Abortion, Choice, Responsibility

[JerrySeinfeld]

My parents (and I would guess most parents) always taught me that with independance and freedom comes responsibility. The more freedom and independance we take on as childeren, commensurate with that comes responsibility. And with total freedom comes total responsibility.

But it's not that way with women and choice is it?

As it stands now, women have the ultimate choice when it comes to abortion, but don't bear ultimate legal and financial resposibility and consequence of their choice.

Let's say a woman has an unwanted pregnancy. The choice in having or not having the child is HERS alone. WHat if the man involved doesn't want the child? As it currently stands legally...Too bad - it's not his choice. But if she does have the baby, the man is legally responsible for child support.

In the spirit of what our parents teach us --with freedom comes responsibility-- wouldn't it make more sense to do this:

Women need to decide if they want full freedom and full responsibility. If they do and the man has no legal bearing on the choice, then as well the man should bear no legal responsibility (ie. child support).

Whereas if men were legally involved in the choice, then ultimately they too should bear the legal responsibility (ie. child care) of that choice.

Right now, women want their legal cake and eat it too. They have ultimate freedom of choice, but then download the legal & financial consequences of that choice onto men.

Comments?

[Black Dog]

But it's not that way with women and choice is it?

As it stands now, women have the ultimate choice when it comes to abortion, but don't bear ultimate legal and financial resposibility and consequence of their choice.

Let's say a woman has an unwanted pregnancy. The choice in having or not having the child is HERS alone. WHat if the man involved doesn't want the child? As it currently stands legally...Too bad - it's not his choice. But if she does have the baby, the man is legally responsible for child support.

In such a situation the woman would have the responsibility of raising the child. So yeah, she does bear the ultimate responsibility for the choice, whereas the man's responsibility begins and ends with his monthly support payments.

Not that I don't sympathize: I can't imagine how difficult it would be to be in such a situation. However, I have to wonder: have you asked what's in the best interests of the kid? If all things were equal and I was stuck footing the bill for a kid I didn't want, I'd be pissed. Nonetheless, I'd rather the kid, whether I wanted it or not, gets the support it needs.

[JerrySeinfeld]

In such a situation the woman would have the responsibility of raising the child. So yeah, she does bear the ultimate responsibility for the choice, whereas the man's responsibility begins and ends with his monthly support payments.

If the man pays monthly for 18 years, that's certainly not a case where the woman (mother) bears "ultimate resposibility" for her choice is it?

[Riverwind]

If the man pays monthly for 18 years, that's certainly not a case where the woman (mother) bears "ultimate resposibility" for her choice is it?

The man always has a choice when it comes time to wear a condom (or use other forms of birth control) or abstain from sex in the first place.

[JerrySeinfeld]

If the man pays monthly for 18 years, that's certainly not a case where the woman (mother) bears "ultimate resposibility" for her choice is it?

The man always has a choice when it comes time to wear a condom (or use other forms of birth control) or abstain from sex in the first place.

so does the woman

[geoffrey]

If the man pays monthly for 18 years, that's certainly not a case where the woman (mother) bears "ultimate resposibility" for her choice is it?

The man always has a choice when it comes time to wear a condom (or use other forms of birth control) or abstain from sex in the first place.

so does the woman

Exactly.

Abortion laws are definitely discriminatory against fathers from both perspectives. What if the dad wants to have the kid and raise him? Would the woman have to pay support? Not a snowball's chance in hell. Would the dad have any right to save his babies life from abortion? Absolutely not, see Roe vs. Wade.

If the father wants an abortion, like mothers have the option to, then they should not have to pay support. It should be an opt out type situation. If the choice is completely the woman's, and the man has no say, then its completely the women's responsibility to deal with the consequences of her actions.

I'd like to see in Canada a system where both parents would have to consent to an abortion, and a guardian would have to consent if the mother was under 18.

If a dad is equally responsibile for raising a child (which I think he is), then he should have an equal choice towards an abortion (which even still I believe is morally bankrupt in itself).

[Black Dog]

If the man pays monthly for 18 years, that's certainly not a case where the woman (mother) bears "ultimate resposibility" for her choice is it?

Yes it is. The womean has responsibility for caring for the kid, providing emotional support, education, etc etc. indefinitely. That's a responsibility you can't put a dollar figure to.

The man always has a choice when it comes time to wear a condom (or use other forms of birth control) or abstain from sex in the first place.

so does the woman

Ah, but once again: who bears the brunt? The man, who can just bugger off, or the woman who carries the kid for 9 months and then is responsible for rasining it to adulthood? Which role would you pick?

Here's a question: would you prefer women in such a situation chose the abortion option?

Abortion laws are definitely discriminatory against fathers from both perspectives. What if the dad wants to have the kid and raise him? Would the woman have to pay support? Not a snowball's chance in hell. Would the dad have any right to save his babies life from abortion? Absolutely not, see Roe vs. Wade.

Here's where your wrong: men can't "have the kid". So if anything, it's nature that's discriminating by not allowing both sexes the capacity to bear children.

If the father wants an abortion, like mothers have the option to, then they should not have to pay support. It should be an opt out type situation. If the choice is completely the woman's, and the man has no say, then its completely the women's responsibility to deal with the consequences of her actions.

I understand wher eyou're coming from and don't entirely disagree. However, I balk at the idea that women are somehow ducking the consequences by raising a kid (hell: the anti-abortion side always talks about how that option is avoiding responsibility).

I'd like to see in Canada a system where both parents would have to consent to an abortion, and a guardian would have to consent if the mother was under 18.

Blech.

If a dad is equally responsibile for raising a child (which I think he is), then he should have an equal choice towards an abortion (which even still I believe is morally bankrupt in itself).

It's not an either/or. Plus I can't help noticing that, in your formulation, the woman doesn't warrant a mention.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Yes it is. The womean has responsibility for caring for the kid, providing emotional support, education, etc etc. indefinitely. That's a responsibility you can't put a dollar figure to.

All of which she can't do without someone paying the freight - ie. the man.

Ah, but once again: who bears the brunt? The man, who can just bugger off, or the woman who carries the kid for 9 months and then is responsible for rasining it to adulthood? Which role would you pick?

The man doesn't bugger off - he is forced to pay child support. And he has no choice in the matter - unlike the woman who has choices.

Here's a question: would you prefer women in such a situation chose the abortion option?

I would prefer women face the full consequences, financially and otherwise, of their choice - as it is legally their choice. Women shouldn't ask for full freedom of choice, with no say from the man, if they aren't prepared to take the financial responsibility for their actions.

[Renegade]

My parents (and I would guess most parents) always taught me that with independance and freedom comes responsibility. The more freedom and independance we take on as childeren, commensurate with that comes responsibility. And with total freedom comes total responsibility.

But it's not that way with women and choice is it?

As it stands now, women have the ultimate choice when it comes to abortion, but don't bear ultimate legal and financial resposibility and consequence of their choice.

Let's say a woman has an unwanted pregnancy. The choice in having or not having the child is HERS alone. WHat if the man involved doesn't want the child? As it currently stands legally...Too bad - it's not his choice. But if she does have the baby, the man is legally responsible for child support.

In the spirit of what our parents teach us --with freedom comes responsibility-- wouldn't it make more sense to do this:

Women need to decide if they want full freedom and full responsibility. If they do and the man has no legal bearing on the choice, then as well the man should bear no legal responsibility (ie. child support).

Whereas if men were legally involved in the choice, then ultimately they too should bear the legal responsibility (ie. child care) of that choice.

Right now, women want their legal cake and eat it too. They have ultimate freedom of choice, but then download the legal & financial consequences of that choice onto men.

Comments?

Jerry, I agree with your assessement however I would say the choices need to be explicit from both the father and mother, probably something like this:

1. The mother has 15 days from when she finds she is pregnant to decide if she wants an abortion. If she does, she gets one. End of story. The father need not be involved.

2. If she decides she wants to have the kid, she would need to formally notify the father within 15 days of her knowing she is pregnant. The notice should allow the option of either accpeting or rejecting fatherhood within 15 days.

3. If he accepts fatherhood, both he and the mother have accepted all the responsibiliites and privilidges of parenthood (including support obligations).

4. If he rejects fatherhood, the onus now falls again to the mother. She can decide she lacks the will or resources to have the baby and can decide to have an abortion. End of story.

5. She can also decide that she will have the baby regardless. In this case, the father is freed of any parental priviledges or obligations.

[JerrySeinfeld]

My parents (and I would guess most parents) always taught me that with independance and freedom comes responsibility. The more freedom and independance we take on as childeren, commensurate with that comes responsibility. And with total freedom comes total responsibility.

But it's not that way with women and choice is it?

As it stands now, women have the ultimate choice when it comes to abortion, but don't bear ultimate legal and financial resposibility and consequence of their choice.

