Pro Life? Then Don't Run Under Liberal Banner

[Smallc]

I actually kind of agree with that.

[jacee]

It's simple. When a pregnancy is discovered, the man should be taken to a private location and asked the question, abort or keep? Then the woman should be informed of the man's choice. Then she can make the choice to abort or keep. If she aborts, no problem. If she keeps, but he said abort, then no money, no access. If she keeps and he said keep, then he pays full support and has full access.

Solomon has nothing on me...

Not.

[Smallc]

Why not?

[WestCoastRunner]

It's simple. When a pregnancy is discovered, the man should be taken to a private location and asked the question, abort or keep? Then the woman should be informed of the man's choice. Then she can make the choice to abort or keep. If she aborts, no problem. If she keeps, but he said abort, then no money, no access. If she keeps and he said keep, then he pays full support and has full access.

I do see a small problem with this one. What if the woman decides not to abort because of her religious beliefs. Should the father still not pay if he wanted her to get an abortion?

[Peter F]

I think there's some confusion about what a mans supposed rights are regarding children. As long as the woman has not actually given birth then the father actually has zero rights since there is no child. Once the child is born then the father gets saddled with 50% responsibility just like mom.

[jacee]

And I completely agree that it's a woman's choice to make.

Yup.

Yet, why is the argument "those are the chances you take when you fool around" ok when it comes to men paying child support, but not when it comes to banning abortion? Saying to a woman, "those are the chances you take when you fool around" is the same argument.

I've offered an explanation in a few responses in this thread already, namely that providing the necessities of life is a financial burden and not a violation of the sanctity of one's body. The latter is vastly more unethical and wrong. Moreover, the financial burden is shared between mother and father, whilst the physical violation of the body is the mothers' alone.

What I'm suggesting is the "wrap it up" argument doesn't fly for women for a reason and for those same reasons it shouldn't fly for men. If a man doesn't want to be a father, I don't think he should have to be.

There's a time for him to consider that, and take precautions.

Yet, I recognize that this puts women at significant risk to suffer the socioeconomic consequences of providing for a child on her own. There's no easy answer here.

There's no question, cybercoma, just a biological reality.

.

[Guest]

I do see a small problem with this one. What if the woman decides not to abort because of her religious beliefs. Should the father still not pay if he wanted her to get an abortion?

Well, I suppose her reasons would be her own. I personally have no interest in why a woman wants or does not want an abortion. Her choice.

As to the question, my reasoning stands.

I understand I won't ever be consulted by the government for my views

Edited June 1, 2014 by bcsapper

[WestCoastRunner]

If a man doesn't want to be a father, I don't think he should have to be.

Seriously? Even if he has contributed his semen? He can't take back that semen no matter how hard he tries. Not sure what you mean by this statement. As soon as that baby is born, he is a biological father, whether he wants to be or not.

[Peter F]

It's simple. When a pregnancy is discovered, the man should be taken to a private location and asked the question, abort or keep? Then the woman should be informed of the man's choice. Then she can make the choice to abort or keep. If she aborts, no problem. If she keeps, but he said abort, then no money, no access. If she keeps and he said keep, then he pays full support and has full access.

Solomon has nothing on me...

I would say there is no need to take the male off to the side. He made his decision when he had sex. Perhaps accepted the risk would be more accurate

[WestCoastRunner]

I would say there is no need to take the male off to the side. He made his decision when he had sex. Perhaps accepted the risk would be more accurate

Exactly, both parties have accepted the risk.

[Smallc]

So abortion should be illegal then.

[jacee]

So abortion should be illegal then.

Now that's logic that defies logic.

.

[Guest]

I would say there is no need to take the male off to the side. He made his decision when he had sex. Perhaps accepted the risk would be more accurate

Sure, whatever you want. Like I said, I'm not going to be consulted.

[cybercoma]

So abortion should be illegal then.

They don't get it at all. I don't know how many different ways it can be explained. After a woman gets pregnant she still has reproductive choices. After a woman gets pregnant men have no reproductive choices whatsoever. The response "use better birth control" is something straight out of the prolife handbook of stock phrases. Their response in regards to abortion is always, "birth control fails." So a guy uses birth control intending not to be a father and it fails, he needs to convince her to abort but she refuses. Now she's able to hold him financially responsible for a child he tried to prevent and she refused to abort when prevention failed. I agree the choice about her body is here alone, but sticking him with the financial responsibility of a child he never wanted and tried to prevent is a terrible thing to do to a person.

[Peter F]

The orphanages have been closed. Foster parents are few and far between. Child services are overstreched. If the parents don't make some effort to take care of the child that in 99% is the not-surprising result of their sexual congress, who will? The state?

I'm all for birth-control; pills, condoms, aborltions, rhythm, spermicides, morning after pills; whatever it takes. But the responsibility for the child falls first upon the biological parents. If they can't manage it then the state will have to pick it up, But the children will not be left to fend for themselves. Somebody is gonna take care of em.

[On Guard for Thee]

When you boil it all down it seems to be comimg to a situation, as cold as it may sound, where a guy might need to carry a contract in his arse pocket in case he happens to be lucky enough to get lucky. It will say basically 1. we choose to have sex (initialled) 2. but we don't want a child (initialled) 3. so we will use birth control. (initialled) 4.If birth control should fail, she then has the option of abortion. (initialled)

If 4 comes to pass then refer back to 2.

[jacee]

They don't get it at all. I don't know how many different ways it can be explained. After a woman gets pregnant she still has reproductive choices. After a woman gets pregnant men have no reproductive choices whatsoever. The response "use better birth control" is something straight out of the prolife handbook of stock phrases. Their response in regards to abortion is always, "birth control fails." So a guy uses birth control intending not to be a father and it fails, he needs to convince her to abort but she refuses. Now she's able to hold him financially responsible for a child he tried to prevent and she refused to abort when prevention failed. I agree the choice about her body is here alone, but sticking him with the financial responsibility of a child he never wanted and tried to prevent is a terrible thing to do to a person.

Better quality condoms can save you a lot of money, eh?

Abortion should be a man's decision?

Or ... should only be a woman's decision if she decides the way he wants?

Or ... should be illegal because a man can't have one?

It is what it is.

Edited June 1, 2014 by jacee

[Peter F]

yes, extraordinary measures are taken so folks can have intercourse. Natures trickery knows no bounds.

(referring to OnGuards post above)

Edited June 1, 2014 by Peter F

[Guest]

Probably, the best thing to do would be to put a chemical in the water that sterilises everyone. Sort out the whole climate change thing too.

[Guest]

They don't get it at all. I don't know how many different ways it can be explained. After a woman gets pregnant she still has reproductive choices. After a woman gets pregnant men have no reproductive choices whatsoever. The response "use better birth control" is something straight out of the prolife handbook of stock phrases. Their response in regards to abortion is always, "birth control fails." So a guy uses birth control intending not to be a father and it fails, he needs to convince her to abort but she refuses. Now she's able to hold him financially responsible for a child he tried to prevent and she refused to abort when prevention failed. I agree the choice about her body is here alone, but sticking him with the financial responsibility of a child he never wanted and tried to prevent is a terrible thing to do to a person.

There are two different things. Bringing a child into the world means you are responsible for the child. If you don't want to risk it, don't do the you know what. Any failure on anyone's part vis a vis the birth control is irrelevant. Two people tangoed, two people get the bill. The only change I would make to current laws and practices would be to make the father's access automatic by default. A court could decide there are extreme circumstances that warrant otherwise. Edit> I guess a court could also decide that there are extreme circumstances that means the father doesn't have to pay anything.

The other thing is the abortion. As it's going on in the woman only, only she gets to choose one way or the other.

I realise this goes against what I said in my earlier post. One is the way I would have it, the other is the way it is.

You can't base rules for one on the other.

Edited June 1, 2014 by bcsapper

[Guest]

When you boil it all down it seems to be comimg to a situation, as cold as it may sound, where a guy might need to carry a contract in his arse pocket in case he happens to be lucky enough to get lucky. It will say basically 1. we choose to have sex (initialled) 2. but we don't want a child (initialled) 3. so we will use birth control. (initialled) 4.If birth control should fail, she then has the option of abortion. (initialled)

If 4 comes to pass then refer back to 2.

I'd be willing to bet there's not a court in Canada would respect that.

[On Guard for Thee]

I'd be willing to bet there's not a court in Canada would respect that.

Hard to say. I don't know where the law stands on that exactly. I was obviously being a little flippant in my previous post, but the serious side would be that the law does recognize such things as prenups, and what I was suggesting is something similar. As in as we enter into this relationship, if it turns out not as we expected or hoped, here is how we will proceed.

[cybercoma]

There are two different things. Bringing a child into the world means you are responsible for the child. If you don't want to risk it, don't do the you know what. Any failure on anyone's part vis a vis the birth control is irrelevant. Two people tangoed, two people get the bill. The only change I would make to current laws and practices would be to make the father's access automatic by default. A court could decide there are extreme circumstances that warrant otherwise. Edit> I guess a court could also decide that there are extreme circumstances that means the father doesn't have to pay anything.

The other thing is the abortion. As it's going on in the woman only, only she gets to choose one way or the other.

I realise this goes against what I said in my earlier post. One is the way I would have it, the other is the way it is.

You can't base rules for one on the other.

What I was addressing is this notion that guys should ultimately abstain from sex if they don't want to care for kids. It's the same argument pro-lifers use for women when they call for a ban on abortion. If women don't want to end up pregnant, they should abstain from sex because abortion should be illegal. If that argument doesn't fly for banning abortion, then it shouldn't fly for demanding men to pay for children they don't want and made efforts to prevent.

[-TSS-]

It seems to be so that the whole issue of abortion is such a poison-chalice in North America that any wise politician avoids the issue like a plague since you can't say anything about the issue without upsetting someone and even if you don't say anything even that may upset some people.

[Argus]

I do see a small problem with this one. What if the woman decides not to abort because of her religious beliefs. Should the father still not pay if he wanted her to get an abortion?

If she has strong religious beliefs she shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage.