the right for the child, and it's not a constant state of being able to change his mind at any time.

Your issue with the law being articulated equal when in fact having an unequal outcome should be clear by now, and while saying that this difference in out come is biology is true, to say that arguing that the law should be changed to account for it is in itself contending with biology is false, as can be clearly seen by certain states of the US trying to undo it, society creating the infrastructure and access for abortions is as much of a social construct enabling a choice, but it's one that only enables that choice given one's gender, which makes it perfectly reasonable to ask to modify other social construct (Paternity obligations) so that they can provide as much as you ethically can of the same choice to the opposite gender. Given that we agree that forcing an abortion isn't ethical, the remaining option is an abortion in law only as the bare minimum. The existence of someone else having a right isn't the injustice no more than other people having an education system was an injustice for races that didn't have access to it, it's the not having access to the same capacity that forms the injustice. 

Now, you can counter this in at least two ways (And possibly others that haven't being brought up yet): Saying that the imbalance isn't an injustice because it's compensatory - that the right is given as a social "reward" for the natural sacrifice where both pregnancy and abortion taking more effort/trauma then the male versions would entail ( @Jamaia 's argument), which has the rather subjective premise of trying to compare potential traumas, and you can counter that there might be an injustice but it is a lesser evil to children growing up without child support, to which I would ask why forced abortions couldn't be a lesser evil to that as well, as they would also solve a child growing up without child support.

In both the cases of the second argument - that of forced abortions or forced paternity - my own answer is that the well being of children is not limited to childhood and a genuine use of TOTC (Think Of The Children) would entail thinking of their future as well, and thus creating a world that treats adults unethically for the children to become adults in is treating the children unethically in the long run. 
In practice, I would want the 'legal abortion' window to be at least slightly smaller than a physical abortion window, and in places where it's not part of welfare potentially obligate the man to pay 50% of an abortion cost, precisely because I think it would create the incentive to increase abortion rate, make it easier for more parents to delay parenthood until they are ready, and increase the percentage of children who have at least two loving parents who wanted them and have them when they are emotionally and financially ready to do so.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

I object to the use of "reward". It's a reward only in your male victim perspective, just like the father not having much responsibilities towards his child is a social "reward" from a female victim perspective. Objectively they're both just results of biological reality where neither is a victim. There are abortions because pregnant women have the ability to throw themselves down a flight of stairs, there are legal abortions because sometimes pregnancy has been too big of a risk for the life of the mother and an abortion has been a necessary medical procedure for doctors to be able to perform , and with some political effort the right to have pregnancy terminated under other circumstances too has become normal in the West at least. Abortion is not something that is offered to the mother in exchange for her troubles. Similarly a father can only be tied to his child so much, he can't be expected to physically be pregnant or give birth in any case, he can't be expected to care for a newborn if he never wanted to be a father. The only thing he can be expected to do (not just by the mother but expected by other parents and adults) is provide financially for his kids (so that other people don't have to). But this is entirely negotiable, we could also let him off the financial hook. In exchange for being in the financial hook he should be allowed to have a relationship with his child if he wants to, that's sort of a "reward".


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

I don't wish to participate in this lengthy debate since nowadays I barely have the energy. But just wanted to throw around some 2 cents, from the perspective of a pregnant woman.

I'm pro-choice, as I believe that no individual should be physically forced to undergo pregnancy. If people just knew how debilitating it can be. How much it can affect your capacity to work and carry on with your routine. This and all the potentially irreversible changes to your body, required medical care (good luck US citizens without insurance?), life risking labor and post labor recovery (again, good luck with US citizens, since there might also be no paid parental leave).
My pregnancy is desired with my husband. At week 6 you can hear the heartbeat of the fetus. Do people know that pregnancy week is actually calculated by the first day of the last menstruation? Which means around 4 weeks of fetus age they develop a heartbeat. Around 10 weeks fetus age they have human form. You can see that live being inside you with ultrasound. They might even suck thumb, those little beings.

