Should there be an option for men to financially abort?
As it stands only the woman has control over whether or not she reproduces. If she gets pregnant she unilaterally decides if it will go to term or not and if it will be kept or given for adoption. This decision will drastically affect men, and it is a decision that they have no say over.
Should men be able to say to their female mate that if she decides to keep the baby that he has the option of surrendering all paternal rights in exchange for no financial commitments?
If you say no, then how would you propose we balance the scales in reproductive rights between men and women when women can unilaterally decide what to do?
Men need reproductive rights
Side Score: 11
|
Men can do without
Side Score: 14
|
|
|
|
2
points
It would only be fair to give men the same option that women have. Either keep the baby or not. If you choose not to keep it. Then you should be able to walk away and have no responsibility to take care of it. If she chooses to have the baby even after you left then thats on her. Side: Men need reproductive rights
1
point
2
points
1
point
1
point
It is a really interesting question, though. When a woman conceives, the fetus or baby is half "hers" and half "his' genetically. But you are right. The ultimate decision whether to bring the baby to term is the woman's unilateral right. (I'm not sure if the mother can unilaterally decide whether to give the child up for adoption, though. I'm going to make an educated guess that if the biological father objects, she cannot unilaterally give the child up.) But anyway--someone else said it--if the mom agrees in a legal instrument, the father can give up all rights and not pay support. Otherwise, a dude gives up his right to a financial abortion when he chose not to get a vasectomy or wear 3 condoms at the same time. Side: Men need reproductive rights
So men have a choice to neuter themselves or wear several layers of rubber that can still fail in place of his rights? That Is. Nonsense. Giving men an option to financially abort assures them of having control over their reproduction. If women have unilateral control over their reproduction, shouldn't men have some control as well? Side: Men need reproductive rights
|
3
points
A man can propose what he likes if everyone's lawyers are present, and the other person will gladly hear the suggestion. However, mean have no right to tell a woman whether she must or can't carry a baby to term, because he does or doesn't want it. It's her body - her rules. Side: Men can do without
If a woman makes the decision then it is unfair that the man has no say yet has to pay child support. It takes two people to make a baby and so it should be the decision of both parties to keep a child and if the man says no but the woman goes ahead then she should take sole financial responsibility for the child. Side: Men need reproductive rights
1
point
1
point
Too dumb to wear a condom? Well then, they ought to pay the consequence. This is coming from an 18 year old male. If I engaged in intercourse with a woman, who later told me she was pregnant, I would strive to make sure I could support my child. I do not believe men should be allowed to financially abort, that is an awful suggestion. Parents should all have equal involvement with their child's life, unless the child was conceived via rape, then the rapist needs to just go to prison Side: Men can do without
2
points
Parents should all have equal involvement with their child's life I think what you want to say is, "Parents should both have equal involvement with their child's life." Please correct if I am wrong. I also think that you may want to add the second part to that sentence, "... Parents should both have equal involvement with their child's death through abortion." I do not want to put words in your mouth so please clarify. Side: Men can do without
Of course in cases like that but imagine two partners engage in consensual sex WITH protection but it doesnt work, imagine that if the baby is kept the man will be financially ruined but the woman is all "babys are cute!", would it be ok in that case? Side: Men need reproductive rights
Hang on--who said the guy will necessarily be financially ruined? A little extreme, maybe? Bottom line--any time a man and woman have intercourse there is always a risk of pregnancy. But on whom does the vast majority of risk fall on? That's right. The woman. Health risks, 9 months of pregnancy, her life and body disrupted. Not to mention the fact that a man can walk away from the pregnancy at any moment without an abortion or a birth leading to adoption. So requiring a man to pay is virtually the only consequence or risk of consequence a man faces. So it looks like a bit of cosmic justice. Side: Men need reproductive rights
If you are going to have sex with a woman with whom you have no intention of raising a child with, you should draw up a legal contract beforehand stating that you agree, as long as proper measures have been taken to ensure no pregnancy ensues, that the child will be the sole responsibility of the mother, and that you both accept the terms. Side: Men can do without
|