Parental Rights, Child Rights and Reproductive Rights

[Darat]

Unless your the woman

You play and insist on having a child as a result, he pays

No it's "You play and insist on having a child as a result, you both pay".

 

[Darat]

What a strange attitude. Smacks of the religious right's "sex must have grave consequences" moralizing.

Does your "man up" attitude also apply to women who decide to abort an unplanned pregnancy? Seems like they are ducking their responsibility. Plenty of anti-choice people think women shouldn't have the option to avoid their "responsibility". It's their punishment for being immoral.

Conception is no longer the point of no return for pregnancy. Abortion is a perfectly moral, safer alternative to giving birth that completely mitigates the massive detriments of an unplanned pregnancy. Why is it "whiny" for a man to strongly prefer that option and make it known?

I didn't read their post the same way as you did.

To me all it seemed to be saying albeit in rather colourful prose is that if you have sex that could result in a child and a child is the result than that's tough luck.

Now personally - and I admit this is probably because of my upbringing my mother has always made her strong views on abortion known to us - I think an early stage abortion should be viewed the same way as taking the pill or wearing a condom to avoid pregnancy: something you do, no big deal. In most of mainland UK we seemed to be moving that way after abortion was legalised but over the last 20 years it seems to be swinging back to be very much viewed as a shameful immoral, terrible thing again.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I think this is where your analogy breaks down. The decision to have "causal sex" is the point where both accept the possibility of committing to supporting a child if a child is the result of the casual sex. Neither party may want a child, both may be taking all reasonable steps to ensure a child doesn't result from the casual sex but the chance still remains that a child could be the outcome of the casual sex.

If you don't want to have to face (however small it may be) the chance of having a child and being liable for supporting that child until it is an adult don't have sex that could result in a child. That applies to both people who decide to have sex with one another.

This line of reasoning makes perfect sense in a world where abortion doesn't exist.

Abortion provides an opportunity to prevent all the detrimental outcomes of an unplanned pregnancy. It is moral and safer than giving birth. Why does that not factor into your responsibility calculation?

 

[Cheetah]

I think an early stage abortion should be viewed the same way as taking the pill or wearing a condom to avoid pregnancy: something you do, no big deal.

I think I agree.


Would it be fair if, unless both individuals want the pregnancy to continue, the abortion is mandatory?

 

[Belz...]

A child is a massive financial burden. In all other cases - buying a house, buying a car, starting a business, going on holiday - anything where two people combine their finances to be able to afford an expensive thing, both have to agree to the expensive thing. Except for children, there it seems to be a unilateral decision made for the couple on the part of the lady.

Yeah, although a child is not a thing. It's a person. That changes the equation somewhat.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I think I agree.


Would it be fair if, unless both individuals want the pregnancy to continue, the abortion is mandatory?

No medical procedure should be mandatory for competent adults. At some point though, I think it could be made clear that the woman is unilaterally choosing to continue a pregnancy despite very good alternatives and the man could be absolved of financial responsibility.

here's another analogy. I accidentally run over a man with my car. I rush him to the hospital where it is determined that he has lost large amounts of blood. The doctors explain to him that he will likely bleed to death if he is not given a transfusion. But the man is a Jehovah's Witness and adamantly declines this lifesaving transfusion. As predicted, the man dies from blood loss, though it is almost certain that he would survive had he not refused care.

Who is more responsible for his death? Me for hitting him with my car, or him for refusing to mitigate his injury with standard medical care?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Yeah, although a child is not a thing. It's a person. That changes the equation somewhat.

There is no child to consider at the time when abortion is an option.

 

[Cheetah]

No medical procedure should be mandatory for competent adults.

I think up to 10 weeks it's just a pill, no procedure necessary.

At some point though, I think it could be made clear that the woman is unilaterally choosing to continue a pregnancy despite very good alternatives and the man could be absolved of financial responsibility.

I agree, but I'm sure some people will have a fundamental problem with someone somewhere walking around with half their DNA.

 

[Belz...]

There is no child to consider at the time when abortion is an option.

Ah, I didn't know the comments were about abortion specifically. Ignore what I said.

 

[3point14]

I think this is where your analogy breaks down. The decision to have "causal sex" is the point where both accept the possibility of committing to supporting a child if a child is the result of the casual sex. Neither party may want a child, both may be taking all reasonable steps to ensure a child doesn't result from the casual sex but the chance still remains that a child could be the outcome of the casual sex.