Again, I'm pro-choice. But if I happen to get pregnant of an unwanted pregnancy, even with some one night stand or whatever, I'm not sure if I can truly make the decision. Good for those who can make it without a hint of emotion, but I can't make such decision easily, knowing it's a developing life, withbhalf my own DNA and all.

But that's the thing. Due to biology, men can't decide to kill or grow that growing life, but women will always have to decide to do it or not. And this decision can haunt (killing a growing life inside you), I dare to say, more than losing your growing child (growing inside someone else) due to someone else making that decision even against your will.

Lately I've been on some pregnancy forum. My god, you wouldn't believe how many women got pregnant under undesired conditions. Or initially desired but the partner disappeared for a while because they couldn't do it. At the beginning of the pregnancy or in the middle. These women would have to carry on, either because they can't thoughen up to kill the lives growing inside them, or because they always wanted and the guy too but the guy suddenly bailed out of fear and immaturity (some come back later, wanting to be a parent when they finally felt ready). But at least most are not total strangers. With total strangers, where would you find the father then? Though luck, your belly, your issue sister. Talk about biological unfairness. Everyone will get their unfair shares, male and female. Welcome to biological differences and each of their cons.

Well, this is my cents and a bit of a rant. These sucky hormones and all, you know, all the emotional reactions and all. 
But I did have to ponder about the what if I have to end my pregnancy in some moment. Nowadays we do checkups to estimate the risk of trisomies and all, as well as quite accurate tests, and I did wonder what if my fetus had issues? My husband would say that he'd support my decision even if he already bonded emotionally with the baby. I on the other hand would be the one with the ultimate decision. I can only imagine how much it might haunt me, if I ever had to make such decision being the decision maker. Glad I don't have to.

/end of a pregnant woman's hormonal cents and rants


----------



## Elena236 (Jan 6, 2017)

Governments opinion is more important.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Tropes said:


> Yes you are, but is this post not a fair and accurate representation of your argument? And if I have already done that for you and expressed your own points with greater clarity, why would further repeating and rearranging them bring anything new? It seems a rather stubborn insistence when your claim is that your points are being misunderstood by someone who can express them for you. From my perspective I have already addressed your counter-argument and explained why they are wrong, and only got new rearrangements of the exact same previously addressed arguments in turn, and I now did again, which leaves me to do what? Do the same and repeat myself as well?


Yeah, I have the assumption that it's wrong to compare men opting out of parental responsibility once a child is born to a woman having an abortion and no parental responsibility being attributed ever. Which is why I harped on about what I think the logical conclusion of taking issue with the woman's capacity to have an abortion is that one desires an equal law put into practice for men which I say is nonsense because men simply can't put into practice abortion for themselves. But will go into more thoughts in relation to what you say below in hopes that can dig deeper. 

It likely was a failing on m part that I repeated myself instead of thoroughly read your posts to then press on what you say so I could get a clearer picture of what sort of things you believed and why. Though not enirely wasteful to try and outline my own thought so you could do what you did down below, though I imagine the issue would be whether this points already were made in the collection of previous posts. Regardless I think did a good job summarizing somethings that I think can move things along some.




> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is something useful that can focus in on, the notion of consent to a child.
Both people may not desire to have a child and thus not consent to the pregnancy/child. That they don't consent to pregnancy/child doesn't matter, when when they risk pregnancy through sex, there isn't really any consideration of consent. Because one doesn't give consent to biology of pregnancy ( though could argue its implicit to consensual sex as its an inevitable risk, general intent not specific intent), it is simply a consequence of the actions of two people having consensual sex. This can spur off into an abortion debate of whether tacit consent means a woman is consents to the use of her body and whether her bodily autonomy doesn't trump the tactic consent. 
But this goes into things like conflict between bodily autonomy and person hood between a woman and developing child. To argue that consent to parenthood is relevant, might need to first argue how the woman's nonconsent to the developing child to use her body should be applied to men, but as I'll argue below, I think its a case of warranted differential treatment because there's no ability to apply an equivalent right for the man. I would also suggest that need to argue against state enforced responsibilities to the child if one is to bring up non/consensual parenthood. Because that's where one is in fact forced into parenthood, which is why trying to reject the state laws that compel responsibility to biological offspring (ie enforced child support). 

