Should a Man be Forced to Pay Child Support for a Child He Wanted to Abort?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Betrayer0fHope, Sep 10, 2008.


Should a Man be Forced to Pay Child Support for a Child He Wanted to Abort?

  1. Yes

  2. No

  1. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Vasectomies are legal--even in Queensland.
    Gerber P.

    Consent by patients to voluntary sterilization frees surgeons from criminal responsibility for assault when such consent is given freely with the knowledge of the purpose and consequence of the procedure, and when the operation is performed with professional skill. However, it is considered unethical for surgeons to sterilize a married man or woman of child-bearing age unless they have satisfied themselves that the other party to the marriage has consented to the procedure.

    PIP: Consent on the part of patients to voluntary sterilization frees surgeons from criminal responsibility for assault when such consent is given freely with the knowledge of the purpose and consequence of the procedure, and when the operation is performed with professional skill. Yet, it is considered unethical for surgeons to sterilize a married man or woman of childbearing age unless they have satisfied themselves that the other party to the marriage has consented to the procedure. The purpose of this discussion is to demonstrate that the criminal law makes no attempt to control operations that are performed by qualified practitioners upon adults who are of sound mind and who consent. The legal history of "assault" is traced and the only circumstances in which consent may be vitiated on the grounds of public policy are outlined. The discussion also points out the exact "punctum temporis," when the law departed from the historical rule that "an assault must be an act done against the will of the party assaulted: and therefore it cannot be said that a party has been assaulted by his own permission." Finally, an attempt is made to demonstrate the unique position which surgical operations occupy in the criminal law and that it is ridiculous to suggest that sterilization with consent can constitute a "main," a "battery," or an "assault" at common law or under the various Criminal Codes of the Australian states.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. visceral_instinct Monkey see, monkey denigrate Valued Senior Member

    Unethical my ass.

    It's his body, his life.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    your point?
    i never said they would be charged with assult for doing it. They could by rights be sued by the other partner though i dont know how far it would go however the basic issue isnt legal ITS THE FACT THEY WILL NOT DO IT. Hell a girl at work recently told her partner "if you dont want to use condoms go have a vesectamy" (they recently had a kid and dont want more

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ) so he did. He came back a few hours latter with a permission form for her to sign saying that SHE concented to HIM having the procidure.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Mod Hat - Warning

    Mod Hat — Warning

    Baron Max, quit trolling EM&J threads. I'm sure it seems a worthwhile three and a half seconds' worth of entertainment to bait other members, but such endeavors promise poor returns if you insist on continuing with such behavior.
  8. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Is this Australian law? Is it just Australia? What about unmarried men? Shocking! Men should be legally allowed to do what they want to their bodies and so should women.
  9. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Whether abortion should be legal should depend on what the voters believe about fetuses but I would hope the voters would err of letting women control whether or not they want to host a parasite.

    After the baby is born then women just like men should be forced to pay child support. That is the equality between men and women. If the mother tells the father you take this baby I don't want anything to do with it then of course the mother should be treated the same way a father is when says that.

    Pregnancy can not be gender equal and justice is not advanced by giving men rights over pregnancy. The women do and should have the privilege of the rights and the burdens of the responsibilities that go along with pregnancy. For example it is more important for the woman to lay off the drugs and to stop getting drunk and to stop working with toxic chemicals at the auto-body shop during her pregnancy than it is for her husband to lay off the drugs and to stop getting drunk and to stop working with toxic chemicals at the auto-body shop during his wife's pregnancy.

    Every unwanted pregnancy is a screw up but once it occurs the woman has to decide what to do about the mistake.
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    It's not American law, and other notes

    This seems rather a bizarre thing to my American sensibilities. But apparently the question comes up quite a bit. It seems that at one time, American spouses were required to give consent in some jurisdictions before a man could have a vasectomy or a woman a tubal ligation, but it is my understanding that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) secures a patient's privacy to such a degree that a doctor is required to have his or her consent before even advising the spouse of the procedure.

