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

Tiassa, Your posts may be long but they are worth reading.

If I may be as so bold to sum it up, (Although it's too complex an issue to sum up),

You're saying that men have no right to participate in the decision because to put it simply, we cannot understand what women go through. This ties in with VI's point about nature, saying simply that there is no logical way to predict what her choices will be.
Therefore, we have no say in their decision ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just wanted to say how angry i get whenever a chick thinks women own the baby inside them. say my hypothetical daughter chooses to crawl back up the vagina, i suddenly have less rights and a weaker connection just because the woman is in pain and the child's inside her? what of the psychological distress of the father, his child being at the mercy of the mother's sense of responsibility in regards to drug abuse etc. i think having the baby inside me during pregnancy would be a great relief to me, knowing that its with me and safe constantly. i'd gladly endure the pain. fucking sexist bullshit.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It makes me fucking angry to be told that I don't own my own body and that a fucking blob of tissues - should I accidentally create one - should have more rights than an 18 year old with thoughts and emotions and beliefs.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just reread Tiassa's post, you'll see why.

 

Notes on a summary; or, dragging out the point

It is an admirable attempt to summarize, but there is, as I see it, a minor but important distinction to be made.

We have whatever right and authority in the decision the woman might grant us. Indeed, I sympathize with Asguard's notion of should. But the transition from theory to practice is never ideal. And if, especially in a relationship of such trust as our friend has depicted, his partner should renege on their prior agreement of a joint decision, and elect to carry out the pregnancy despite his wishes, we cannot necessarily call it a betrayal.

In the moment of her decision, we men cannot conceive of the influences on her perspective. Indeed, from one individual woman to another, there is a necessary gap that separates each from the other. But, in general, this difference is miniscule compared to veritable chasm that separates the outlook of a prospective father from the woman who carries the budding life within her.

We often joke, for instance, about how radically a woman changes during pregnancy. Whatever validity we might find in that stereotype cannot simply be brushed aside in this discussion simply because it is convenient to do so.

The reality is that a mother's perspective may change. What nature infuses into her considerations is, indeed, a mystery to those of us who have not and will never experience such a transformation.

If we follow this notion back to its original point of departure in this discussion (see posts #89, 92, 105, 109, 110, 111, 118, and 119), we find that it pertains to ideas of what is or is not fair.

There has been, through this discussion, a functional presupposition that the woman's choice to carry the pregnancy despite having previously said she would have an abortion, is somehow calculated. Indeed, that idea has been reasserted, although I find the "just to spite him" argument rather quite anemic.

In the context of betrayal, the masculinist stroke has painted men as victims. This is far too simplistic. What this notion of scheming injustice throws out is a fact of nature. When a woman becomes pregnant, her body responds to this reality quickly and dramatically, in some cases severely. Logic as, say, Asguard's partner might regard it today, manifests under what we might, for our purposes, describe as mundane biochemistry. That is, the sauce of hormones and other chemical influences describes certain priorities by which a person arranges facts and needs, and thus arrives at conclusions or makes decisions. The very moment fertilization occurs, the woman's body responds, and in this response, that sauce of influence starts changing. As it changes, the effects it brings also begin to change. As a matter of evolution more than stereotype, the inclination toward life—once conception is a reality—asserts itself more strongly. Thus, the priorities according to which decisions are made change.

This is what the masculinist lament overlooks. We should not be surprised that the omission coincides with self-interest. However, the omission is inappropriate. What I am attempting, then, is to redefine the context of the question. Perhaps I speak in response to experience on this count, although as I noted, there is a prevalent stereotype among men about pregnant women being hormonal, irrational, and utterly confusing if not downright enraging.

Looking back to the last paragraph of post #89—

Any guy who is willing to blindly climb on as soon as he hears what he wants—"Of course I'll have an abortion"—is simply fooling himself. Now, maybe the woman does go on to have the abortion. But he should not be surprised if nature wins out when the woman faces the choice directly. If he has failed to account for this possibility, instead pretending that nature—of which humanity is a mere component—is wholly subordinate to abstract human will, whose fault is that?​

—we find that one of the effects of the omission is to embolden the argument that men, in having sex with a woman, should not have to consider all the possible outcomes. This consideration played heavily in the discussion, for my part, at least since #34, which was, if I recall correctly, my entry into this discussion. Additionally, Orleander addressed the point in #20, and One Raven wrestled with the issue in #5.