I now see that my earlier analogy doesn't apply, where I speculated that the logic of your POV would lead to something like a non-disabled person claiming they need to have the same rights as a disabled person who can compel an employer to make reasonable accommodations for their disability, by having an employer make accommodations for a non-existent disability. Which is why I said stuff that contesting that a woman's right to an abortion was unjust logically flows into trying to allow men to have the same capacity to have an abortion, though of course this wasn't your conclusion. Because then we'd simply reject that it's not possible to apply and leave it at that.

A better analogy seems to be that it's like a non-disabled person notes that a person with a disability can enact a right that they can't because they don't have a disability to receive the right (similar to men's inability to have an abortion). Then in noting the extra right being applied to the person with a disability, one claims, that they are owed _something_ due to their lack of ability to employ the same right. Which I think boils down to "they got something and I want something to" and here might be a point where one assumes there's injustice. 
It's a matter of whether differential treatment is unjust, or whether the ir/relevant differences between a non-disabled person/pregnant woman and a disabled person/man are a just basis differential treatment. 
I personally think it is a just basis for differential treatment, that the mans inability to enact the same right isn't a deprivation of rights of the man. The impossibility for the law to actualize such rights of abortion for the man don't apply due to relevant differences (pregnancy). Just as its not sensible to apply disabled specific rights for persons with disabilities to people without disabilities, just as it may be nonsensical to apply rights meant specifically for children to adults. Because there are differences we deem relevant enough to justify differential treatment. 

I believe from your conclusions that you assume that it is unethical/unjust, but I don't think you have substantiated why it is unjust. Have only expressed that there is differential treatment in women having a right that men don't.
But to bring it back to the disabled analogy, it seems that what you're saying is equivalent to the non-disabled person not arguing for the same right as the disabled person to right an injustice but to say that the non-disabled person should be absolved of responsibilities that apply to both disabled and non-disabled because feel like missing out on the right. The something that you think men are owed because they don't have the same right to have an abortion in practice like women is to reject the state attributed responsibilities that come with biological parenthood by default. 

The error of thought here is moving from asserting injustice in differential treatment without establishing that the differential treatment is unjust (it's assumed because different treatment is intuitively unjust), which is due to the inability to enact the equivalent right (abortion, accommodation for disabilities) justly for both groups. Then to make a leap to suggesting that this injustice warrants that responsibilities that apply to both groups in law and in practice should not apply to one and not the other. So the very injustice you assume in differential treatment of men and women in regards to abortion, you advocate for in the attribution of parental responsibility. Thus, if there is an injustice, your response is another injustice (unwarranted differential treatment) unless it can be shown that it in fairly balances the injustice against men, but I suspect two wrongs don't make a right may apply. 

So what I believe needs to be done to contest what I'm asserting here is:
*1. *Argue why the differential treatment in regards to abortion is unjust to men rather than it simply be assumed. I think it is an intuitive assumption that differential treatment is unjust, but I like to think that my point about substantial differences warranting differential treatment is valid.
You seem to acknowledge that differential treatment isn't inherently unjust


> The existence of someone else having a right isn't the injustice no more than other people having an education system was an injustice for races that didn't have access to it, it's the not having access to the same capacity that forms the injustice.


