Abortion debate (1 Viewer)

[Phanatical]

In the Australian Legal system, it is next to impossible for a non-custodial father to avoid paying exorbitant child support - a substantial proportion of which is eaten up by the Child Support Agency and various feminist organisations attached to it.

The following arguments are mine, but they do not represent my personal views on the issue. Nevertheless, I believe they are worth considering within the context of the debate:

Unlike women - men not only lack the ability to abort their responsibilities, but also in the case of split couples are 10 times less likely to gain custody of their child, not to mention expected to pay exorbitant Child support (I know of no cases where a non-custodial mother has to pay child support to a father). There are too many women who not only use pregnancy as a way to force men to subsidise their way of life (in one particular case I was reading, a closed community of lesbians (here in Australia) would 'farm' men, and force them to pay child support to maintain their commune), but who also use their children to cause their spouses pain by teaching them to hate their fathers.

For me, abortion is a terrible, terrible thing no matter the circumstances. There are so many consequences to face, and where a child is not wanted every path leads to Hades. The example I gave earlier, of a father with no rights to their child, is just one of many sad realities in our society - and if he doesn't like it, unlike the mother he can't just abort His responsibility.

Father's rights cannot be denied. It is a simple fact that men - that fathers - have a vested interest in the abortion debate, because they too are affected by pregnancy. Perhaps not in the physical sense for nine months, but certainly in both an emotional sense and a financial reality that if the mother chooses, the father will hand over sixty percent of his earnings and assets every day for the next 18 years.

Perhaps the argument can be summed up as such: The right to raise a child goes hand in hand with the responsibility of doing so. You can't have one without the other, and if you deny father's rights, you can't expect them to honour the responsibility. If a mother can abort her child and the responsibilities involved with it, then shouldn't a father be able to at least abort his responsibilities?

 

[ur_inner_child]

i think in a lot of cases the father of the child plays an INCREDIBLY large advisory/influential role in the decision process.........

but that's just me.... you know phanatical... i mean... you make it as if women suddenly cut off any relationship with the father of the child... that most women don't listen to their partners (assuming they are together)

 

[ogmzergrush]

I think however the problem that arises is that the reasoning behind not making abortions illegal (that they're a part of the mother essentially, can't live without her) would make it quite hard to justify then giving men a saying in it... although I do believe it is unfair for the male - hard issue to resolve tho.

Is it really that much of an issue though? I'd imagine that most couples who have abortions discuss it between themselves and arrive at a shared decision anyway? I can't really see that many people doing this sort of thing without discussing it fairly thoroughly with the other anyway.

On the other hand though, I can see the issue being well, much more of an issue in those who have split up, which come to think of it is probably what we're discussing. Maybe they can flip a coin in the event that the two are not in agreement over the issue, or let it be decided by a duel!

 

[katie_tully]

kekeke, imagine a father having to pay for the upbringing of his child.

it amazes me that phanatical feels so strongly about child support, yet has the audacity to try and deny women the right to an abortion. it seems that all you're interested in is protecting your rights. if the woman keeps a baby that the man doesn't want, you feel as though he should not be expected to pay for its upbringing, yet if a mother does not want a child and the father does, you feel she shouldn't have the right to abort the child? heh.

60% of his earnings? would you be so kind as to please link your source, as i am somewhat interested in your statistics.

 

[katie_tully]

Exactly. I think you'll find that it's rare for a woman to have an abortion just to spite the father. I think that often it would be a mutual agreement, or in cases of when the father flees upon learning of the pregnancy, a single decision by the woman to do what is best for her.

Go and bury yourself Phanatical.

 

[erawamai]

it amazes me that phanatical feels so strongly about child support, yet has the audacity to try and deny women the right to an abortion. it seems that all you're interested in is protecting your rights. if the woman keeps a baby that the man doesn't want, you feel as though he should not be expected to pay for its upbringing, yet if a mother does not want a child and the father does, you feel she shouldn't have the right to abort the child? heh.

Sweet irony. haha

or in cases of when the father flees upon learning of the pregnancy

I think it's referred to as 'doing a tony abbott'.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

What is the father doesn't want the child tho? Should he have to pay for it just because the woman wants it? I don't think he should have to, I mean if you're separated, have an accident etc... then it should be up to each individual to decide whether or not they want to raise the child. I do believe women use children as a way to get to their ex's etc and this is the sort of thing we should keep in mind.

Of course I can see problems with the practical application of such an ideal, but I still think we need to keep trying to think of ways to address this.

 

[katie_tully]

I just find it so amazing that he bitches about mens rights, yet doesn't understand womens rights? He thinks that abortion is just a choice made by females and that men get no say, at all?

I feel for the father, if the mother decides she doesn't want the child. It would be devestating. It would be just as devestating for a woman to carry the child full term and then have him run off. It would be devestating for a male who agrees to have the child, and then loses it in a custody battle.

How is banning abortion going to fix any of the said problems? It's not the cause of them, so why does he treat it so?

 

[ur_inner_child]

I do believe women use children as a way to get to their ex's

OoOoOooh..... he speaks the truth...

I know a girl who went through with having the child believing he would come back to her. And if he still didn't love her again, he would always be in her life, and she loved that.

Totally not fair for the kid mind you.

 

[katie_tully]

No I agree with you though, jesus Christ. I think it's ridiculous that a man should pay for a child he doesn't want. I think it's somewhat low if he doesn't contribute anything at all, but I don't think he should be forced to pay "60%" of his earnings to the child.

 

[katie_tully]

Yeah inner, I know of a guy who had a child with a girl. She was underage at the time (he was 18, she was 15). Anyway she had the kid, and he was fully intent on bringing up the child. 3 months later, she goes to the police and tells them they had sex when she was a minor, so she had him charged. He has lost any custodial rights to the child, yet has to pay maintenance.

the system sucks

 

[erawamai]

I feel for the father, if the mother decides she doesn't want the child. It would be devestating. It would be just as devestating for a woman to carry the child full term and then have him run off. It would be devestating for a male who agrees to have the child, and then loses it in a custody battle.

How is banning abortion going to fix any of the said problems? It's not the cause of them, so why does he treat it so?

Phanatical seems to make out that there are all these poor teenage dads out there who really really want their partners to keep the baby. While there are a small minority out there who may be like this I don't think it makes up the majority.

I think the average couple that is in a loving relationship where they are financially (able to afford the child) and emotionally stable will not abort.

 

[erawamai]

Yeah inner, I know of a guy who had a child with a girl. She was underage at the time (he was 18, she was 15). Anyway she had the kid, and he was fully intent on bringing up the child. 3 months later, she goes to the police and tells them they had sex when she was a minor, so she had him charged. He has lost any custodial rights to the child, yet has to pay maintenance.

the system sucks

Perhaps his fault for having sex with a 15 year old?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I think the average couple that is in a loving relationship where they are financially (able to afford the child) and emotionally stable they will not abort.

God how many Australians is that? 2?

 

[ogmzergrush]

In the Australian Legal system, it is next to impossible for a non-custodial father to avoid paying exorbitant child support - a substantial proportion of which is eaten up by the Child Support Agency and various feminist organisations attached to it.

I call bullshit, I know of multiple people who continually manage to avoid their obligation with the greatest of ease. The attempts to "catch" these individuals are disorganised, half-hearted and to me really don't seem to go nearly as far as they should.

Unlike women - men not only lack the ability to abort their responsibilities, but also in the case of split couples are 10 times less likely to gain custody of their child, not to mention expected to pay exorbitant Child support (I know of no cases where a non-custodial mother has to pay child support to a father). There are too many women who not only use pregnancy as a way to force men to subsidise their way of life (in one particular case I was reading, a closed community of lesbians (here in Australia) would 'farm' men, and force them to pay child support to maintain their commune), but who also use their children to cause their spouses pain by teaching them to hate their fathers.