What do we consider are the risks? That she forgot her pill? That the condom might break? That we spill a bit in the act of pulling out? That the "Dear Abby" scare-scenario of virgin conception—accidental contact with and transmission of semen to the vagina—might occur? Fine. These are all factors that we might, more or less, consider when calculating the risks of a pregnancy occurring. But in considering the—and I think I adore the perversity of the phrase—risk of a birth occurring, neither can we overlook the very power of nature itself.

If one looks at a child as a life sentence, perhaps it is best that they keep their distance and send the checks. To the other, if that's the case, get a vasectomy or a nancy boy and avoid the whole mess altogether. Barring that, however, this whole discussion seems to be about how much cake a man should have while eating—or, such as the case may be, fucking—it at the same time.

 

So in essence we are all subject to natures whims, and we as partners, must respect that right, even if it means having to pay child support.

 

I'm pro abortion but also think a man should be financially responsible if he get's a woman pregnant. If a man were in a marriage has a had a couple of kids and decides he doesn't want the third is he responsible? Yes. If he is married and they decided never to have children and she gets pregnant for whatever reason is he responsible? Yes. If its a one night stand and he never intended on being a father and the woman gets pregnant it is his responsibility to take precautions against pregnancy, afterall a woman may think she didn't want a child and then get pregnant and decide she wants to keep it anyway so men beware. On the other hand financial support doesn't mean he has to be in the womans life or that of what he sired. He doesn't have to love her nor does he have to love the child. All he is responsible for is sending a check. By the way I don't think he should have to pay HALF his salary only a small portion...now that is fair. Why? Because if women want equal rights then she should be prepared to financially foot the bill for her decisions. We can't have it both ways.

 

Well, that's certainly a good one-sentence recap

I'm sure if I stare at it long enough, I can find a nit to pick, but it seems to me you've pretty much wrapped it up.

And, of course, if I stare at it long enough, I will continue to miss the kind words by which you have honored me. I greatly appreciate both your assessment of and confidence in these posts.

 

I couldn't tell if you were talking about how it physically feels to have an abortion, or mentally. I just assumed the latter because the first one seems trivial, sorry? Anyways, I'm done responding to Tiassa, he's too good at beating people on sciforums

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Tiassa, thank you for your posts they are very interesting, and the point you raise in particular but perhaps I might add just one thing:

At some stage in the future it may become possible for men to actually experience the same, well, experiences. Perhaps through the use of VR or through actually altering our biochemistry and entire bodies in order to become, for all intents and purposes, female.

Might we then say that men would in a position to understand the situation to a sufficient degree?

 

I feel the need to take issue with the nature versus human will thing...

It's not her fault she has a powerful instinct which might mean that she could not bring herself to have an abortion even if she agreed she would have one.

It IS her fault if she expects someone else, ie the guy, to pay for it.

 

Women do that all the time. It's called 'abortion'.

Should a man be forced to pay child support for a child he wanted to abort? Fuck yes. You conceive a child, you should be responsible for it, accident or not. That involves supporting the woman throughout pregnancy to ensure the welfare of your offspring.

Conversely, a woman should have *no* right whatsoever to abort the unborn child except when her life is in imminent danger. "Waa waa, pregnancy is uncomfortable so I should be able to kill your child!" is spoiled brat talk.

 

Screw that. Anyone can fall pregnant despite being responsible and using a condom/the pill. It's not 'being spoiled', it's not responsible to have a child you don't want and won't love.

If owning my own body makes me a spoiled brat, sure, I'm a spoiled brat and I'll wear that word like I wear synthetic leather. You don't own my internals, fuck off.

 

Consider such a scenario: A couple already have 8 children, one of them was sterilized in a less drastic way such as vasectomy, but it went wrong and she is pregnant. You would call her a spoiled brat for aborting a bunch of cells when she already has 8 to look after and can't afford another one?

 

Does that mean that a womb is necessary in order to determine whether or not aborting a fetus violates its rights, and the rights of the father? Really? No doubt pregnant women draw from a greater wealth of experience in regards to pregnancy, but that should not be confused with actual knowledge. Also note that women cannot draw from the experience of having their unborn child aborted without their consent.

If personal experience was a pre-requisite to hold a valid opinion, only criminals would be defense attorneys, only pedophiles and victims of child molestation would legislate in regards to pedophilia, and only bipolar individuals could treat and medicate suffers of bipolar disease.

And yeah, it sucks that the experiences of parenthood for males and females aren't identical, nature is unfair. Deal with it. You can't kill your (and his) baby. Suck it up and live with the consequences.