So you can rebuke my assertion that differences like pregnancy justify a differential treatment in regards to abortion law and thus there isn't any injustice to men here, but in rebuking it, would still need to make a positive argument what the injustice is. Because rejecting my claim of relevant differences doesn't offer a proof of why it is unjust, it just shuts down my attempt to assert why it is just. 
*
2. *After one has argued made an effective arugment that the differential treatment is unjust, then we can discuss why the injustice warrants a double standard be employed in regards to state enforce parental responsibilities. Once it's established what is specifically unjust, it would be clearer on what is to be done. Because despite some reluctance, it could be that if its' unjust that one has a basis to then argue that abortion should be illegal or that the man can trump the woman's choice to abort or not based on certain conditions. 

_Now could be that feel I'm strawmanning your position and that you would assert that what is unjust isn't abortion. But I think then we'd have to go into refining your argument, because my impression is that you conclude men should be absolved of enforced parental responsibilities because the ability of women to practice abortion allows them to put into practice something that men can't. But I believe that this necessarily asserts that abortion is somehow an injustice to men because of what it allows a woman to do but not a man and why i make my point about differential treatment, which is what I assume is the basis for you assuming that it's unfair. 
Could be a case that I've misunderstood you or you've made points that are relevant to your view that I've ignored or the nuance of your points are beyond my ability to grasp, but I believe this helps frame my impression of your position. To which you can clarify by rejecting certain speculative assumptions I've perhaps made and argue why they aren't representative of your position or you believe that they are invalid to the discussion._


Tangent

* *




I would say that the point point about children growing up to become adults is irrelevant because we don't need to consider that. 
I think that tangent is made in expectation of the argument that children have rights that entail responsibilities from their biological parents by default unless conditions justify otherwise. But the point is loaded with an assumption that the way things are already unjust and thus it would be unjust for the adults that the children grow into. Which could be simplified by arguing how its unjust to adults in the first place, rather than around about point that children would grow up and endure the same circumstances. This is the main contention, whether allowing women abortion is an injustice to men. The debate over whether the child's right to care trumps the injustice can't be debated until we come to a firmer conclusion that there is an injustice. I argue that there is not one and I hope you have interesting thoughts to point out why they aren't valid. 

I also don't want, nor do I think I need to, argue on the basis of trauma, harm, hurt due to pregnancy. I don't think I see it as making for a strong argument because my initial impression is that is more related to just the reality of nature and not injustice in terms of laws. That giving birth hurts a fucking lot, doesn't clearly follow into what rights are to be given other than perhaps that women can be given medical support to suppress the pain within reason to their health and well being.


----------



## Warp11 (Jul 13, 2016)

I must be at an all-time low to do this…
Please read below for a better understanding of what I meant by forced fatherhood. This is the exact statement from a sworn affidavit/application my partner’s ex-gf filed April 2, 2007 with the court (I have only omitted names and addresses to protect the innocent). There is a lot of history and feel free to ask any questions if you are confused (after five years of trying to understand, I am still a little bit confused myself). Link to an earlier thread that I started that explains some of it. I am seriously the biggest 
C U Next Tuesday for posting this, but oh well. It’s no fucking secret that I have very strong opinions on this matter. At the end you of this read you will be shouting “Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!” in your head.

Excerpt from affidavit:

1.	I, LC, am the natural mother of GC born 11/02/2006 and EJ is the natural father.
2.	I have always been the primary caregiver.
3.	I have asked EJ for help for assistance with car seats and he denied me any help stating he could not afford it.
4.	EJ and I dated between approximately Sept. 2005 to Feb 2006 and March 2006 for two weeks.
5.	Between Jan 2006 and Feb 2006 I was exclusive with EJ. When we broke up I dated SH. I had no other relations with anyone else.
6.	I found out in Feb. 2006 I was pregnant and EJ asked me quite strongly to get an abortion. When I declined he told me he did not want to have kids and thus was only a sperm donor.
7.	SH wanted to step up to the plate if he was the father. Although I did not believe he was. He asked for paternity testing. EJ agreed to pay for ½ of paternity test of SH thus settling paternity. SH’s tests came back negative.
8.	I advised EJ of the results and again he denied wanting to be a father.
9.	GC looks just like EJ there is no doubt he is the father.
10.	On March 19 2007 I called EJ re child support and letter sent by Social Services. He stated he would deny paternity. He had no intention of responding to Social Services. But that he would go for full custody if determined to be father. He was to call back with proper mailing address, but failed to do so.
11.	I believe he earned $50-60, 000 in 2005.
12.	I believe he has an income of at least $55,000 annually and thus request support at $510 per month effective April 1, 2007.
13.	I have requested the court to grant me permission to serve court documents to his parents because I am not sure of his mailing address and he lives in a condominium with a security person.

