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."
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.
I have absolutely no sympathy for women who are irresponsible with their eggs. They need to deal with the consequences of that.
See how rediculously sexist you sound when I swap the genders? I was expecting better than this from the TA gang.
"See how rediculously sexist you sound when I swap the genders?"
Its not sexist - women and men ARE NOT the same. women have a uterus - men do not.
Its not the same.
Well I always wanted to be a father, so I personally would support the child. But I can't speak for other men as I believe they should have a choice if they want to opt out, given the situation that both partners agree to take precautions against having a child prior to engaging in sexual activity.
I suppose then since no contraceptive is 100% acurate - the next question has to be asked.
What if? Then what?
and if she said that she would keep a baby if she accidentaly fell pregnant with you - and you wouldnt want her to - would you then not have sex with her at all?
Just in case.
Well you can reverse the question and say would she still have sex with me if I told her if she got accidentally pregnant, I want nothing to do with the baby? (Hypothetically speaking)
So I guess my answer would depend on the answer she gave me as well.
And if women never lied or changed their mind (a woman's prerogative, remember?) then you'd be safe.
Btw what was the point you were trying to make by asking me those two questions?
"I respectfully disagree with my entire being Angela. Fathers are just as important to the development of healthy children. NUMEROUS studies have shown this."
Good fathers are really important Belle. I have no doubt about that.
Thing is, there aren't many of them around and most kids, with a good mother, will still thrive without him.
Most kids would be better off without the fathers they're living with right now.
Good fathers are really important Belle. I have no doubt about that. Thing is, there aren't many of them around
Perhaps only in your mind. But in reality there are more than you think of.
So, not having the child in the first place turns out to be the best approach, given that the single-mom home increases so many risks.
I always hear the "It's POSSIBLE to bring other positive role models into the home" and "It's POSSIBLE to raise children on one's own and have them turn out well."
Well, POSSIBLE and two bucks will get you a small latte. One shouldn't bet a child's welfare on what might be POSSIBLE when there are alternatives.
If a woman finds herself pregnant and facing single parenthood, it would seem that the responsible thing to do would be to terminate the pregnancy and try again once she's found a satisfactory partner.
No. If I spill some paint on a canvas, I may have made a painting but I have not created one. Creation isn't a chance event. It's intentional.
I take it this is the core of your argument:
Regardless of her actions concerning her body, he is responsible for the existence of that child and is automatically (according to our laws) held liable for that child's well being.
"Responsible" is a word with several meanings. I breathe, and in some absurd sense am "responsible" for putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Let's say I even intend to breathe, though, once again, in a rather absurd sense of intention.
I walk to the store and I'm aware that I might step on a few bugs along the way. How responsible am I for that? for killing some bacteria as well?
I recognize that the legislators have complicated things by injecting themselves into the pregnancy and birth situation, but in a philosophical sense is one responsible in a moral or ethical way for unintended consequences? No. Even the law recognizes this in other situations. For example, if I find myself on the highway behind a truck and it kicks up a stone the cracks my windshield, the law tells me that that is a risk I took by driving. The driver or owner of the truck bears no responsibility because kicking up that particular stone at that time was unforeseeable even if kicking up stones from time to time is inevitable. Unless there were some bizarre way the driver could kick up stones intentionally,