main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Male reproductive rights

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Espaldapalabras, May 19, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    I'm sorry, but you don't know jack squat about my position on the subject of abortion, so don't even think about trying to put words into my mouth.

    For the record, my position on abortion isn't "pro-life" or "pro-choice". It's based completely on the attempt to balance the rights of everyone involved, while recognizing the very real ambiguities of the issue.

    Immediately before conception, the fetus/child has no rights whatsoever, because it doesn't exist. Immediately after birth, it has full human rights in every way. Those are the only two points at which we can say anything definitive. Because a "step function" is not normally found in nature (there is always a transition between states, and not an instantaneous jump), it is only logical to assume that the rights of the fetus/child slowly change state as well. (I.e., a moment before birth, the fetus/child should have rights that are close to what they would be a moment after birth.) From there, it becomes a matter of balancing the rights of the mother against the rights of the fetus/child.

    I also believe that it is possible to weaken your own rights through your actions and choices. For example, I can weaken my right to Free Speech by signing a non-disclosure agreement. Similarly, I believe that the the free choice to participate in sexual activity (with or without contraception) can logically weaken a woman's right to control her own body by accepting the risk involved. Similarly, I believe that the same choice on the part of the man weakens his right to control his own finances.

    However, note that I said "weakens" and not "eliminates" or "supersedes". Such choices change the point at which the different rights are balanced, but do not cause any one side to wipe out another's rights.

    Kimball Kinnison
     
  2. Darth_Smileyface

    Darth_Smileyface Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Apr 22, 2004
    I started a thread like this a couple of years ago, but unfortunately it degenerated into a pro-life vs- pro-choice debate. This is a subject that is very close to my heart as I was successful in talking an ex out getting an abortion. She carried the baby to term and gave her to me to raise. For the record, had she chosen to abort the baby I would have respected her wishes. Not only because I would've had no other recourse, but also because I don't believe we should force anyone to have a child against their will. She was comfortable bringing the pregnancy to term and handing the child over. Many other women wouldn't be comfortable with that, I can respect and understand that.

    That being said, there is an obvious inequity in the system as it is. Contrary to the popular sentiment, this inequity is not necessary. Men can be forced to have children against their will. For some reason, there seems to be the idea that a man "step up" or "be a man" when faced with this situation, yet a woman who chooses to abort is not seen as being irresponsible. I don't think anyone should be forced to carry the burden of an unwanted child.

    There have been several different arguments here used to address the OP's original suggestion, though they all fail to address it satisfactorily. Some have posited that men have complete control over this situation with contraception. Even if that were true (my daughter was conceived with a condom as was I) that same recourse exists for women, yet they are not denied further options. Others have mentioned that a woman has to bear the physical and psychological burden of pregancy where men do not. This is obviously true, but entirely irrevelant. How is this burden relevant to a man's financial rights? No one argues that a man should be able to terminate a preganacy, only his responsibility to it. Still others have mentioned that the father bears a financial responsibility to the fetus because the child's rights are more important than the parents. Again, this argument is fallacious in that a fetus is not a child. Were the father to sever contact with the mother in say the first trimester, then no child exists to protect. The mother would have plenty of time to consider whether she wanted to continue with the pregnancy alone or to terminate it.

    I think that just about everyone can see that there is inequity in the system as it currently exists. Many people seem to be saying, "yes, it's unfair but that's how it is." It doesn't have to be that way. A father should have the right to terminate his financial responsibility early enough in a pregnancy so as to allow the mother sufficient time for consideration.
     
  3. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    Others have mentioned that a woman has to bear the physical and psychological burden of pregancy where men do not. This is obviously true, but entirely irrevelant. (boldface mine)

    I have to respectfully disagree with you here. When making an "equal protection" argument as the father in the OP's article was doing, my point not only is entirely relevant, but controlling. From a "justice" or "fairness" standpoint, one can try and compare the two, but IMHO, that argument fails as well because you cannot compare the absolute risk of pregnancy in terms of consequences to the woman's body to the man's financial burden. You can argue relative risk, but I refuse to concede the point that this constitutes a level playing field.

    By definition, it does not. Giving up one's financial burden early in pregnancy is an intriguing option, however-I'd like to hear more about it.

    Peace,

    V-03
     
  4. wannasee

    wannasee Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 24, 2007
    1) A man has to be responsible for his baby. It's HIS baby, for crying out loud.