Let's say a woman has an unwanted pregnancy. The choice in having or not having the child is HERS alone. WHat if the man involved doesn't want the child? As it currently stands legally...Too bad - it's not his choice. But if she does have the baby, the man is legally responsible for child support.

In the spirit of what our parents teach us --with freedom comes responsibility-- wouldn't it make more sense to do this:

Women need to decide if they want full freedom and full responsibility. If they do and the man has no legal bearing on the choice, then as well the man should bear no legal responsibility (ie. child support).

Whereas if men were legally involved in the choice, then ultimately they too should bear the legal responsibility (ie. child care) of that choice.

Right now, women want their legal cake and eat it too. They have ultimate freedom of choice, but then download the legal & financial consequences of that choice onto men.

Comments?

Jerry, I agree with your assessement however I would say the choices need to be explicit from both the father and mother, probably something like this:

1. The mother has 15 days from when she finds she is pregnant to decide if she wants an abortion. If she does, she gets one. End of story. The father need not be involved.

2. If she decides she wants to have the kid, she would need to formally notify the father within 15 days of her knowing she is pregnant. The notice should allow the option of either accpeting or rejecting fatherhood within 15 days.

3. If he accepts fatherhood, both he and the mother have accepted all the responsibiliites and privilidges of parenthood (including support obligations).

4. If he rejects fatherhood, the onus now falls again to the mother. She can decide she lacks the will or resources to have the baby and can decide to have an abortion. End of story.

5. She can also decide that she will have the baby regardless. In this case, the father is freed of any parental priviledges or obligations.

Not bad.

[Renegade]

I'd like to see in Canada a system where both parents would have to consent to an abortion, and a guardian would have to consent if the mother was under 18.

The choice to abort is the women's alone because it is her body and she alone can decide if she wants to host a pregnancy. A man has no more right to force a pregnancy on a woman, than he has the right to force sex on a woman. Her body, her choice.

[Black Dog]

All of which she can't do without someone paying the freight - ie. the man.

I'm gonna go out on a not very high limb and say that most child support payments are insufficient for the full task.

The man doesn't bugger off - he is forced to pay child support. And he has no choice in the matter - unlike the woman who has choices.

Men bugger off all the time: perhaps you're unfmamiliar with the term "deadbeat dad"?

Now, if a woman gets pregnant, she can get an abortion or go through with it. Neither is much fun, and both can be dangerous to her health. A man, on the other hand, has to pay child support, though only if the woman has the resources to haul him into court. He doesn’t have to pay a dime if she has an abortion, or gives the baby up for adoption.

Thing is, I'm not even necessarily arguing with the idea that people should live with their choices. But I have a hard time beleiving that if this issue were one of her wanting to have an abortion against his wishes hat anyone would side with her. Seems like around here, women are damned no matter what.

[Riverwind]

1. The mother has 15 days from when she finds she is pregnant to decide if she wants an abortion. If she does, she gets one. End of story. The father need not be involved.

15 days is way to short for such a difficult decision.

3. If he accepts fatherhood, both he and the mother have accepted all the responsibiliites and privilidges of parenthood (including support obligations).

About 10 years ago a case went to the supreme court about a man who tried to get a court injuction to stop a woman from getting an abortion. Evidence came out during the trial that the man started becoming abusive once she was pregnant - in other words, she changed her mind about carrying the baby because the nature of the relationship changed. Abuse is an extreme example but I think all relationships are changed by the prospect of a child and many times these changes are not good. For this reason a woman should be able to change her mind at any time since she is the one that pays the heaviest price.

[Renegade]

1. The mother has 15 days from when she finds she is pregnant to decide if she wants an abortion. If she does, she gets one. End of story. The father need not be involved.

15 days is way to short for such a difficult decision.

You are possibly right, and 15 days was somewhat an arbritary choice, however there needs to be some finite time limit to make a decision.

3. If he accepts fatherhood, both he and the mother have accepted all the responsibiliites and privilidges of parenthood (including support obligations).

About 10 years ago a case went to the supreme court about a man who tried to get a court injuction to stop a woman from getting an abortion. Evidence came out during the trial that the man started becoming abusive once she was pregnant - in other words, she changed her mind about carrying the baby because the nature of the relationship changed. Abuse is an extreme example but I think all relationships are changed by the prospect of a child and many times these changes are not good. For this reason a woman should be able to change her mind at any time since she is the one that pays the heaviest price.

Yes I would revise the above to state that the woman should be able to opt for an abortion at any time** however if she decides to have an abortion, and suddenly changes her mind, to balance the rigths of the father he should not be forced to accept fatherhood.

