Do Men have the right to a "financial abortion"

I was reading this blog article in HuffyPost from about 2 years ago. The author brings up a point where she says:

"While pro-choice legislation makes the rights of the mother clear, at what point is a father able to say,'I do not want this child'? Whether pro-life or pro-choice, we should all be able to agree that the quality of life is just as important as life itself, and when faced with the pivotal decision of whether or not to continue a pregnancy, both parents must be included in the dialogue. If not, ultimately, it is the child who suffers."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kirsten-west-savali/fathers-financial...

She goes on and provides data of situations of children growing in fatherless homes

• 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes 
• 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes 
• 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes 
• 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes
• 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes 
• 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes
• 70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes.
• 85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes.


So undoubtedly the right for a woman to choose is obviously non negotiable. If a woman decides based on her situation that she does not want a child because of her reasoning, she has the right to abort her pregnancy without the approval of anyone other than herself. But the does the same rules apply for no one being able to endure a man to be financially responsible for a child that he did not want? 

Another question to look at is if a man and woman have sex, they both know the consequences of a possible pregnancy. To which a woman can abort out of. But if a man and woman have sex, does the man have the right to have the woman to carry his child to term even the woman does not want to? (Talking about consensual sex, not rape or any of that stuff). Keep in mind that she knows the consequence of a possible pregnancy as well.


Keep in mind this is about a specific situation such as consensual sex not rape. Obviously matters of rape would nullify the discussion which I am aware of. 

Tags: abortion, men

Views: 1987

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

@Belle  That made me laugh, although with a great deal of affection :)

So far in this discussion no one has written of the community in which these people live.

According to a book I was browsing a few months ago about medieval (post-feudal) England, an unmarried woman who became pregnant was ordered to leave the community and fend for herself. I don't recall the title or author.

When did communities first accept financial responsibility for newborns who had no male providers?

I don't know about other people but I am talking about modern western society.

When did communities first accept financial responsibility for newborns who had no male providers?

This is an interesting question, to which I have no answer.

No, men do not have the right. A right is a legal contract that exists within law. It's a simple yes/no answer. What you mean to ask is 'Should men have the right to a "financial abortion"'.

I think most people are going with the "should" question...to make the discussion more interesting.

Is the object of empowering woman to bring fairness between the sexes or in giving woman the upper hand over men?

Rocky, neither of the above. The object of child support laws is to protect taxpayers who don't want to pay for children irresponsibly conceived by others.

You only really "helped to create" a baby is making a baby was your goal in having sex. This is something married couples do, but not people engaged in a one-nighter or even in a going steady or FWB relationship. 

One might argue that complete responsibility applies to the one or two who DECIDE that bringing the baby to term is what they want to do.

Suppose a couple enter a contest together with an array of prizes, and they don't win the luxury trip to Ibiza but instead win a puppy. They have the option of declining the prize, but the woman decides to accept it.

Should the man then be responsible for the puppy's veterinary bills, its kibble, etc., like it or not?

BR, please explain why it's a weak argument. Being an inexact parallel doesn't in itself make it weak. I think it cuts to the heart of the issue and eliminate a lot of emotional baggage.

I agree with Unseen, here. It's inexact, sure, but show me an analogy that isn't! Unseen, good work trying to remove some of the emotional baggage around this issue.

Bella you did not answer my question. If the object of empowering woman is to bring about fairness between the sexes then do you consider it fair that not only does the male have no choice over whether the female keeps the child or not but that he has no choice but to pay for it even if he did not want a child and took realistic precautions against it?

empowering women is always for the betterment of society

Belle, I respect your opinion and your display of self control, but I cannot allow this statement to go by without some proof. Is further empowering women ALWAYS for the betterment of society? This might be a good discussion topic rather than cluttering up this topic.

RSS

  

Blog Posts

People

Posted by ɐuɐz ǝllǝıuɐp on July 28, 2014 at 10:27pm 0 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service