If you somehow manage to get tricked into having babies with a lesbian foetus cult, I say you deserve to pay up. Is this example, which I would imagine is somewhat rare, really a firm foundation for the case you're putting forward?

For me, abortion is a terrible, terrible thing no matter the circumstances.

I was just thinking that abortion would have been a wonderful thing for you :/

There are so many consequences to face, and where a child is not wanted every path leads to Hades. The example I gave earlier, of a father with no rights to their child, is just one of many sad realities in our society - and if he doesn't like it, unlike the mother he can't just abort His responsibility.

Has someone even more retarded taken over your account, or is this the natural progression for crazies such as yourself? What's the issue here anyway? Remember, people aren't meant to have sex till they're ready to have babies, and if they're ready to have babies then they'll want their share of the responsibilities too. Are you arguing in support of a backdoor for all the evildoers who have sex when they're not ready to have and support a baby?

Father's rights cannot be denied. It is a simple fact that men - that fathers - have a vested interest in the abortion debate, because they too are affected by pregnancy. Perhaps not in the physical sense for nine months, but certainly in both an emotional sense and a financial reality that if the mother chooses, the father will hand over sixty percent of his earnings and assets every day for the next 18 years.

Reading this makes me wonder. Normally I support men having a say in the matter, but with arguments like "oh this will hurt my wallet to no end for 18 years :~(", I can't help but think that it'd be quite reasonable to deny you a say.

Perhaps the argument can be summed up as such: The right to raise a child goes hand in hand with the responsibility of doing so. You can't have one without the other, and if you deny father's rights, you can't expect them to honour the responsibility. If a mother can abort her child and the responsibilities involved with it, then shouldn't a father be able to at least abort his responsibilities?

No, fathers shouldn't have sex till they're ready to have babies, and they should be able to deal with the consequences of their actions, now there's a catchcry that sounds familiar! (LOLLERCOPTER!)

 

[Phanatical]

I work extensively with men's rights groups, including Dads on the Air (from which the statistic of 60% comes). A glimpse at their forums (http://forum.dadsontheair.com/) would be enough to tell you that men Don't get a say in their children's upbringings if their partners/former partners don't want them to.

As I said before, those arguments don't represent my personal views on the argument (I believe both parents should contribute as much as they can, if not voluntarily then by legislation guaranteeing them both equal rights and responsibility)- but they are arguments which I believe would contribute strongly to the debate, in that they raise points that a father's involvement in his child's life is not presumed, but at the mercy of the mother, and that unlike the mother he does not have the ability to divorce himself from his responsibilities.

 

[katie_tully]

I am using Peter Costello's example as a basis for this argument. Abortion is not always going to be a single decision made by the mother. Of the people I know who have had abortions, it was a mutal decision by both partners. In some cases it will be made by the father out of the best interests for the child or mother.
Can he not see it's not about walking over the top of men?

 

[katie_tully]

A glimpse at their forums show that SOME men are being screwed by the system. Not all. Stop being such a generalising shit head.

 

[ur_inner_child]

^plus the point she raised about 'not all'

 

[erawamai]

I work extensively with men's rights groups, including Dads on the Air (from which the statistic of 60% comes). A glimpse at their forums (http://forum.dadsontheair.com/) would be enough to tell you that men Don't get a say in their children's upbringings if their partners/former partners don't want them to.

Did it ever occur to you that they don't get a say in the upbringing of their children because of issues they may have which they are not so proud to talk about?

That MAYBE the women, in certain cases, had very good reasons to ensure the father goes nowhere near the child? You only have to read that forum to get a sense as to why some fathers are not allowed near the child.

All I sense from that forum are just menrs rights people who are no worse the feminazi's they oppose. I also feel the homoerotic tension as well coming from a deep down hate of women.