**by "abortion at any time" I mean any time within the permissable period to get an abortion. I am fully aware that there is no abortion law in Canada which in theory means that an abortion can be legally performed anytime before birth, however no reputable doctor will perform a late-term abortion unless the woman's health is in danger.

The timelimits I proposed above are intended to induce a state of urgency, because in fact the situation is urgent. Sometimes life and death decisions must be made within seconds. A couple of weeks give or take seems like plenty. In many cases a longer decision period actually prolongs the agony of the decision period.

[JerrySeinfeld]

All of which she can't do without someone paying the freight - ie. the man.

I'm gonna go out on a not very high limb and say that most child support payments are insufficient for the full task.

The man doesn't bugger off - he is forced to pay child support. And he has no choice in the matter - unlike the woman who has choices.

Men bugger off all the time: perhaps you're unfmamiliar with the term "deadbeat dad"?

Now, if a woman gets pregnant, she can get an abortion or go through with it. Neither is much fun, and both can be dangerous to her health. A man, on the other hand, has to pay child support, though only if the woman has the resources to haul him into court. He doesn’t have to pay a dime if she has an abortion, or gives the baby up for adoption.

Thing is, I'm not even necessarily arguing with the idea that people should live with their choices. But I have a hard time beleiving that if this issue were one of her wanting to have an abortion against his wishes hat anyone would side with her. Seems like around here, women are damned no matter what.

We're talking legal rights and obligations here. I can't speak about those males who break the law.

[August1991]

Let's say a woman has an unwanted pregnancy. The choice in having or not having the child is HERS alone. WHat if the man involved doesn't want the child? As it currently stands legally...Too bad - it's not his choice. But if she does have the baby, the man is legally responsible for child support.

You make it sound as if the child appears out of nowhere. For a woman to become pregnant, it takes two to canoodle. It is not abortion that determines whether a life is created, it is sexual intercourse.

IOW, if a man doesn't want to assume any potential liability, he need only be careful in his actions. As BD has pointed out, child support payments are a relatively small part of the cost of raising a child. To the extent the man sees these as a burden, then it is an incentive in his decision to have unprotected sex or not.

From society's standpoint, we should primarily be concerned with limiting the number of unwanted children, and providing for the upbringing of the children born.

Jerry, are you suggesting that women deliberately and surreptiously become pregnant as a scam to get money from unsuspecting men? Even if that were the case, men would simply have to be more careful.

[Riverwind]

I'd like to see in Canada a system where both parents would have to consent to an abortion, and a guardian would have to consent if the mother was under 18.

I would absolutely oppose such as system. A teenager who makes a mistake and gets pregnant but is responsible enough to get an abortion should not have to deal with unsupportive parents. Furthermore, no man has a right to force a woman to carry a baby she does not want - having a law like that is little better than legalized slavery.

That said, the law should not automatically require support from genetic fathers. Fathers should have the option of forever renouncing any claim to a child before the child is born provided the mother is given adequate notice. A mother that opposes abortion always has the option of giving the child up for adoption - the only time a child really needs the genetic father's financial support is when a selfish mother insists on keeping a child that see cannot support without help.

[tapanga12]

if murder is against the law then so should abortions

you can have lots of freedom but killing is not a freedom we should be allowed to have. Abortion is killing a baby, and if they legalize killing babies then why wouldn't they just leagilize killing and crimes. We can only have so much freedom without going too far. Without rules we'ld be scared to leave our door for the sake of being killed and not cared about. You have enough freedom to have sex then with sex take the responsibilities of the outcome -whether it be a baby or std-.

[Riverwind]

Abortion is killing a baby, and if they legalize killing babies then why wouldn't they just legalize killing and crimes.

Only a tiny minority of fanatics believe that an early term fetus is the same as a baby. Even George W. Bush believes abortion is ok if the fetus was created as a result of incest or rape. So spare us the inflammatory rhetoric.

[JerrySeinfeld]

IOW, if a man doesn't want to assume any potential liability, he need only be careful in his actions. As BD has pointed out, child support payments are a relatively small part of the cost of raising a child. To the extent the man sees these as a burden, then it is an incentive in his decision to have unprotected sex or not.

You're just stating a fact of life. What I'm saying is that in our current legal environment, it is ONLY the man who need be careful and suffer financial repercussions of his actions. Second, even precautions cannot prevent all pregnacies. So you're suggesting men cease to have sex? As you said - it takes TWO to make a baby. Why is it that the man is the one upon whom the financial burden is placed, if he has no control over the abortion decision?

