Split from 'Is there a secular argument against abortion?'
Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
michael^3 wrote:
Why should the father be forced to pay because of the decision of the mother to keep the baby
michael^3 wrote:
I see no reason why. If the woman is has the freedom to avoid the financial burden of a future baby (by killing it), then the father should have a similar right to renounce it. This seems utterly obvious to me.
michael^3 wrote:
I see no reason why. If the woman is has the freedom to avoid the financial burden of a future baby (by killing it), then the father should have a similar right to renounce it. This seems utterly obvious to me.
Agrippina wrote:michael^3 wrote:
I see no reason why. If the woman is has the freedom to avoid the financial burden of a future baby (by killing it), then the father should have a similar right to renounce it. This seems utterly obvious to me.
Oh good lord do we have to go around with this one again.
1) She does not "kill a baby."
2) It is her body, the cells developing inside her body are not a person.
3) It is her body, she makes the decision about what to do with her body.
4) When the foetus has fully developed, it is born. It is then a person.
5) A foetus when born, becomes a child, with all the rights of a child.
6) These rights include the right to expect both parents to care for it.
7) At this stage of its development, the father has a responsibility.
8) At any stage prior to this, while the foetus is still not viable, and is being carried by the woman, it has nothing to do with the father.
Jesus Christ on a crutch, why does this have to be explained to every single nose-poking theist who comes along with his self-righteous bullshit about "babies" being "killed" by abortion. Get it right, a foetus is not a "baby" it only becomes one when it is able to live on its own.
scott1328 wrote:I agree that a father should be able to opt out of fatherhood, in exactly the same way a woman can opt out of motherhood.
hackenslash wrote:Gotta love black and white thinking or, as I like to call it, not thinking.
scott1328 wrote:Agrippina wrote:michael^3 wrote:surreptitious57 wrote:
Because he is both morally and legally responsible for the child till it becomes an adult
I see no reason why. If the woman is has the freedom to avoid the financial burden of a future baby (by killing it), then the father should have a similar right to renounce it. This seems utterly obvious to me.
Oh good lord do we have to go around with this one again.
1) She does not "kill a baby."
2) It is her body, the cells developing inside her body are not a person.
3) It is her body, she makes the decision about what to do with her body.
4) When the foetus has fully developed, it is born. It is then a person.
5) A foetus when born, becomes a child, with all the rights of a child.
6) These rights include the right to expect both parents to care for it.
7) At this stage of its development, the father has a responsibility.
8) At any stage prior to this, while the foetus is still not viable, and is being carried by the woman, it has nothing to do with the father.
Jesus Christ on a crutch, why does this have to be explained to every single nose-poking theist who comes along with his self-righteous bullshit about "babies" being "killed" by abortion. Get it right, a foetus is not a "baby" it only becomes one when it is able to live on its own.
Except that most jurisdictions allow a woman to give up her baby with no further obligation. This right should be afforded to a father. He should not be saddled with an unwanted child anymore than should a woman.
Agrippina wrote:
3) It is her body, she makes the decision about what to do with her body.
4) When the foetus has fully developed, it is born. It is then a person.
5) A foetus when born, becomes a child, with all the rights of a child.
6) These rights include the right to expect both parents to care for it.
7) At this stage of its development, the father has a responsibility.
Agrippina wrote:
I'm not getting into this fight again. Been there. I'm just going to say that if men don't want to be responsible for having sex when they don't want anymore kids, they should have a vasectomy, then they don't have to worry about the babies they don't want to support. And that's all I'm going to say about this derail.
mrjonno wrote:scott1328 wrote:I agree that a father should be able to opt out of fatherhood, in exactly the same way a woman can opt out of motherhood.
If the father walking away caused the woman to spontaneously abort and not dump the tax payer (rarely the woman as she won't be able to work) with paying the costs of the baby I might agree.
However as biology doesn't tend to work that way we need to deal with reality here
Aggripina wrote:I'm not getting into this fight again. Been there. I'm just going to say that if men don't want to be responsible for having sex when they don't want anymore kids, they should have a vasectomy, then they don't have to worry about the babies they don't want to support. And that's all I'm going to say about this derail.
Animavore wrote:Agrippina wrote:
I'm not getting into this fight again. Been there. I'm just going to say that if men don't want to be responsible for having sex when they don't want anymore kids, they should have a vasectomy, then they don't have to worry about the babies they don't want to support. And that's all I'm going to say about this derail.
This isn't the point he's making. If a woman accidently gets pregnant she can have an abortion. The man has no similar get out clause. What if the man doesn't want the baby and offers the woman money for an abortion and she refuses saying she will have it? Shouldn't he then have an option to say that he offered and she didn't take it and he no longer has responsibiliy?
mrjonno wrote:scott1328 wrote:I agree that a father should be able to opt out of fatherhood, in exactly the same way a woman can opt out of motherhood.
If the father walking away caused the woman to spontaneously abort and not dump the tax payer (rarely the woman as she won't be able to work) with paying the costs of the baby I might agree.
michael^3 wrote:
I see no reason why. If the woman is has the freedom to avoid the financial burden of a future baby (by killing it), then the father should have a similar right to renounce it.
I am talking about post-delivery. And in the US at least, there is a disparity against the father, if the mother decides to keep the baby, he is saddled with child support. If a woman decides to give up the baby to the state, she is not saddled with child support. (although she could be if the father decides to keep the baby.)
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest