Hi everyone!  I need some rational input here!  


I was arguing for same sex marriage with my family today ... my aunt was with me 100% and my grandmother and other aunt were against me 100% ... then the topic of abortion and unwanted pregnancy came up and before I knew , I had 3 women attacking me and making judgements about me!  I'll explain my beliefs about this topic below.  


Basically , in summary , I stated the following:  If a man and a woman were having sex together and the man always wore a condom and the woman was correctly taking birth control ... and the woman got pregnant ... and decided to have the child instead of have an abortion ... I claimed that the man does not have any moral responsibility to help support this child.  The reasons are below.  


If the woman can't support the child by herself or with the help of her consenting family , then the more mature and rational decision is to have an abortion.  


I claimed that abortion is a huge stigma in society with young females being pressured into having children based off religious reasons ... fear of eternal damnation or fear of having the equivalent of being 'slut shamed' in a different way.  


We both did everything we possibly could to prevent to child from taking place.  Even though we may not have completely stated in a verbal or written contract that we both did not want to have children , the fact she was taking birth control implies to a sufficient degree that she does not want to have a child.  The condom can go either way ... I could just be protecting against possible STD's or infecting her if by chance the male is the one with an STD.  


The woman is the one choosing to have the child.  She should not expect anyone to help take care of it if it's HER choice , just as the man does not have the right to force her to give birth to an unwanted pregnancy if she happens to not want the child.  


So in summary , the man should not be held legally nor morally accountable for choosing to not support the child because of the reasons stated above.  


Also , it appears to me that the argument from the other side is attempting to say the woman has the freedom of choice to give birth or abort , but the man has no freedom of choice and MUST automatically be obligated , both legally and morally , to support the child.  If I am interpreting this correctly , I find this view to be absurd ... as if the woman can decide but the man cannot.   A man who wants the child but the woman not wanting the child seems to me the exact opposite of the same coin , but as mentioned above , the man cannot legally force the woman to bear the child.  Therefore , a man should not be forced to help support a child that he , if he could make it happen ... would want an abortion instead.  


EDITED TO ADD********* 


Correction:  I was just informed that a man does have the legal right to claim a child and have the woman give birth under certain situations ... But this doesn't stop my argument because I don't feel like the man should ever , under any circumstance , have the legal right to dictate whether or not the woman should give birth to the child if she decides she wants an abortion.


END EDIT*****************


Please discuss! Any question or clarification , please inquire!  


(And try not to judge me , this conclusion is not because I want to freely have sex without responsibilities , which to me is an absurd counter to my argument above.)  

Views: 246

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


Thanks , I appreciate honesty :)  


(except when it might prevent me from scoring)  LOL  

Your welcome.
And then what? 18 years down the road a child comes looking for her/his father and you do what? Reject them? "You aren't mine". What if they want you to be in their life? Still turn your back on them?
It's a known risk.  There are some things in life that just carry inherent risk.  You can't make everything in life perfectly just and safe.
But I don't consider this a risk at all. Because it is not a necessary outcome that the child is born. The woman has to choose this outcome herself. It isn't legally forced upon her.
Exactly the point: she has to choose, not you.  Your lack of control here is part of what makes it a risk.  If a child comes into existence this way, you still bear partial responsibility for that result.  You are part of the equation, and no matter how small tat part is, you still bear more responsibility than the child that is born.  Arguing about the mother's responsibilities or bad behaviour does not negate your own.  It doesn't work that way.  The baby probably won't give a fuck about your excuses in the end.

Well we can certainly agree the baby probably wouldn't give a fuck about 'excuses' in the end.  


And errr......... You kind of started to make sense until I came to the conclusion once more that:  It's her choice , it's her body , so it's her child.  


It seems like you are trying to let the female have her cake and eat it too.  

"It seems like you are trying to let the female have her cake and eat it too." 


Others would say you are taking the same position.

You kind of started to make sense until I came to the conclusion once more that:  It's her choice , it's her body , so it's her child.


My suspicion is that you simply refused to let go of your prior conclusion.  The entire premise of this thread and of the tangential case we are arguing now is that the birth of a child (of which you are the genetic father) is a potential outcome for ejaculating inside of a woman's vagina.


In this thread, you are acknowledging this as a potential outcome, no?  So, the next time you choose to have sex with a woman, you cannot pretend that a child was not a potential outcome of your choice.  No matter how many steps that are completely out of your control come between your choice and the end result, there was still at least that one voluntary action over which you had control.


If you are arguing that the mother should suffer for her own bad choices instead of you, then I agree.  What a an asshole she is!  But there are three people involved in this scenario, and you just aren't acknowledging one of them.  Just as the other is more at fault than you for the end result, so too are you more at fault than the child for the end result.  Your responsibility is to that child.  You had your say when you got off.  Hopefully, it was the best orgasm of your life (hypothetically speaking, of course).


It doesn't matter how unfair or inconvenient it all seems to you; it is more unfair and inconvenient to the child.  Sometimes you just have to man up in life and put the child first.

It doesn't matter how unfair or inconvenient it all seems to you - with this logic you may as well just let religion walk all over you too. To me, IT DOES MATTER! it is three human lives which will be changed.

I was raised to believe that both sexes are equal. But in this debate, they are NOT equal. Basically it boils down to "woman gets what woman wants".

The birth of a child is a POTENTIAL outcome, not the only outcome. I would argue that the use of contraception implies that responsibility for any children be removed from both parents. If one of the parents wants to keep the child and can convince the mother to bring it to term, then the one who didn't want the child should not be forced to pay for the child.

Feel free to propose a different system but if it removes all rights from men then it is not acceptable to me.

"woman gets what woman wants"


I was afraid to put it into those terms ... but yeah.  This is my point.  The birth of the child is not a necessary outcome.



Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service