Jerry, are you suggesting that women deliberately and surreptiously become pregnant as a scam to get money from unsuspecting men? Even if that were the case, men would simply have to be more careful.

Nope. Simply stating an obvious legal descrepancy in financial responsibility.

[fryingpan]

1. The mother has 15 days from when she finds she is pregnant to decide if she wants an abortion. If she does, she gets one. End of story. The father need not be involved.

2. If she decides she wants to have the kid, she would need to formally notify the father within 15 days of her knowing she is pregnant. The notice should allow the option of either accpeting or rejecting fatherhood within 15 days.

3. If he accepts fatherhood, both he and the mother have accepted all the responsibiliites and privilidges of parenthood (including support obligations).

4. If he rejects fatherhood, the onus now falls again to the mother. She can decide she lacks the will or resources to have the baby and can decide to have an abortion. End of story.

5. She can also decide that she will have the baby regardless. In this case, the father is freed of any parental priviledges or obligations.

I agree. And for those fathers who do choose to pay child support, I think there should be a system in place to make sure the money is ONLY being used to support the child. I know many people where I live who receive child support. Not very much of this money is being spent on their children.

[JerrySeinfeld]

...for those fathers who do choose to pay child support, I think there should be a system in place to make sure the money is ONLY being used to support the child. I know many people where I live who receive child support. Not very much of this money is being spent on their children.

Put yourself in a pregnant woman's shoes in the current environment. All you have to think about is "do I want to be a mother? yes or no"...and someone else will pony up the cash if you do. Must be a nice coloured sky in that world.

[fryingpan]

...for those fathers who do choose to pay child support, I think there should be a system in place to make sure the money is ONLY being used to support the child. I know many people where I live who receive child support. Not very much of this money is being spent on their children.

Put yourself in a pregnant woman's shoes in the current environment. All you have to think about is "do I want to be a mother? yes or no"...and someone else will pony up the cash if you do. Must be a nice coloured sky in that world.

Yeah it must be, because as far as I know, no one is checking to make sure the child support money is being used to support the child. How are we to know that the mother isn't just spending all the money on herself? I know some mothers receiving child support who smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. They aren't working, so they aren't getting that money themselves. How does smoking help support the children?

[geoffrey]

I'd like to see in Canada a system where both parents would have to consent to an abortion, and a guardian would have to consent if the mother was under 18.

I would absolutely oppose such as system. A teenager who makes a mistake and gets pregnant but is responsible enough to get an abortion should not have to deal with unsupportive parents. Furthermore, no man has a right to force a woman to carry a baby she does not want - having a law like that is little better than legalized slavery.

That said, the law should not automatically require support from genetic fathers. Fathers should have the option of forever renouncing any claim to a child before the child is born provided the mother is given adequate notice. A mother that opposes abortion always has the option of giving the child up for adoption - the only time a child really needs the genetic father's financial support is when a selfish mother insists on keeping a child that see cannot support without help.

Well, believe that a fetus is alive or not, it is the product of both the mother and the father. They both do have some claim to it I guess. I understand what your saying, but the mother did choose to get pregnant too right? The dad should be able to raise his kid and not have it killed by the mother if the mother has the same right. 9 months of carrying a kid is a big deal, 18 years of financial support and the lifelong responsibility is far greater though.

Abortion is killing a baby, and if they legalize killing babies then why wouldn't they just legalize killing and crimes.

Only a tiny minority of fanatics believe that an early term fetus is the same as a baby. Even George W. Bush believes abortion is ok if the fetus was created as a result of incest or rape. So spare us the inflammatory rhetoric.

Well I actually think its murder in all cases, but since pretty much everyone else in the world does not believe so, I've taken the approach that its more pragmatic to my cause to support any and all methods of reducing the number of abortions needed or wanted.

[Renegade]

...for those fathers who do choose to pay child support, I think there should be a system in place to make sure the money is ONLY being used to support the child. I know many people where I live who receive child support. Not very much of this money is being spent on their children.

Put yourself in a pregnant woman's shoes in the current environment. All you have to think about is "do I want to be a mother? yes or no"...and someone else will pony up the cash if you do. Must be a nice coloured sky in that world.

IMV, fathers should not be paying the FULL child support bill. They should only be responsible for 50% of the child rearing cost. The mother should be responsible for the other 50%. Yes, I too would like to see a measure of accountability in how the money is spent. Perhaps the recipient parent should have to submit reciepts, just like a company recieves reciepts to process and expense claim.