Masculine Abortion?

[RameNoodle]

Probably the most unjust and punitive aspect of child support law is the tax code. When using the "earned income tax credit", which is nothing more than an additional government stipend offered to the "working poor" in the guise of a tax refund, a custodial parent can work part time, pay no federal income tax throughout the year, but yet receive a "tax refund" of a thousand dollars or more. On the other hand, an unmarried, noncustodial father, who is required to forfeit up to 25% of his income for child support purposes, receives NO dependant tax deduction.

Uh-oh, here comes the barrage of a tax debate...

And this isn't in the excerpt, but from the source itself.

For the State to require an individual, not bound by contract, to be financially responsible for a "private" matter of a second party, the very essence of freedom, liberty, and justice, that America stands for, is violated.

Isn't this the same argument used to justify Roe v. Wade? Oh, the bias towards woman in the legal system...

 

[jalapeno_dude]

If the woman was on the pill and using condoms, she clearly didn't want to get pregnant. If that's true, then it would have made sense for her to get an abortion.

While the man may be justified morally (in the sense that there seems to have been agreement, implicit or explicit, that neither wanted children), I don't think he's justified legally.

 

[Mr. Do]

The woman has to either go through an abortion or nine months of pregnancy, she's giving her body up either way. I think it's a small price to pay as a man in that we will never have to go through putting our bodies on the line in this manner.

 

[Methos]

If the woman was on the pill and using condoms, she clearly didn't want to get pregnant. If that's true, then it would have made sense for her to get an abortion.

They [Matt and Lauren] were not using condoms, but were using the pill. From my understanding neither of them wanted an abortion. I believe I read he wanted her to give the child up for adoption and/or not be responsible for her in any way.

While the man may be justified morally (in the sense that there seems to have been agreement, implicit or explicit, that neither wanted children), I don't think he's justified legally.

I'm curios why he wouldn't be justified legally in your opinion. She stated [from his statements] that she was physically unable to get pregnant. He stated he had no desire to be a father. Wouldn't this be considered a vocal agreement? IMO he is justified legally.

@jalapeno_dude: I hope I am correct in that your statement was related to the original article from the OT. I apologize if I was wrong.

 

[Methos]

And this isn't in the excerpt, but from the source itself.

I think I'm getting an excerpt confused, as I meant it as I quoted only part of the article. I took my quote from the source as well. I thought that was an excerpt.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

They [Matt and Lauren] were not using condoms, but were using the pill. From my understanding neither of them wanted an abortion. I believe I read he wanted her to give the child up for adoption and/or not be responsible for her in any way.

I must have skimmed too quickly. IMO this is inconsistent. Why would you use the pill, but not want an abortion? But that's just my opinion...

I'm curios why he wouldn't be justified legally in your opinion. She stated [from his statements] that she was physically unable to get pregnant. He stated he had no desire to be a father. Wouldn't this be considered a vocal agreement? IMO he is justified legally.

The bolded part is why. There isn't a standard of proof.

@jalapeno_dude: I hope I am correct in that your statement was related to the original article from the OT. I apologize if I was wrong.

Yes, that's right.

 

[Methos]

The bolded part is why. There isn't a standard of proof.

You are correct, its nothing but a he said/she said. If in fact she did state that, then IMO he should not be held accountable. But as you said, he has to prove it.

The question still arises, what rights does the male have? We, as the male, have no freedom of choice in the rights of the child. Abstinence is not a strong argument, as 1) the female also chose to have sex, and 2) in this day and age, argueing abstinence isn't worth the time.

 

[RameNoodle]

I think I'm getting an excerpt confused, as I meant it as I quoted only part of the article. I took my quote from the source as well. I thought that was an excerpt.

Oh no, you had it right. I was just saying that I took another part of the article that you hadn't put into your quote. You've got it right.

 

[Atlas14]

Uh, I agree with Methos. He was essentially lied to, and she expects him to hand over money? All she's doing is stealing his money. She obviously had some inclination that she had possibility of becoming pregnant, and chose to still have sex, while he was informed she had NO chance, and thus had sex on that condition. Morally, he should still support the baby cause its the right thing to do, but legally he should not be forced to giver her support because of fraud.

 

[mdwh]

How many of the people saying "He shouldn't have had sex if he didn't want a baby" are also against abortion? That's one of the things such people often say to women. If you're in favour of abortion, why is it that both parents have to contribute, but only one has the choice whether or not to have the baby?

Would you favour the alternative solution to making things fair - namely saying that a woman can't have an abortion if the father wants to have the baby? (Personally I don't think that's as good a solution - but it would fit in with the views of those arguing from an anti-abortion/sex "if you have sex you deserve to live with the consequences" point of view.)

 

[pboily]

There are very few ways to do so cheaply, without medical surgery. Plus I do not believe this was his wife.

There is one very cheap way... you don't have sex, you won't have kids.

 

[Methos]

There is one very cheap way... you don't have sex, you won't have kids.

Though this is true, it doesn't fit with the realities of the US. I have very little experience with Canada so I can't even make a valid opinion about your country, but here in America sex has become something to do for fun. The above arguement has no merit in US society or culture.

Also remember that she also chose to have sex.

 

[Methos]

How many of the people saying "He shouldn't have had sex if he didn't want a baby" are also against abortion? That's one of the things such people often say to women. If you're in favour of abortion, why is it that both parents have to contribute, but only one has the choice whether or not to have the baby?

Would you favour the alternative solution to making things fair - namely saying that a woman can't have an abortion if the father wants to have the baby? (Personally I don't think that's as good a solution - but it would fit in with the views of those arguing from an anti-abortion/sex "if you have sex you deserve to live with the consequences" point of view.)

I believe many people are going to the extreme and keep stating abortion. From the statements of this Matt fellow, he himself never stated anything about an abortion. He wished her to give the child up for adoption.

I myself am against abortion due to personal experience, but that doesn't mean I don't understand people's reasoning for it. It's your decision whether I like it or not, so do as you wish. What I would like is for the male to have more rights to the decision making. After all, as one of those articles I read stated, this is a country of equal opportunity. Currently there is no equal rights in the woman's rights over the unborn.

 

[pboily]

Though this is true, it doesn't fit with the realities of the US. I have very little experience with Canada so I can't even make a valid opinion about your country, but here in America sex has become something to do for fun. The above arguement has no merit in US society or culture.

Also remember that she also chose to have sex.

She also chose to keep the baby, no?

As for sexual attitudes in the Western World, I'm fairly certain they are the same in every nation, meaning that some have sex for fun, some do it for procreation, some think about it all the time, some prefer to masturbate, etc...

But if you play with matches (even just for fun) there is a chance you will get burned. If you set yourself on fire, maybe firefighters will set the fire out, but maybe you go out in flames.

Sure, she lied (assuming the transcript is true). But even with infertility and protection, there is always (always) a chance of pregnancy. But it's pretty small and most of us look at the odds and figure if it happens to us, we'll deal with it. Worst case scenario, you pay child support. And that's why we have unprotected sex sometimes.

But as far as dealing with the consequences of your actions, this is the ultimate one. If your girlfriend/lover/wife/one night stand is going to have your kid (not saying she should abort or not), you raise it or pay child support, even if you got suckered into it. Dude should man up about it.

 

[pboily]

Double post.

 

[bgast1]

Huge can of worms here. What about the rights of the child? Either way, life is about making choices, and taking risks. It doesn't play fair, if you a part in making a child, you have a responsibility to see to it that the child is supported.

 

[Elrohir]

Let's go over the "rights" men and women have in such situations:

Men have the right to not have sex.
Men have the right to demand birth control.

Women have the right to not have sex.
Women have the right to demand birth control.
Women have the right to decide whether to have an abortion or not, if they get pregnent.
Women have the right to decide whether to put the child up for adoption, or not if they keep the child.
Women have the right to demand child support from the father even if he doesn't want to pay it.

There's something wrong here. The women's list of "rights" is much longer than the mens. The reason this is wrong is because, quite simply, rights and responsibilities go hand in hand: Men who get women pregnent have all the responsibilities, but none of the rights. That's wrong.

Now, I agree, you shouldn't be having sex if you aren't read for kids. But at the same time, is it fair to give men the responsibility for their actions, but none of the rights that should come with them? I hardly think so - you can't have one without the other. So, I think men should either be absolved of all responsibility in this matter - or (And I can hear the cries of "Sexist pig!" from here) should be given equal rights with the mother. And yes, that includes being able to stop the mother from having an abortion, as long as they're willing to take responsibility for the child after birth.

And before anyone starts yelling about how unfair that is it women, I have one thing for you to mull over: "Dont do the crime if you cant do the time...." That's what someone said earlier in the thread, only in relation to men. If you don't think it's fair for women to get screwed over by the consequences of their actions, why should it be fair if you do the exact same thing to men? If we're going to be screwing things up, let's do it fairly, eh?

 

[amadeus]

How can consentious making love be a crime ??

It's a figure of speech, like "if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

In this case, if you can't pay the child support, stay out of her vaginal cavity.

 

[malclave]

Dont do the crime if you cant do the time....

How can consentious making love be a crime ??

Besides being part of the lyrics to the theme song for Baretta, the phrase MobBoss used is just an idiom meaning, basically, "take responsibility for your actions". A similar saying is "you break it, you bought it."

As far as the child support goes, while I understand the argument that is made, I still think the guy needs to support the child.

 

[emzie]

It's a figure of speech, like "if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

In this case, if you can't pay the child support, stay out of her vaginal cavity.

I woke up my girlfriend laughing. Thanks.