Does a man, have say so when it comes to abortion?

[cjh]

Someone explain to me under what circumstance a father is justified in being absolved from financial responsibility for his child.

I don't understand that position at all.

Just because the father is pissed because the mother is afforded autonomy the father dislikes, the father should have the right to financially abandon his child?

 

[LillyO]

You're correct about this. However, in A that's the end of the discussion. In B, the conversation now starts with her asking me what I'm doing for the next twenty years of my life, with a fair portion of any future income, with my plans for where I want to live and what I want to do. And that's why there's pushback on this. The woman gets 39 weeks of parasitism, sure (and before anyone freaks out over my use of the term, google it; it's biologically accurate), but the decision is larger than that. It's about the rest of both of our lives. That's why I think I should get a say. Unless she finds a way to completely absolve me of any future responsibility, it's not about "bearing a child." It's about raising one and providing for it. And I don't have any kids, but everyone I know who does loves them, adores them, can't be away from them. So unless you're complete scum, just walking away seems to me to be an unlikely option.

So, yeah, I think I should get a say in the matter.

.....

 

[SeaDaddy1]

There are many horrible mothers in the world too. Men do not hold a monopoly on being terrible. Men do not have to accept it, they can fight it if they choose.



If a man made that comment about a woman everyone would be in an uproar. Neither gender is disposable.

Ahh, Serene! A pleasure to see you're still here.

Huh that doesn’t sound right. Is that really how it works in America???

In Europe, specifically Germany, if you can prove what you owned before marriage that remains yours.

Even things that were inherited or gifted to you during marriage remain yours.

Everything that is earned during marriage is split 50-50. (Well except that you have to keep having both your wages divided 50-50, so that she maintains her current quality of life for a minimum period of one year after you split. After this she’s on her own.)

Woof!

Traditionally, in the past, yes. That is the way it worked in the US. It varies from state to state these days.

Someone explain to me under what circumstance a father is justified in being absolved from financial responsibility for his child.

I don't understand that position at all.

Just because the father is pissed because the mother is afforded autonomy the father dislikes, the father should have the right to financially abandon his child?

I am not understanding how you're looking at this. If the mother aborts of her own free will, then how can there be a financial obligation to the father if the baby was never carried to full term?

 

[cjh]

<snip>I am not understanding how you're looking at this. If the mother aborts of her own free will, then how can there be a financial obligation to the father if the baby was never carried to full term?

Sure.

Some posts state or suggest a borne child's right to be financially supported by both parents--mother and father--depends on whether the father has a say in the decision to abort.

Regardless of whether a mother owes an ethical duty to consult the father--I think that depends on the circumstances--the father's legal and ethical obligation to the child are absolute.

This! Really, you can't have it both ways, if a man has to pay child support for the above reason, then yes, he should have a say. So the law either needs to be one way or the other. If men legally have no say on whether women have abortions or not, then they should legally never have to pay child support.

You're correct about this. However, in A that's the end of the discussion. In B, the conversation now starts with her asking me what I'm doing for the next twenty years of my life, with a fair portion of any future income, with my plans for where I want to live and what I want to do. And that's why there's pushback on this. The woman gets 39 weeks of parasitism, sure (and before anyone freaks out over my use of the term, google it; it's biologically accurate), but the decision is larger than that. It's about the rest of both of our lives. That's why I think I should get a say. Unless she finds a way to completely absolve me of any future responsibility, it's not about "bearing a child." It's about raising one and providing for it. And I don't have any kids, but everyone I know who does loves them, adores them, can't be away from them. So unless you're complete scum, just walking away seems to me to be an unlikely option.

So, yeah, I think I should get a say in the matter.

 

[RobDownSouth]

You're correct about this. However, in A that's the end of the discussion. In B, the conversation now starts with her asking me what I'm doing for the next twenty years of my life, with a fair portion of any future income, with my plans for where I want to live and what I want to do. And that's why there's pushback on this. The woman gets 39 weeks of parasitism, sure (and before anyone freaks out over my use of the term, google it; it's biologically accurate), but the decision is larger than that. It's about the rest of both of our lives. That's why I think I should get a say. Unless she finds a way to completely absolve me of any future responsibility, it's not about "bearing a child." It's about raising one and providing for it. And I don't have any kids, but everyone I know who does loves them, adores them, can't be away from them. So unless you're complete scum, just walking away seems to me to be an unlikely option.

So, yeah, I think I should get a say in the matter.

Well, now, this discussion is taking a lively turn.

I don't disagree with your premise necessarily, but I'm wondering if you're not co-mingling two separate topics: bearing a child and rearing a child.

In my mind, they are separate and distinct aspects.

Put another way, the converse of your position seems to be "I don't want to take financial responsibility for any fetus you desire to bring to term, ergo, I should have say in the ultimate disposition regarding 'to birth or not to birth'.

In my mind, that's simply not a viable position (pun intended). The man/sperm donor doesn't get any say one way or the other.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Well does he? Anybody can answer this question btw.Me personally since I am pro-choice,I think men just need to sit down, and shut the hell up. That's probably one of the reasons why I should vote for Obama.

Women have a say in whether a man will be drafted. I think you can agree that constitutes a violation of one's bodily autonomy, no?

*crickets*

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Yep. Men are disposable. The law is made to jail them and execute them. They live 5 years less anyway and there's little about health programs for them, try to find a doctor who'll do a finger job for the prostate- they jostle to do the smears. Try to find an andrology ward in a hospital. There isn't anywhere where men can meet now like in a service club yet there are lots for women, look in the phone book for services for women and look at those for men- they'd have to have women too. Look at the accidental death rated for men at work and compare them with those of women. Look at who goes into the services to fight for King and country, and at the police force. Look at the number of women who were politicians- it was the men who were hung drawn and quartered- one of my ancestors was. It goes on and on. And this notion that men have no right to any say in their own fertility and are bound by the choice of women is just another one. Disposable.

I am waiting for someone to show which statement you made which was factually incorrect.

Waiting...

Waiting...


Waiting...



Waiting...




Waiting...

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

So when it comes down to it, you declare me a delusional conspiracy theorist, huh?

Badbabysitter is an all-around male basher. Every argument she makes will always favor women's interests. You're running in circles with her.