There's one small aspect of abortion that is often forgotten: is the woman has the right to do away with a future child, for whatever reason, just because she doesn't want it, then surely the father should also have the right to do away with the future child if the mother decides to keep it. That is, no more paternity suits. Why should the father be forced to pay because of the decision of the mother to keep the baby?

michael^3 wrote:
Why should the father be forced to pay because of the decision of the mother to keep the baby

Because he is both morally and legally responsible for the child till it becomes an adult

surreptitious57 wrote:

michael^3 wrote:
Why should the father be forced to pay because of the decision of the mother to keep the baby

Because he is both morally and legally responsible for the child till it becomes an adult

Indeed.

surreptitious57 wrote:

michael^3 wrote:
Why should the father be forced to pay because of the decision of the mother to keep the baby

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.

michael^3 wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

michael^3 wrote:
Why should the father be forced to pay because of the decision of the mother to keep the baby

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.

Yeah, it does seem a bit unfair that women have full control over their reproductive destiny while a man only has half-control.

I'm not sure what can be done about it. It would be barbaric to force a woman to keep a child or abort it if the father has a difference of opinion.
A man can always flee though. So there is that.

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.

Gotta love black and white thinking or, as I like to call it, not thinking.

michael^3 wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

michael^3 wrote:
Why should the father be forced to pay because of the decision of the mother to keep the baby

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.

Agrippina wrote:

michael^3 wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

michael^3 wrote:
Why should the father be forced to pay because of the decision of the mother to keep the baby

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.

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

hackenslash wrote:Gotta love black and white thinking or, as I like to call it, not thinking.

I agree with you. Why is it that they don't get that telling women that they shouldn't have an abortion, if they want it, is not "murder" any more than a man deciding to have a vasectomy is murder. Why don't we start 20+ page threads about why having a vasectomy is murder and men should be prevented from killing all those babies they don't want.

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.

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.

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.

I'm sorry, but you can't have the cake and eat it. It's the woman only who decides whether she keeps the baby. The man cannot claim to have any say in this. Then I don't see why he should have to take responsibility for the choice of the woman.

Still a completely different issue, not actually related to abortion.

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.

However as biology doesn't tend to work that way we need to deal with reality here

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.)

I believe there should be a fixed period of time post-partum where either parent may opt out of parenthood with no strings attach. The child would go to the willing parent, or if none are willing, to the state. (for the father, this fixed period of time would extend from the moment his paternity is acknowledged or established).

And yes, this would be expensive to the state. All the more reason to offer free and easy birth control/abortions to avoid the problem.

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.

And the woman should have had her tubes tied. Is that really where you want to go?

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?

Exactly. A woman may become pregnant because of an innocent night of fun and then decide to do away with the consequences just because it does not fit with her holiday plans. A man may become father because of an innocent night of fun and then be forced to pay up for 21 years, meaning that for 21 years he will have to get up in the morning and go to work for a baby he never wanted. How's that for "bodily autonomy"?

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.

A non-aborted baby will at some point become a tax payer too. That is, there is no proof that a baby on child support will be a net financial loss to society.

In fact, many countries that have liberal views towards abortion are now struggling with dropping birthrates, and their governments are now begging their citizens to make more babies. Look at Denmark.

michael^3 wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

michael^3 wrote:
Why should the father be forced to pay because of the decision of the mother to keep the baby

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.

By killing 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.)

I assume you are talking about adoption/putting a kid into care which in both cases can expensive and certainly traumatic for everyone involved.

If a woman chooses to keep a baby we basically have the choice between the father paying for the kid or the state (which includes me). While it may not necessary always be fair on the father its a lot fairer than making me pay.

I'm sticking to money/taxes as opposed to morality as its the language that some conservatives seem to understand. I also think if a father is forced to pay for the child they may actually take more of an interest in bringing it up and not turning it into a future unemployed criminal (again better for me)