 

Engaging in sexual activity always carries the risk (no matter how small) of conceiving a child. And if you conceive a child, you are responsible for it. *Deal with it*. A man is expected to act in the best interests of the child even if the 'condom broke' or she 'forgot to take the pill', why shouldn't the same expectations apply to a woman?

Yes, it *is* being spoiled. "Waaa, I don't want to go through pregnancy, so I should get to kill our child." is the very definition of acting in a spoiled fashion. A patient suffering renal failure might as well cry "Waa, I don't want to suffer through dialysis, so I should get to kill those ahead of me in the organ transplant queue!"

You don't want it? Tough! And you'd better make yourself love it.

It's not your body you're killing. And again, I'm sorry that the developing child is placed in the woman's body instead of the man's, but nature is unfair. *Deal with it*.

Oh please. Could you whine any more? Having a child is not the end of the world. People have been giving birth and raising oodles of children for thousands upon thousands of years, under much worse conditions than modern day single parents in the Western World. Hell, sometimes they even got some satisfaction and joy from it.

These days people are just spoiled. They think that they are entitled to a specific sort of lifestyle which empathises "Me me me!" along with maximal comfort and convenience. That's fine, I suppose, if you don't put said lifestyle in jeopardy by spreading your legs and making babies. Otherwise, be prepared to cop the consequences, whether that be raising the child or adopting it out to a willing 3rd party.

 

One, you ignored my later question, two, I wouldn't expect a man to take responsibility for a child he had no say in conceiving.

Your analogy has no value. The people in the organ transplant queue are not living inside his body. Also, a person needing a transplant is a HUMAN, with thoughts, beliefs, relationships, social interactions, ambitions, fears, et-fucking-cetera. An early stage fetus is...what? A blob of cells?

Did you hear me? I wasn't simply arguing on the basis of WANTS, I pointed out that it's not RESPONSIBLE to have a child when you are not ready for it and won't love it.

I don't like your tone, by the way. You're telling me what I can and can't do with my body? Fuck you. Make me have a child. Make me love it, motherfucker. I'll inject it with KCl and dump it on your doorstep just to make a point.

Again...A blob of scarcely developed tissues, versus an 18 year old sentient with thoughts, beliefs, emotions etc? Uncloud your thinking and come back to me.

It's not to do with 'nature' if a man somehow had a fetus implanted in his vitals and were therefore pregnant, I would be the first to argue for his right to destroy it.

 

It's not anybody's body. It isn't a body at all. That's kind of the point. It's why the graveyards are not full of buried miscarriages, why no one has to certify the cause of death or fill out a death certificate for a miscarriage, etc.

That's exactly what's happening - dealing with it. The one with the body involved makes the decisions for that body. We're sorry that the man has no say, but nature is unfair.

That would be whenever a woman is pregnant.

 

Please repeat the question. Bold is for my convenience.

So if the condom breaks, or his partner forgets to take the pill, he shouldn't be held responsible for the conceptus?

So? Analogous situations do not need to be identical, but similiar in particular key aspects. Killing another individual in order to improve your 'comfort' is spoilt (scratch that... *homicidal*) behaviour.

'A blob of cells' could be used to provide a rough descriptor for any living being. 'A blob of cells' is just a way for pro-choicers to dehumanise the fetus so that it becomes nothing more than a piece of shit to be disposed of by the woman whenever it pleases her. But god help the man who slips her some RU486 to dispose of that 'piece of shit' developing inside her womb.

Sometimes both choices are evils, but one is the lesser evil. It is more responsible to raise an 'unwanted' child (or adopt it out) than to kill it outright.

Precisely. My right to swing my fist stops when said fist comes in contact with your face. My right to do what I wish with my penis stops when it is about to penetrate the orfice of an unwilling female (or male!).

As the laws currently stand, women cannot abort after a certain time period. Sounds good to me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

A fourth month old baby with a rudimentary cerebral cortex vs a 25 year old with a fully developed cortex? Shit, why does the born baby have the same right to life that a 25 year old does?

At least you're consistent. I am also consistent. If men were to fall pregnant, I would expect them to carry it until term.

 

Wrong. It is a body.

The right of the fetus to life supercedes the woman's right to comfort. A man's right to father his child supercedes the woman's right to comfort. Again, I'm sorry that it's the woman who must carry the fetus to term, but nature is unfair. Deal with it.