    The Department of Health and Human Services offers the following general overview:

    Who Can Look at and Receive Your Health Information

    The law sets rules and limits on who can look at and receive your health information

    To make sure that your health information is protected in a way that does not interfere with your health care, your information can be used and shared:

    • For your treatment and care coordination
    • To pay doctors and hospitals for your health care and to help run their businesses
    With your family, relatives, friends, or others you identify who are involved with your health care or your health care bills, unless you object
    • To make sure doctors give good care and nursing homes are clean and safe
    • To protect the public's health, such as by reporting when the flu is in your area
    • To make required reports to the police, such as reporting gunshot wounds

    Your health information cannot be used or shared without your written permission unless this law allows it. For example, without your authorization, your provider generally cannot:

    • Give your information to your employer
    • Use or share your information for marketing or advertising purposes
    • Share private notes about your health care

    So, no, it does not seem that your doctor can even disclose that a patient is seeking vasectomy or tubal ligation to the spouse without prior consent, much less demand their approval.

    I would doubt spousal consent is exclusively an Australian law, but it does not seem to be the law in the United States.

    Two general points:

    • Vasectomy compares more directly to tubal ligation. Comparing it to abortion in the context of this thread is fallacious. Same thing with hysterectomy. IVF? That's a pandora's box; one would presume it's the husband's sperm being used; if not, we might expect that the donor has already given his permission.
    • If a person is seeking vasectomy, tubal ligation, or abortion without informing their spouse or partner, it might be better if the couple doesn't have kids, anyway.​


    U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services. "For Consumers". Understanding HIPAA Privacy. (n.d.) July 15, 2009.
  11. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    tiassa i disagree, firstly you are limiting a males choices of contraception and then forcing them to pay for the offspring they never wanted (potentually) with no choice

    Secondly (and more importantly) the principle which says that reproduction belongs to the COUPLE rather than the indervidual (i dont need permission to get antibiotics for an infection for instance or even to have a limb amputated. its only reproductive procidures which require permission) can equally be applied to a choice for abortion. Ie its the COUPLES decision wether or not to have a kid NOT the indervidual womens.

    Lastly i dont belive i ever said it was the law (if i did i apologise) its practice requirements (which are regulated by goverments especially in the public sector but that doesnt make it criminal law)

    oh and a side note, your doctor cant ring up your partner and say "your partner wants a vesectomy do you consent?". Thats privlaged infomation which only YOU can give out. HOWEVER they can say "im not doing the procidure until you get your partner to sign this". Thats not breaking medical confidence and as there is no REQUIRMENT to provide treatment (as oposed to care which there is, slight difference) they can get away with it under current consent laws.
  12. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    You can't live without consequences, Asguard. If you aren't willing to take responsibility for whatever results from you having sex with someone, even if you take measures to alleviate those results, then don't have sex with them. It's that simple.
  13. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    WillNever so we should ban abortion right?
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    You're fighting nature on this one

    Limiting a male's choices of contraception? Help me out here, what did I miss?

    As to the other, the problem is that you're demanding a legal equality where nature simply disagrees. At the heart of the notion is that it's somehow unfair to a man that women can get pregnant from sexual intercourse while men can't.

    And before you tell me I'm wrong about that, no, it's not an explicit point of your argument. I'm aware of that. But it is, however, implicit. I'm wracking my brain trying to find an analogy for you, but even you have been unable to provide one. (Recall our prior discussion of a man's equivalent exchange.) Pregnancy is a risk of sexual intercourse under normal circumstances. Abortion is one of the options. It is a woman's choice if anybody's at all whether or not to abort. There is no legislation humankind can conceive that will allow men to become pregnant so they can have the equal protection of abortion laws. The Empire formally did away with ownership of the spouse in the 1990s. It's over. What you're dealing with are contractual terms set by nature. You don't get to own your partner's body or what takes place inside it. Your contribution to the pregnancy? I hate to put it this way, but it's kind of like trying to take back a gift or a donation. You can't cancel this check once it's deposited. You can't take back the gift certificate just because your nephew bought The Four Seasons instead of London Calling. Once the seed leaves your body and enters hers, it's not yours anymore. And once the baby comes out ... well, there's the return on your investment.