Long story short, there was a judgment made against him in absentia that she receive sole custody and the $510/mo. 

If I can be bold and rewrite her application based on what I now know to be fact (and now having met his ex, knowing much better how she thinks and justifies her decisions), you will see how this can happen. Okay, there may be some opinion here too. If you are the sensitive, “don’t blame the victim” type then stop reading now. The following is loaded with contempt and I am probably a very small person for writing it. But truthfully, this is the only way I can channel my anger that this happened (and to a great extent is still happening) to someone I love very deeply. While women like her are complete scum of the earth in my mind, my anger is mainly at how the courts bungled this case and neglected to ensure that the legal rights of the father and the child were met. And like I said in an earlier post, he is not alone. He is simply a statistic (like his daughter). He was told by enforcement officials “This is how most guys find out.” Disgusting.

1.	I, LC, am the natural mother of GC born 11/02/2006 and EJ is the natural father. _I had gone off of the birth control pill because when I discovered that his parents are very well-off (despite EJ not being so), I figured my baby would get all sorts of gifts and I would never have to work another shit minimum wage job._
2.	I have always been the primary caregiver _and while I am very young (22), I have a lot of experience raising children because I have four younger siblings that each have a different father. Since none of the fathers are in the picture, including my own, I have realized now that men are only good for making children and paying support. And since I also realize that they are not always good at paying support, I am asking the court and social services to help ensure that I receive money for my daughter (me actually, but I will make sure she gets some of it because geezuz fuck I had no idea how expensive it is to have kids!)._
3.	I have asked EJ for help for assistance with car seats and he denied me any help stating he could not afford it.
4.	EJ and I dated between approximately Sept. 2005 to Feb 2006 and March 2006 for two weeks. _Even though this is a lie and we were actually together for about a year, I am saying this because I want the court to believe the so-called relationship was short and trivial, and that he only saw me as a piece of ass and not the future mother of his firstborn child. I have been told by someone who went down this road before me that character assassination of others is a very effective way of manipulating people for my cause. _
5.	Between Jan 2006 and Feb 2006 I was exclusive with EJ. When we broke up I dated SH. I had no other relations with anyone else. _I am hoping the court officials do not check a calendar to verify my claim on EJs paternity because I am not actually sure._
6.	I found out in Feb. 2006 I was pregnant and EJ asked me quite strongly to get an abortion. When I declined he told me he did not want to have kids and thus was only a sperm donor. _I told EJ that he might not actually be the father because we got into a fight around New Years and I had sex with another guy at a party as a way of showing that other men appreciate me and he didn’t. I told EJ that I would never have an abortion because I did a project in high school that abortion is murder. Even though he forgave me and asked me to move in with him in order to work things out if he was in fact the father, I did not actually want to be with him at all. I moved in with him for approximately four weeks (last half of February to first half of March) and after he yelled at me for smoking in the condo while I was pregnant, I thought “fuck this. If this is how he reacts to me smoking while pregnant, then imagine how he will react when I screw another dude while I’m pregnant.” I wrote him a “Dear John” and moved all my stuff out of the condo while he was at work earning a wage to support me until we knew the results. _
7.	SH wanted to step up to the plate if he was the father. Although I did not believe he was. He asked for paternity testing. EJ agreed to pay for ½ of paternity test of SH thus settling paternity. SH’s tests came back negative. _I am hoping that the court officials do not see any inconsistency in this statement and check calendars since I stated above that I was already pregnant by the time I had dated SH. Even though it is completely illogical to paternity test another man who could not have possibly impregnated me since I was already pregnant (as well as it being illogical for EJ to pay for half of anyone’s paternity test but his own), I know that somehow I will be able to lie my way around this kind of major detail. I probably should not mention that EJ fronted $600 for me to arrange the paternity testing that I had no intention of ever doing._
8.	I advised EJ of the results and again he denied wanting to be a father. _When EJ asked to see the results, I hung up the phone and got to work on the legal/financial support part. I actually never had the paternity test done because I pocketed the money for the car seat and other stuff that EJ said he had no money for. _
9.	GC looks just like EJ there is no doubt he is the father. _I know this now that the baby is born_.
10.	On March 19 2007 I called EJ re child support and letter sent by Social Services. He stated he would deny paternity. He had no intention of responding to Social Services. But that he would go for full custody if determined to be father. He was to call back with proper mailing address, but failed to do so. _I am very upset that EJ will fight me for custody because I told him I was willing to let him see his child every other weekend if he wanted to actually be in her life. This proposal was based upon the fact that because I am the biological mother, I am the default custodial parent 90% of the time in every Canadian family law case, and have complete say in the child’s future. _
11.	I believe he earned $50-60,000 in 2005 _and I know the law will make him pay one way or another if he wants his freedom._
12.	I believe he has an income of at least $55,000 annually and thus request support at $510 per month effective April 1, 2007.
13.	I have requested the court to grant me permission to serve documents to his parents because I am not sure of his mailing address and he lives in a condominium with a security person. _Even though I let it slip that he will go for full custody if determined to be the father I cannot let this happen. After I receive permission from the court to mail official documents to his parents who live four hours away and don’t speak to EJ all that often, I am going to substitute those official service documents with a fraudulent letter from a lawyer asking for a $50,000 settlement. I know that EJ will disregard such a letter if he actually does receive it and will miss his court date and be found in default. Thus granting me everything I want without him ever stepping foot in this court. I know that by the time the enforcement goes through, it will be too late for EJ to find me and bring court action against me because I am moving away to the other side of the province once this has all been completed. I am so smart and cunning. The end. Suckers!_

