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: 206

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree. I think the choice should certainly be the woman's but at the same time, if the man does not want the child and was taking reasonable precautions against having a child then he should not be held accountable if the woman suddenly decides to have the child.

 

We could think of this a grid of options with 4 squares (I wont bother actually drawing it...):

 

Both man and woman want the child -> have the child

 

Woman wants the child but the man doesn't -> woman may have the child but should not expect the man to be involved or pay

 

Man wants the child but the woman doesn't -> well hes kind of stuffed really....most cases will probably end in abortion I would guess

 

Both man and woman do not want the child -> abort the child.

 

The current moral dilemmas in society (and Dustin's post) is that when the two people are in disagreement about this, it is ultimately up to the woman. She can FORCE the man to pay (in child support) for the child but the man CANNOT FORCE the woman to have the child and pay child support to him.

 

I understand the reason for the second part... it is 9 months of the woman's life in which she would experience unimaginable (to me) strangeness in her own body. Therefore to make the equation fair, the woman should not be able to force a man to support a child he does not want if reasonable protective measures against pregnancy were used. (i.e. "reasonable protective measures" imply that neither party wants to make a child from the sexy fun times)

 

I look forward to hearing from anyone opposing my position... to me it is unconscionable to force anyone to do anything.

Here is another view.

You have sex while you and the women are able to have a child, the consequence can be there will be a child. The fact you do or don't want it means nothing there is a child.

You have the ability to not have sex with someone capable of having a child, or freeze your sperm, get cut and then you can choose when and with whom you would want a child.

agree

Incorrect.  There will be a conception.  (however you wish to define that)  ... but the child is not a necessary outcome.  

 

But this get's into an entirely different debate about what it means to 'be a child' or 'conception'.  The Catholic church thinks each of my sperm is a potential living child ... and I am somewhat on the opposite side of this spectrum.  

Where do you propose I keep my frozen sperm? I wouldn't want to keep it in my kitchen freezer....might not be cold enough all the time. Maybe there are sperm banks that will freeze and store my sperm for me? How much does that cost? is it cheaper than just using contraception? unlikely I think.
LOL so your a cheap screw

Not cheap, and not necessarily only me I am thinking of. Some people might not be able to afford to house their future children in an industrial freezer. Some people might disagree with the process, for whatever reason.

 

I also noticed you did not answer my question....a quick search on google suggests $400 for a consultation and initial freezing with an additional $50 for disease screening. I have also seen prices for storage ranging from $500 per year to $1050 per 5 years... This doesn't even take into account the cost of the vasectomy which is between $500 and $1000. That's alot of money for some people to come up with just because they are not ready for children(potentially due to financial reasons).

 

You would argue that two existing lives should be thrown into chaos and financial depression just to bring a third life into the world? keep in mind that one of the two lives being altered does not have ANY say in the matter after the fact.

If you manage to knock a woman up while she's on birth control and you're also using condoms, you need to have the child. It will be the first real life superhero.

:)

 

Theres a Chuck Norris joke here somewhere too imo
I claimed that the man does not have any moral responsibility to help support this child.

He absolutely does. If you are having sex with someone, birth control or not, immaculate conception or not, and the woman get's pregnant, half of that child is yours and you absolutely have a responsibility to help support the child if the woman decides to keep it. I'm not sure how you would argue otherwise. It does not matter if you didn't "want" the child or not. Pregnancy is a by-product of intercourse, and unless one party has a vasectomy or hysterectomy, then that is a risk you know you are taking and the responsibility to deal with the risk is both person's to own. If as a man, you are not willing to be responsible then, in my opinion, you are not mature enough to be having sex.

You make it sound like giving birth to the child is a default position that should be expected.  Also , vasectomy and hysterectomy are not full proof either.  The surgery could have been done incorrectly.  

 

I argued otherwise above.  You might not like my argument or accept it , but argue it I did!  If we both did what we could to prevent it from taking place and the woman decides to give birth but I don't want the child , it seems perfectly clear to me at least it isn't my moral obligation to help finance it.  It should be hers.  

 

Because , as I stated above , the man has no power to force her to get an abortion.  If it is 'half mine' and 'half hers' , why is she the one that is allowed to give birth to the child but I cannot make a decision either way?  That doesn't sound like a 50% , 50%.  

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Forum

Things you hate.

Started by Devlin Cuite in Small Talk. Last reply by James Cox 1 minute ago. 81 Replies

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service