Ethical dilemma regarding fathers right to abortion (1 Viewer)

[ElGronko]

why, though? just because a pregnancy is accidental or unplanned doesnt mean the father has any less responsibility for the baby if his partner becomes pregnant...no matter how many precautions are taken. shit happens, sometimes you just gotta deal with it i guess.

Yeah, but if the father doesn't want the baby, he doesn't want the responsibility.

If he tells the woman that he can't handle the responsibility/cost/time etc. then the female should then have to consider whether they can handle said responsibilities on her own. She should not be able to decide that if she solely wants the baby that both parents have a shared 50/50 responsibility when the father has expressly stated that he wants none of it.

It is a fucked situation for the male. Essentially it is totally up to the female whether he is fucked for the next 18 years or not. He has no say whether he has to front the costs or not.

And a waiver denying financial responsibility would not bar the father from seeing the child, just legally releases him from his choiceless vulnerability and the future costs of something he has decided he can not afford. In this case the woman would be aware that if she keeps the child, she must be able to afford it alone.


And Waf, there are some cases where it is necessary that a minor percentage of our tax dollars be sacrificed to protect our liberties.


Essentially in this scenario the female has the males nuts in a vice.

 

[Capitalist Scum]

What? Logic is a flawed system because of many elements, the first of which is the fact that the human brain does not work logically, it works intuitively. Logic only serves as a justifaction of intuition. However, I will admit that there are some people out there who use logic to find an answer, not to justify one.

You can fault pretences, but you cannot flaw logic itself.

 

[ElGronko]

No, she shouldn't.

But if she didn't want the kid, the father's wants are redundant as the female has essentially 100% power of decision making over whether it is aborted or not. In the eyes of the law he has no say in the child's birth, other than having to pay for the brat if it is born, regardless of whether he wants it or not.

 

[RingerINC]

In the case that the pregnancy is neither the fault of either and is purely accidental, both people are admitting to not wanting a child. An abortion can be seen as a last line of contraceptive. If the man offers to pay for the abortion and the woman still opts to have the baby it is her negligence alone that leads to the unwanted pregnancy. Thus it is entirely wrong to say that the man has any responsibility in the birth of the child as he provided a viable alternative.

Put simply, the woman is being a bitch about it and should have to raise the child alone if she can't deal with the abortion.

On the flipside and the man wants to keep it and the woman wants to abort, the woman would have to actually suffer for the mans wishes. Hence since there is a loss on the womans side and really she can weigh up the cost of the abortion to 9 months of carry a kid around. If she goes through with it because she couldn't afford the abortion, the man should take full responsibility for the child.

 

[flipsyde]

Is if fair for the father to say "I want you to have an abortion as I don't want the responsibility of looking after a child, and if you have the baby I am not paying any child support".

First of all, if you're not prepared to deal with the conciquences of having sex, then you shouldn't be having it.

Secondly, the man has no right to threaten a woman like that and/or force her to have an abortion by offering an altermotive (ethically).

I don't think it fair that the man should have to pay if he didnt want the baby, but I do feel that it is his responsibility as a father to do so whether he wants the baby or not. But again, if the father wasn't prepared to deal with the conciquences, then he shouldnt have had sex.

Also the man and woman should have discussed prior to having sex, what the outcome would result in if she did fall pregnant.

Its a tough one though, beacause its not fair to the man if he has to pay, but its not fair to the woman if he doesn't pay. Yeah tough one

 

[Not-That-Bright]

And Waf, there are some cases where it is necessary that a minor percentage of our tax dollars be sacrificed to protect our liberties.

While I think the burden should be somewhat more alleviated by the government, I see little reason to allow fathers to get away unscathed for ditching their responsibility. The only reason why women are given such a way out is because of their rights when it comes to their body, if the baby was somehow born magically in some 3rd party I'm sure women also wouldn't be able to merely ditch their responsibility.

If we were to allow men to opt out, I would want the same rules as Dan (Must have taken proper precautions).

 

[ElGronko]

Also the man and woman should have discussed prior to having sex, what the outcome would result in if she did fall pregnant.

LOL!

 

[daledugahole]

It is the responsibility of both the man and the woman as both were involved in concieving the child.

And abortion shouldn't be forced on a woman and it's not a form of contraception. I think there is a big difference between a medical proceedure and putting on a condom.

Why should a man be able to 'opt out' of his responsibility when the woman can't. And not having an abortion is not a way in which women 'opt out' because even if she does have an abortion she has to deal with all the emotional issues that go along with that.

It's entirely unfair for a man to be able to 'opt out'. Why do they get a 'get out of jail free' card? It's a huge thing for a woman who I agree ultimately has the final choice over whether a child is born or not to make that decision becuase it is her body. There isn't a way for the woman to 'opt out' of the decision.

I also think men should be able to have a say if the woman wants to abort and the man doesn't. But it's a hard issue because you can't force a woman to have a baby. But there should be some kind of forum in which the two can discuss the decision and make it together.

 

[Lisa_8]

I can't find the reference but I recall reading a couple of years ago that the majority of non-custodial fathers pay either no child support or the minimum amount, which is $5 a week as they claim they have a low wage and could not support themselves if they had to pay for their kids. It seems there is a minority of men who earn large incomes and pay a significant amount of child support while the rest use loopholes [or are unemployed etc]. I remember a case in the SMH when they were reveiwing the child support laws which involved a guy who was married with three kids, got divorced, remarried and had another 2 or 3 kids and was crying poor. Basically, he was saying that he had moved on, started a new life and wanted to cut all his ties with his previous family. That may sound fair to some, but I really don't think men can shirk their financial responsibilities to kids they have fathered - ignoring the politics surrounding it, if I was male and fathered a kid, even if I didn't want any role in its upbringing I would give the correct amount of child support [18% of income for one child, up to 36% for five kids] and know that the kid had the opportunity to go to school, have three meals a day etc.

That may sound silly but there are something like 800,000 kids in this country living in poverty [not Third World conditions but still...]. If you earn $400 a week that would be less than $40 a week in child support. I know it would add up over 18 years but what is the alternative? Sometimes couples decide to try and make it work but what if a year after the kid is born the guy decides he has had enough and leaves? At the very least, I think paternity tests should be taken for every child born - it would prevent a lot of problems from happening later. It would be a lot easier to walk away, to be sure, but with adulthood comes responsibility.

Abortions are, as daledugahole said, a medical procedure - there are risks involved, women have died, cannot get pregnant again as a result etc. Essentially, this scenario is preventable - both condoms and the pill have like a 99%+ success rate when used correctly. So if it fails 1 out of 100 times, and given all the other things that need to be right for a successful conception, the number of unwanted pregnancies would be a lot smaller. Contraception is obviously a matter for both people involved, but I still think in a lot of cases a man has the final choice. It is a very grey issue, but I think women should i) consider the view of the father of the child re abortion but ii) have the final choice - statistics show that most custodial parents are female, so in the event they agreed to have the child the father could leave, remarry etc five years down the track. And as most men don't pay a crippling amount of child support, and in a sizeable minority of cases dont ever see the kids anyway there isn't a gigantic burden in the first place. Sorry for the long post - its one of those cases in which neither pro-male and pro-female parties will ever be satisfied :mad1: .

 

[ElGronko]

I can't find the reference but I recall reading a couple of years ago that the majority of non-custodial fathers pay either no child support or the minimum amount, which is $5 a week as they claim they have a low wage and could not support themselves if they had to pay for their kids. It seems there is a minority of men who earn large incomes and pay a significant amount of child support while the rest use loopholes [or are unemployed etc]. I remember a case in the SMH when they were reveiwing the child support laws which involved a guy who was married with three kids, got divorced, remarried and had another 2 or 3 kids and was crying poor. Basically, he was saying that he had moved on, started a new life and wanted to cut all his ties with his previous family. That may sound fair to some, but I really don't think men can shirk their financial responsibilities to kids they have fathered - ignoring the politics surrounding it, if I was male and fathered a kid, even if I didn't want any role in its upbringing I would give the correct amount of child support [18% of income for one child, up to 36% for five kids] and know that the kid had the opportunity to go to school, have three meals a day etc.

That may sound silly but there are something like 800,000 kids in this country living in poverty [not Third World conditions but still...]. If you earn $400 a week that would be less than $40 a week in child support. I know it would add up over 18 years but what is the alternative? Sometimes couples decide to try and make it work but what if a year after the kid is born the guy decides he has had enough and leaves? At the very least, I think paternity tests should be taken for every child born - it would prevent a lot of problems from happening later. It would be a lot easier to walk away, to be sure, but with adulthood comes responsibility.

Abortions are, as daledugahole said, a medical procedure - there are risks involved, women have died, cannot get pregnant again as a result etc. Essentially, this scenario is preventable - both condoms and the pill have like a 99%+ success rate when used correctly. So if it fails 1 out of 100 times, and given all the other things that need to be right for a successful conception, the number of unwanted pregnancies would be a lot smaller. Contraception is obviously a matter for both people involved, but I still think in a lot of cases a man has the final choice. It is a very grey issue, but I think women should i) consider the view of the father of the child re abortion but ii) have the final choice - statistics show that most custodial parents are female, so in the event they agreed to have the child the father could leave, remarry etc five years down the track. And as most men don't pay a crippling amount of child support, and in a sizeable minority of cases dont ever see the kids anyway there isn't a gigantic burden in the first place. Sorry for the long post - its one of those cases in which neither pro-male and pro-female parties will ever be satisfied :mad1: .

What is all this bullshit based on?

Some SMH article you think you may have read about 1 guy.

and 18% of $400 is not $40

 

[Lisa_8]

Okay, maths was admittedly my worst subject - 18% of $400 is 72 bux - the thing about the guy was one example out of money, it was just meant to be representative of a different scenario ie not someone in their early 20s.

'Just 13% pay child support in full, on time'
Stephanie Peatling. Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney, N.S.W.: Jun 16, 2005. pg. 6

Almost 40 per cent of parents pay less than a quarter of their child support payments, according to the Federal Government's child support taskforce. Previously unpublished data from the Child Support Agency shows only 13.5 per cent of people paid the correct amount in full and on time. Nearly half of the non-custodial parents paying less than a quarter of their child support payments had annual incomes of less than $25,000. But high-income earners were also trying to get away with paying less, with about 20 per cent of those with incomes of more than $85,000 found to be in arrears on support payments. The findings are contained in a report on child support payments by the Government's child support taskforce. The high number of people on low incomes not paying the correct amount backed up research by the Australian Institute of Family Studies that found fathers were more unhappy with the system than mothers.

More than 60 per cent of non-resident fathers thought the system did not work well, against 45 per cent of resident mothers.

Among the taskforce's recommendations for the overhaul of the much-criticised system are that both parents' income, and the time they spend caring for their children, should be taken into account when working out support payments.

About 60 per cent of non-custodial parents paying child support - mostly men - would pay less than they do now if the recommendations are accepted by the Federal Government.

The chairman of the child support taskforce, University of Sydney law professor Patrick Parkinson, said although more than half of child support payments would drop if the changes were adopted, custodial parents would get bigger tax breaks.

"Some of those payments will go down and some will go up," Professor Parkinson said.

"The majority will probably go down, but many, many resident parents will be receiving more as a result of our recommendations ... We've tried to be fair to both parents and, above all, fair to the kids."

Fathers' groups have welcomed the report, saying its recommendations would be more equitable for men who do not have custody of their children. But representatives of single mothers have warned children could be worse off because of a drop in payments.

Forty per cent of people making child support payments in Australia pay the minimum amount.

-The whole point of my argument is being a non-custodial father generally isn't such a great financial burden as some people were making it out to be. Your argument is rather simple - all the poor guys out there, who cant have sex with whoever whenever in whatever circumstance and not be troubled by the consequences, who cant force women to have abortions, are screwed for life by a terrible system, who are the victims who no longer have absolute control over the world blah blah. :burn:

 

[loquasagacious]

The problem with chads and dans 'opt out when precautions were taken' is determining first what is an acceptable precaution and secondly what if there is a he said she said?

The first point is that say billy and jane are in a relationship, jane is on the pill so they are having sex sans condoms, jane stops taking the pill and does not tell billy - she intends to fall pregant but has not discussed this with Billy. Has billy taken the required precautions and should we allow him to opt out? If we allow billy to opt out should we also allow fred who hooked up with Jane at a nightclub when jane told him she was on the pill so he didn't use a condom?