So we can continue speaking in theory, but I gave you a real life case so you truly understand that legal principles, concepts of moral agency, concepts right to life or non-life, concepts of family as a locus of gender, class and political struggle are meaningless when (these types of women) are only in it for themselves and will do everything to get what they believe they are entitled to (e.g. income support). I believe the technical term is “Golden Uterus Syndrome.” 
Do you think this merits further discussion? I do value any argument that provides insight and a way of coping with the consequences of these actions.


And yes, he is definitely the father.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

@SkyRacerX - I am sorry for what your SO is going through... And everyone else come to think of it. Actually there isn't a single person in this that isn't getting fucked over, not even her if you consider this a 2 generation story and this woman's unhealthy attitude towards men and psychological fuckups to be a result of how the court system aligned with her own unknown father and the fathers of her siblings to bring about such a family in the first place. Left uncontested, these boulders are just going go continue rolling from one generation to the next and over people's lives in the way, continuing to gather lives into their statistics.
@Wellsy - I believe that by this point, when you acknowledge a differential treatment that advantages one gender's agency over another but don't view that in itself as an injustice for the other gender's agency, we are at a crossroad of basic ethical values, which is sufficient, and is as far as we can go. Presumably, if we'd imagine the almost impossible hypothetical of an otherwise neutral reader on the subject, I think we both flashed out our positions well enough for such a reader to make a judgement call depending on their core ethical values, and that is probably the best either one of us can ask for.

That's said, having being a card carrying member of the dogmatic world from which you stem from in my own past, I do maintain the right to indulge in schadenfreude and bring up your assertion in future discussions. It was an enjoyable and and fruitful one, and I will probably try to engage with you more in the future. Cheers


----------