Actually no. The commitment, or rather 'commitment' that you describe only applies to the man.

A woman who does not want to become a parent, absent very unusual biology, does not have to be one.

You place a greater burden of responsibility for unwanted consequences for casual sex on men than you do on women.

Your attitude that 'if you have sex, then you MUST be prepared to be a parent' is one that only applies to the gentleman.

I'm dismayed at that attitude, I really am. Not for any particular unfairness, men a women are different, things are going to be different between them..

My dismay is at the societal consequences of children born to parents that simply don't want them. Fewer children would be born to parents who didn't want to be parents if men were not routinely forced into being parents. Because, let's face it, as much as you guys can morally crusade with 'man up' and 'take responsibility', in the real world, the majority of the time, that just doesn't happen. And we're left with the consequences being terribly poor parenting from a duo that now resent each other, where he doesn't want to be a parent and where she's such a suitable mother that her parenting method is to have a child when her partner doesn't want one.

The majority of the kids that result from such pregnancies aren't going to be model citizens. They're not going to be well brought up. They're going to believe that the normal family unit is one parent and one child and that the role of a father is to **** off at the first opportunity and, if you're really, really lucky, to send money every now and then. And the situation perpetuates.


I would prefer a world in which all babies are born to two parents who can afford the child and want the child and will be there for the child.

Now, I know that's not possible, but the number of children being raised in poverty with dubious parenting would, I believe, fall if those men who don't want to be fathers - because they know they'd be crap at it - weren't forced to be fathers.

 

[Darat]

This line of reasoning makes perfect sense in a world where abortion doesn't exist.

Abortion provides an opportunity to prevent all the detrimental outcomes of an unplanned pregnancy. It is moral and safer than giving birth. Why does that not factor into your responsibility calculation?

I have no idea why the availability of abortion or not has any bearing on what I said. Can you expand on that?

 

[Darat]

I think I agree.


Would it be fair if, unless both individuals want the pregnancy to continue, the abortion is mandatory?

No.

 

[3point14]

Yeah, although a child is not a thing. It's a person. That changes the equation somewhat.

Yes indeed.

For a child there should be more introspection, more examination and, iportantly, more agreement between the two parties.

Less of that with a car, but the legislation is in opposition to that.

 

[Darat]

No medical procedure should be mandatory for competent adults. At some point though, I think it could be made clear that the woman is unilaterally choosing to continue a pregnancy despite very good alternatives and the man could be absolved of financial responsibility.

here's another analogy. I accidentally run over a man with my car. I rush him to the hospital where it is determined that he has lost large amounts of blood. The doctors explain to him that he will likely bleed to death if he is not given a transfusion. But the man is a Jehovah's Witness and adamantly declines this lifesaving transfusion. As predicted, the man dies from blood loss, though it is almost certain that he would survive had he not refused care.

Who is more responsible for his death? Me for hitting him with my car, or him for refusing to mitigate his injury with standard medical care?

What you seem to be missing is the relevant decision point.

If you do not want to have a child don't have sex that could result in a child.

That is the decision point at which everyone involved has the exact same right/equality/power of decision, call it what you want.

It's then simply the way things are that after that decision point one person
may have additional choices not open to the other. That is how the cookie crumbles.

 

[3point14]

What you seem to be missing is the relevant decision point.

If you do not want to have a child don't have sex that could result in a child.

Unless you're female, of course. Then there is pretty much zero chance of an unwanted child resulting from causal sex.

I'm not speaking to the fairness or otherwise of this situation, just the reality of the situation as you see it that:


If you are a lady, have all the causal sex you like and you can arrange never to be a mother.

If you are a man, only have sex if you are prepared to be a parent because it might happen and there's is nothing you can do about it. (regardless of your age, financial situation, health, suitability to be a parent, prospects, education, plans and experience.)

 

[Darat]

Unless you're female, of course. Then there is pretty much zero chance of an unwanted child resulting from causal sex.

And?

 

[3point14]

And?

And therefore this imperative:

If you do not want to have a child don't have sex that could result in a child.

Is only aimed at men and doesn't apply to ladies.


It doesn't really matter, to be honest, because the advice you give is not, reasonably, going to followed by every man and woman from 14 to114. The course of action you suggest simply isn't what happens.