    One of the problems this whole discussion encounters is that parenthood is not about the parents. It's about the child. And what is a court going to do? Order you to pay child support, but find that the mother committed some act of fraud, and thus order her to pay a punitive settlement? The court would effectively cancel the whole purpose of supporting the child in building a moneygoround. The terms of justice must necessarily give way to nature at some point.

    Your anti-abortion comparison doesn't work because banning abortion is the only "fair" solution: no abortions for anyone. Of course, that leaves men in the same position, trying to find a way out of supporting a child they don't want.

    It sucks when the parachute doesn't open. It sucks when the earthquake opens the ground beneath your feet. It sucks when lightning strikes from the sky. All of these things are out of your control. The only thing you can do to avoid them is to not jump out of airplanes, move someplace away from a fault line, or live in an insulated bunker. If we could legislate nature, we could avoid global warming by legislating against it. We could avoid unwanted pregnancies by legislating against them. We could legislate against earthquakes, comets, lightning, or rain on your wedding day. But your best shot is to have your wedding in the Atacama. And you still have to watch out for the fog.

    Then get married. That's the only circumstance under which the logic even begins to work. And I'd still argue against it; her uterus just isn't community property, no matter what you put into it. But if you're just dating or living with someone, and have taken no formal steps to establish your communal life together, it's still two individuals agreeing to have sex.

    (I just made the mistake of looking up clitoropexy. I was looking for an equal-protection circumcision analogy that didn't involve clitorodectomy. Lasers. That's about all I can say. Lasers, for heaven's sake. Speak nothing of vulvar liposculpting. Or augmentation labioplasty. Wow. Almost enough to make me want religion. And no, laser reduction of the clitoral hood just ... it just doesn't work for an analogy. Or maybe it does. I'm not up to writing that argument at the moment.)

    Fair 'nuff. Thank you for the clarification.

    I'm having a hard time figuring out what to say to this. Two things come to mind:

    • Find another doctor.
    • Is there some particular law that holds a doctor liable for upsetting a spouse?​

    Look, what it seems to come down to is that either some men feel cheated by nature, or else they are just looking for a way to reduce their liabilities in chasing tail. And it ain't gonna happen. That's just the way it goes. You're not about to take abortion rights away from women; that would defeat the whole purpose of your argument as well as violate what I understand of your outlook on that particular issue. So all I can tell you is to accept that this is one of the risks that nature puts before us as men. My kid was conceived because I was drunk, and when her mother said, "Come inside me," I didn't even bother saying, "Okay." I just did it.

    There are plenty of things you can do to generally protect yourself. And no, none of them are guarantees. But don't come inside; don't have sex without a condom; make sure she's taken her pill or deployed her birth control. And if these things place undue stress on the relationship, consider getting the hell out of it. You have a say before and after, but during that pregnancy, and especially those weeks in which abortion is a viable possibility, you have only what say she grants you, and one way or another you will have to live with the result.

    It's what you get into when you decide to get on. And off. As such.

    A presexual contract is the only thing I can think of that might have any effect whatsoever. And, frankly, I have no idea how the courts would regard that, since parenthood isn't about the parents.
  15. swarm Registered Senior Member

    I'd even help pay for some of the people here.

    Also, you could just not mention it to the doctor since it really isn't any of his business.
  16. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Laser reduction of the clitoral hood? Pictures man! What were you thinking? How can I, um, make an informed decision here?
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Mod Hat - Sorry, but no

    Mod Notes — Sorry, but no

    Sorry, Swarm, gotta say no to that one. In the long run we'll have to consider the issue of such images in the context of more serious discussions, but for now that sort of thing is officially off limits.

    In the meantime, Dr. David Matlock explains that he knows what women want, including lasers.