    2_If a guy really doesn't want to be responsible for a baby, then there would need to be a legal contract in place between himself and the mother. And it would have to be done pre-pregnancy.
     
  5. Darth_Smileyface

    Darth_Smileyface Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Apr 22, 2004
    "1) A man has to be responsible for his baby. It's HIS baby, for crying out loud."

    Why? If a woman doesn't have to be responsible, (and let's be clear, by responsible I mean responsible to raise it) why then should a man? On the face of it that seems to be a very sexist statement. Would you care to elaborate?

    Vaderize,

    With respect to a pregnancy I concede that your point would be controlling. I respect that it is a woman's body and the woman necessarily must determine the course of the pregnancy. That however, is not the point we are discussing. We are discussing whether or not the father of the fetus should be able to terminate his responsibility to it. The physical and emotional stresses that the mother has to endure have absolutely nothing to do with this responsibility. You haven't addressed the core issue. If a man does not want a child, why are we allowed to force him to have one? That the mother endures hardship does not seem relevant to that point. Please help me understand if I am mistaken.
     
  6. wannasee

    wannasee Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 24, 2007
    If you are responsible for a baby's existence, then you should take care of the baby. This is so simple.

    What am I missing?
     
  7. Darth_Smileyface

    Darth_Smileyface Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Apr 22, 2004
    But it's not so simple. Women are allowed to abort a pregnancy and thus absolve themselves of any responsibility. Men are not. Obviously, men should not be allowed to abort a pregnancy, I wouldn't argue for that. However, I think that since women have an "out", so should men.
     
  8. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    You're suggesting that putting a child up for adoption shouldn't be allowed as well?
     
  9. wannasee

    wannasee Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 24, 2007
    Of course I am not suggesting that, and I find it hard to believe that you thought I was.
     
  10. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Actually, I should ammend what I said to suggesting that putting up a child for adoption should't be considered acceptable. (in retrospect, the legality hadn't been brought up)

    If your argument is that if you are responsible for a baby's existence, then you should take care of that baby, then adoption runs counter to that because you turn the baby over to someone else to raise, rather than taking care of it yourself.
     
  11. wannasee

    wannasee Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 24, 2007
    *trivial objection noted*
     
  12. Epicauthor

    Epicauthor Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 2, 2002
    I don't think the objection was so trivial.

    By your statement you seem to be in favor of parents bringing a child to term and raising in. Then you say adoption is ok. Do you just have an issue with abortion? If so, there is another thread for that.

    THe issue here is what are the rights for the father if a woman can abort a baby she doesn't want. I, too, am intrigued, about something which allows fathers to "opt out" early in a pregnancy. I have never thought it was fair to make a man raise a child he didn't want because the mother decides she wants to have it. Because the reverse isn't true (making a woman carry a baby to term that she doesn't want simply because the father wants it), there needs to be something which evens the playing field.
     
  13. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Really, I think adoption might be the more relevant parallel than abortion when it comes to if fathers should be able to be released of their responsibility.
     
  14. wannasee

    wannasee Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 24, 2007
    Well yes, if you look at my statement out of context and as an absolute, then it does seem to say that I am against adoption.

    However, in the context of this discussion, it should have been understood that the baby would not be given up for adoption, since obviously the biological father is not responsible for the baby in those cases...

    Life isn't fair. I did suggest the pre-coital contract...
     
  15. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Not sure I see how "life isn't fair" is a justification for criticisms with how the legal system works.
     
  16. Darth_Smileyface

    Darth_Smileyface Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Apr 22, 2004
    "Life isn't fair. I did suggest the pre-coital contract... "

    We do not require women to have a pre-coital contract in place in order to abort. I understand that it isn't fair, that's what this thread is about. Why do you endorse such an inequity?
     
  17. wannasee

    wannasee Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 24, 2007
    I am not endorsing anything. I just don't see how a man can opt out of taking care of his offspring.

    Once the deed is done, it is out of a man's hands.

    There are million double-standards between men and women in life. This is one where we men are on the (slightly) shorter end of it.

    If you have an idea on how to "make it fair", I'm listening.
     
  18. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Allow a system for the father to request the termination of his parental rights, in much the same way that parental rights are terminated when a child is put up for adoption.
     