And finally how do we decide when there is a dispute, afterall it is very much in the womans interest to say that the man did not take all precautions and very much in the mans interests to say that he did. Obviously there aren't generally going to be witnesses nor I daresay much in the way of evidence so who do we believe? Is the man afforded a presumption of innocence and thus most men would be able to lie and opt out? Is the man presummed guilty and thus is the man required to keep a failed condom as evidence?

 

[aussiechica7]

the problem is that the child ALREADY exists when the father wants the mother to "get rid of it". if he didn't want to father a child, he shouldn't have conceived one. if he did, and the mother decides to protect its life until its born, its 2 late to take it back!

don't want kids? don't have unprotected sex.
have unprotected sex? not your child's fault.

 

[Antler]

You're forgetting the fact that you can get a girl pregnant while still having protected sex, contraception isn't 100%. Also what if the woman is a deceptive bitch and tells the guy she is on the pill when she really isn't? Or the condom breaks/slips and she won't take a morning after pill because she says she is on the regular pill but she isn't? Vasectomy ftw .

 

[ElGronko]

the problem is that the child ALREADY exists when the father wants the mother to "get rid of it".

No it doesn't.

A bunch of none homogenic cells exists.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The problem with chads and dans 'opt out when precautions were taken' is determining first what is an acceptable precaution

Either,
Subjective Test: He took precautions which he felt were reasonable to stop creation of a child, or
Objective Test: He took what a reasonable person would say was enough precaution to stop the creation of a child.

Of course problems will arise from such tests, but nothing less than what already occurs rutinely in our legal system.

The first point is that say billy and jane are in a relationship, jane is on the pill so they are having sex sans condoms, jane stops taking the pill and does not tell billy - she intends to fall pregant but has not discussed this with Billy. Has billy taken the required precautions and should we allow him to opt out?

I think this situation is simple (as I'm sure you also do) - Billy would be able to opt out.

If we allow billy to opt out should we also allow fred who hooked up with Jane at a nightclub when jane told him she was on the pill so he didn't use a condom?

This is contentious IMO. It can go two ways imo...

#1 We could require that people have seen physical proof that she was on the pill (that way we can simply investigate to find out if she did have some pills on her at the time)

#2 It is his word against hers. History could come into play i.e. If the woman has a history of getting pregnant with strangers then it'd be easier to argue that she's irresponsible. If the man has a history of getting women pregnant than it'd be very easy to argue he's irresponsible.... But yea, essentially it's difficult.

 

[loquasagacious]

Chad you're right that I think that Billy should be able to opt out and I will confess that Billy and Jane were just a nice lead in to my main points. eg Fred and Jane and more importantly the issue of evidence.

 

[aussiechica7]

"Pro-choicers have argued that for a living organism to be qualified as a human being, it must provide evidence of mental activity, associated with thought and the mind (i.e., a “soul”). This raises important facts: the foetus’s brain is formed within the second month of pregnancy, and brain waves can be detected on an EEG (electroencephalograph) from 43 days onwards. Some people, however, such as Miriam Clare in The Abortion Issue: Personal Views on a Public Issue, take a perhaps more subjective stance that the synapses of the foetus’s brain must have formed connections for it to be considered its own person. This does not occur for seven months into the pregnancy and thus validates the procedure up until that time.

Pro-lifers, however, argue that because the zygote or foetus always has different DNA to the "mother”, it should be treated as a separate person from conception. Within five weeks, the foetus’s sex might be different from the “mother’s” and within seven weeks the foetus has developed its own blood type. Within 13 weeks, the foetus has everything that will be present in a full-term baby; the next two trimesters involve only a development in its size and strength. Therefore, they argue, the child is not simply an extension of the mother, but, by the time most abortions occur, human enough to warrant the right to life.

So we can see that judging the procedure on a purely scientific analysis still necessitates arbitrary human interpretation. Besides this, we have only just entered the 21st century, and it is likely that new developments in technology will add even more dimensions to the argument. Therefore, perhaps the opinions of doctors and scientists on the matter are not as defining as we once thought."

from http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=153