    Oh, and what was I thinking? I was thinking something along the lines of Milo Binkley's famous, "Who is going to rock me to sleep tonight?" I'd rather not see some of those pictures.
  18. Barbie Banned Banned

    It's not that simple. Even if you banned abortions women could still use coathangers, and I suppose if you were to ban coathangers, some intelligent women could use a stick of deodorant, a wrist watch, yarn, and some imagination to get the job done, there are tons of possibilities really. Not that I advocate abortion - it's obviously about murdering a baby - but there's no solution to stopping it that doesn't involve vulva-eating robots, so it's unrealistic to see it end anytime soon.

    As for the thread title, it depends on when the man made the declaration that he wanted to indeed have the kid aborted. If he stated it before the baby was born, I'm sure there's an argument to be made, but you can't back out and say "hey, I wanted to abort your smelly ass all along" years later when your kid ends up growing a greasy ponytail and preferring ridiculous flavors of icecream like cherry and caramel to proven flavors like chocolate and vanilla. That's called opportunism.
  19. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    I'm not arguing that pregnancy should be gender equal. How women choose to handle the possibility of pregnancy is up to them. But if we're going to use the "you should have thought of the consequences before you had sex" argument, it should be applied to both men and women.

    If it's wrong to force women to spend two decades caring for and/or subsidizing a kid they don't want, then it's wrong to do it to men, too.
  20. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

  21. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    i have just got home from work (12:30am) so if there is anything else in your post that needed a responce remind me tomorow but i did want to comment on these 2 comments

    on the first one what im saying is a) you need your spouses permission for a vecectomy there for if your spouse wants a child and you DONT (yes your in a fucked up relationship but *shrug*) you are being prevented from taking an option to prevent a finantial liability (if you want to look at it that way). I SURPOSE you COULD go to the family court and say "look judge, i didnt want this, i wanted a snip but the misses wouldnt sign the dam form hense it should be her problem" yet concidering that males are forced to pay for children even if its not even found to be HIS i cant really see this argument flying.

    on your second i dont really see your point, the general accepted medical practice (oh and no you cant just find another doctor, it might not be the law but i dont know of ANY doctor especially in the public system who would do it) that permission from the partner is required. There for the medical proffession (with goverment surport) are saying not that you own your wife (as you delibratly missinterpreted what i said) but that reproduction belongs to the COUPLE and not the inderviduals. there is precedent for this, "martial assets" do exist (thats a term i herd on judge judy so im assuming its the correct US legal term). Most couples jointly own there house for instance. Well in australia they are arguing that reproduction is the same, its an asset of the couple. In and of itself this isnt a bad thing and i dont actually disagree with it EXCEPT that its ownly applied to one partner. The other partner has no reponcability to make that decision jointly in regard to having or aborting and possably even in having a hysterectomy (at least i have never herd of a women complaining she needed her husbands permission where as i have frequently herd about the vecetomy needing permission and it was even something which came up in class at uni)

    Lastly one point on you "so get married" thing, defacto in australia holds the same legal weight now as marrage, ALL PB and my assets are jointly owned, we both have the same ability to use the family court under the same rules as marriage ect. I know this doesnt exist in the US where after a certain time frame you automatically accure a "common law marriage" but it is here

    Tiassa i would love to see your comment on the sexist's argument that "women are more loyal to there children". Do you have anything specific you would like to say about it?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Oh and a funny note. aparently having children is NOT only a danger to the mother during pregancy

  22. CutsieMarie89 Zen Registered Senior Member

    What? I've never even heard of this craziness. When I worked at a clinic, people didn't have to tell their partners anything. Even if you had an ingrown toenail the doctor could not tell your partner without your say so. The only ones privledged to private info were parents and that depended on how old the child was. Spouses can complain to their hearts content, there are trust issues in their relationship, but that is a personal problem not the doctor's. Maybe America isn't such a bad place to live after all. sheesh
  23. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    While I see your point here, what are you supposed to do when people disagree? Flip a coin to see whether or not she gets an abortion? It's not like you can compromise on whether or not the woman has the baby. It's pretty binary.

    Also, what happens in Australia if a single man wants a vasectomy?

Share This Page