  19. Darth_Smileyface

    Darth_Smileyface Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Your posts imply a "life's unfair, oh well..." attitude. That is a tacit endorsement. If you've been keeping up with this thread than you know that I am a proponent of a system which allows a man to sever his rights and responsibilities to a fetus early in the pregnancy. This would be some type of binding legal action. This is not at all unrealistic, though I'm sure it would probably do more harm than good in the long run...
     
  20. _Behemoth_

    _Behemoth_ Jedi Youngling

    Registered:
    May 22, 2010
    I think an unwilling father can choose to be a part of his child's life or not, at the end of the day it is the right of the child which is paramount not the rights of the parent. A child has the right to know his mother and father, not the other way round. For example, if willing but negligent parents are unable to look after their child then that child will be removed - the parents have no rights in this regard. In my opinion an unwilling father should be able to remove himself from parental responsibility if he wants, but it is plainly against the public interest to allow an unwilling father the 'right' to sever all financial responsibility for his child or children. You can opt out of parenthood if you want but you should not be able to opt out of financially supporting the life you have created. If you don't support your child financially, then who will? The general public? The government?
     
  21. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    The person that is raising the child, maybe? We don't expect people who put a kid up for adoption to pay child support, either.

    I would say, though, that there should definitely be a time limit for it. It shouldn't just be "got bored of having a kid".
     
  22. _Behemoth_

    _Behemoth_ Jedi Youngling

    Registered:
    May 22, 2010
    Maybe that is going to be extremely difficult for the person raising the child? Child care is expensive and if you are caring for a child on a full time basis that limits your earning options. Raising a child can also be expensive, particularly if the child has special medical needs. So if the father is not providing any financial support then how do you raise a child without financial input from other sources?

    Children need to be looked after and cherished. It's not good enough that they live in poverty because their deadbeat father decides he should have a 'right' to opt out of providing financial support for his child. As a society we have to ensure that our children are being looked after. We take children out of the care of parents who are unable to care for their children. Why should we allow parents to opt out of financially supportingn them? Ultimately it is the child who suffers.

    The reason why we don't expect the biological parents to pay child support for a child that is put up for adoption is because the adoptive parents willingly take on that financial responsibility. The responsibility is shifted to another person, so the child is still cared for. Not so if we allow parents to completely op out.
     
  23. Blue_Jedi33

    Blue_Jedi33 Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 12, 2003
    This opinion is strange, I am going to warn you right now. And I am totally against abortion, what I am about to state goes against what I feel is right and wrong I am just throwing an idea out there.

    If a man has sex(just to get some) with an ugly woman with poor genetics perhaps not so healthy and she becomes pregnant, he may not want that baby to be born for any number of reasons.
    1)He has no intentions of being with the mother.
    2)The child produced does not have the best of genetics.
    3)He is concerned that the mothers health issues may transfer to the baby.

    Now reverse that, the woman is very healthy with fantastic genetics, which translates into a natural beauty, she gets pregnant now and the man does want this baby born.
    Reasons why.
    1)The man wants to marry the woman.
    2)The man has fulfilled his biological genetic destiny by mating with and producing offspring with a superior female.
    3)She is perfect for child bearing, very healthy.

    Let the flames begin, lol
     
  24. anakin_girl

    anakin_girl Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 8, 2000
    I don't really think the father ought to be able to "opt out" of paying child support if he does not want a baby and the mother decides she wants to have the baby and raise it. That would make it all too easy for the deadbeats who just want to get laid and "don't like" wearing condoms.

    But at the same time I feel bad for the guys who might want the baby but the mother chooses to abort without his consent or even his knowledge.

    I don't know what the answer is. A pre-coital contract? That would be impossible. Hormonal birth control for men? There's a thought. Even if there is some sort of contract in which the woman agrees to have the baby if the man agrees to raise it, I don't know when such a contract would be signed and it would have to be a mutual agreement.

    The bottom line does come down to biology. I don't see any scenario in which a man could force a woman to have a baby or force her to have an abortion. There needs to be a way, outside of those two options, for the father to have some say in what happens to his child or whether he has a child.
     
  25. ShrunkenJedi

    ShrunkenJedi Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 26, 2003
    I'm fairly sure there was some thread a while ago which discussed the possibility of contracts which spelled out the terms of what would happen should a couple conceive a child. I'm also fairly sure the resulting answer was, 'it wouldn't be binding, because child support is a right the child him/herself is entitled to, and you can't waive somebody else's rights.' I can't remember whether this was supported by any actual cases, though.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.