You, and others, can crusade on 'man up' and 'take responsibility' and that might work in fantasyland, but not in real life. In real life, men unsuitable to be fathers do not 'man up' or 'take responsibility', they '**** off' and 'take the piss'.

Your solution is literally in opposition to how the world actually works. You will fill the world with children with poor or absent fathers - that knew in advance they would be poor or absent fathers.


Children that are wanted by both parents are far more likely to grow up as nice, tax paying, law abiding citizens than are the children that are wanted only by one parent and that in opposition to the desires of the other parent (A great starting point for a child's life)


I want to reduce the number of unwanted, unhappy, poor children. I want children to be born to two parents who both want the child. And, I'm afraid, I want fathers who don't want to be fathers to not be forced into it because they're mainly crap at it and society pays the consequences.

It's not about unfairness or equality, it's about tomorrow being better than today, and, if we do that, if try to ensure that children have, at least for the first few years of their life, two loving parents who actually wanted the job (conscripted workers are terribly inefficient) then maybe this situation arises less in future because the young men born of unions that both actually want them will have a different set of experiences from those who, at the moment, believe the job of a father is to send money if you're lucky.

Your unrealistic insistence on 'manning up' or 'facing the consequences' only perpetuates the situation.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm getting the very strong feeling that we are talking in circles.

 

[Darat]

Actually no. The commitment, or rather 'commitment' that you describe only applies to the man.

A woman who does not want to become a parent, absent very unusual biology, does not have to be one.

You place a greater burden of responsibility for unwanted consequences for casual sex on men than you do on women.

No I don't, biology does that.

Your attitude that 'if you have sex, then you MUST be prepared to be a parent' is one that only applies to the gentleman.

Only in terms of having sex that can result in a child. I have had a fairly active sex life all my life and never once had sex that could have resulted in a child!

I'm dismayed at that attitude, I really am. Not for any particular unfairness, men a women are different, things are going to be different between them..

My dismay is at the societal consequences of children born to parents that simply don't want them.

Now you are moving goal posts, the pitch and the stadium. That is a very different matter to what has been discussed so far.

My personal views regarding who should be allowed (and yes I do mean allowed) to have children I know makes me an extremist so you won't get any disagreement from me that we should have a lot less unwanted and unplanned children. But your next line went and spoilt our reconciliation!

Fewer children would be born to parents who didn't want to be parents if men were not routinely forced into being parents.

I simply do not accept that men are forced into being fathers in the situations we've been discussing here, they made the choice to have sex which they knew can and does sometimes result in a child.

Because, let's face it, as much as you guys can morally crusade with 'man up' and 'take responsibility', in the real world, the majority of the time, that just doesn't happen. And we're left with the consequences being terribly poor parenting from a duo that now resent each other, where he doesn't want to be a parent and where she's such a suitable mother that her parenting method is to have a child when her partner doesn't want one.

The majority of the kids that result from such pregnancies aren't going to be model citizens. They're not going to be well brought up. They're going to believe that the normal family unit is one parent and one child and that the role of a father is to **** off at the first opportunity and, if you're really, really lucky, to send money every now and then. And the situation perpetuates.

I actually don't know the statistics but certainly the picture you paint is one that I agree with from what I know about the world.

I would prefer a world in which all babies are born to two parents who can afford the child and want the child and will be there for the child.

We disagree about this - I don't care how many parents the kids have as long as the kid has a fantastic upbringing, if wolves can do a good job I'd support a campaign for the introduction of wolves into urban areas.

Now, I know that's not possible, but the number of children being raised in poverty with dubious parenting would, I believe, fall if those men who don't want to be fathers - because they know they'd be crap at it - weren't forced to be fathers.

But is such "force" as you put it that common that it is a significant number? I suspect not. I know several men that have had kids with many different partners, not because they were "forced" but because they simply don't care, having kids is just what happens. Some are good fathers some are crap fathers, what the court decides doesn't seem to affect that.

I think if you want to change the number of kids in poverty and less than ideal circumstances there are many more steps that could be taken before we start making it even easier for fathers to drop all responsibilities for the children they chose to have. I really don't think letting fathers legally drop all responsibility for kids they didn't plan on having will have any impact on the number of women who decide to have an abortion or not.

 

[3point14]

I'm getting the very strong feeling that we are talking in circles.

Here? On this board? Talking in circles?

Never!