Joined: Dec 03, 2011 Age: 29 Posts: 35 Location: Japan
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:52 pm Post subject: Male financial abortion - "Legal Paternal Surrender&quo
Found a great set of videos, always nice to see a woman (a single mother no less) who understands the male viewpoint. Despite the title, this is not about pro-choice/pro-life stuff, so if possible lets keep off that topic. This is about male reproductive rights.
Long set of videos, so here's a quick summary.
LPS is theoretical legal right for men to financially abort their children. No legal obligations to raise or otherwise support their children.
First video - The wealth of (invisible) contraceptive options for women, means ultimate responsibility for and bearing the consequences of pregnancy lies entirely with women, not men.
Second video - A video that touches on the way the notion of "rights" and "best interests" of the child are abused by the legal system. Also contains a nice summary of the unfairness inherent in the system for men.
Third video - Deconstructs the idea that LPS would create an "epidemic of single mothers"
Fourth - more of the same... yes having a child is hard, but it is still a choice, motherhood is not forced upon women. _________________ One cannot be wise without understanding reality. If you do not understand human nature, everything in your philosophy is flawed.
Joined: Sep 22, 2008 Age: 76 Posts: 29306 Location: New Jersey
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:17 am Post subject:
Jono wrote:
I'm surprised that no-one has responded to this yet. Yes, I think that LPS should be allowed in some circumstances.
That is a rough question. Both pro and con are fraught with injustices.
The pro side boils down to this: the man knocks up the women and says get an abortion, I don't want the child and I won't support it. The women is between a rock and a hard place. If she gives in then she may be doing an act she find abhorent. So she is faced with the choice of doing what she thinks is wrong or bearing the entire burden of the child herself.
Oy! Even old king Solomon would have had a hard time with this.
I think it depends on the situation wherein the conception has taken place. If it's case of rape I do think the victim should be financially compensated by the rapist (alimony). If it's the case of single-sided consent from the women then I think it's her own burden per definition.
The thing is, the issue lies with confirming under which circumstances the conception has taken place, since mostly this is a matter done in private, thus without bystanders around to confirm/deny the situation.
Reasons I've seen for women to get intentionally pregnant are:
-To get out of the family home (sometimes a cultural/religious origin).
-To make sure to bind the man to them and not to another women.
-To get financial stability which they where struggling with previously (alimony).
Reasons I've seen men leaving women who are suddenly pregnant and refuse abortion:
-Not wanting to be a father (yet).
-Getting restricted in freedom of movement.
-Betrayal of trust.
I admit this sounds hard to me on the women themselves in a emotional/moral standpoint as ruveyn noted, but in mutual sexual consent cases to me it boils down to taking the risk or abstaining coitus in search of alternative methods in satisfaction. _________________ "It all start with Hoborg, a being who had to create, because... he had to. He make the world full of beauty and wonder. This world, the Neverhood, a world where he could live forever and ever more!"
I'm surprised that no-one has responded to this yet. Yes, I think that LPS should be allowed in some circumstances.
That is a rough question. Both pro and con are fraught with injustices.
The pro side boils down to this: the man knocks up the women and says get an abortion, I don't want the child and I won't support it. The women is between a rock and a hard place. If she gives in then she may be doing an act she find abhorent. So she is faced with the choice of doing what she thinks is wrong or bearing the entire burden of the child herself.
Oy! Even old king Solomon would have had a hard time with this.
ruveyn
I don't really believe this is fair.
If this was instituted, what kind of penalty would exist for males that are irresponsible? With this idea it seems that none at all. Worse, it is not like abortions are free of risk. Like any surgical procedure they are.
A fairer alternative would be for the father to be able to give up rights and duties for the child, but pay 9 months of max( minimum_wage, the woman's wage) and also health care. And also further indemnification should the woman get side effects from practicing an abortion if she did.
Of course this is all assuming that consent was mutual. _________________ .
Maybe, if the guy doesn't want to support his child, he should have a licence plate that shows that he does as a warning to other potential baby's mommas.
Joined: Jul 11, 2008 Age: 33 Posts: 2878 Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:03 am Post subject:
snapcap wrote:
Maybe, if the guy doesn't want to support his child, he should have a licence plate that shows that he does as a warning to other potential baby's mommas.
Maybe gold-diggers who try to trap men by getting pregnant should have warnings too.
Maybe, if the guy doesn't want to support his child, he should have a licence plate that shows that he does as a warning to other potential baby's mommas.
Maybe gold-diggers who try to trap men by getting pregnant should have warnings too.
I usually walk around with a sign over my crotch that says, "ABANDONED". Works like a charm(non gold).
Contraceptives haven't got a 100% success rate, there is a chance pregnancy might still happen even though precautions where taken (link). But asking the question to keep or abort? Rationally speaking, safe abortion still has a lower mortality rate then childbirth (link).
Even though the chances of side effects of a surgical abortion are very small (link), they can be really nasty. Same with medical abortion (link).
This does make it a hard decision, so better go Double Dutch or further, or at least take pregnancy tests within seven weeks after "contact". _________________ "It all start with Hoborg, a being who had to create, because... he had to. He make the world full of beauty and wonder. This world, the Neverhood, a world where he could live forever and ever more!"
Joined: Dec 03, 2011 Age: 29 Posts: 35 Location: Japan
Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 4:07 pm Post subject:
Quote:
The pro side boils down to this: the man knocks up the women and says get an abortion, I don't want the child and I won't support it. The women is between a rock and a hard place. If she gives in then she may be doing an act she find abhorent. So she is faced with the choice of doing what she thinks is wrong or bearing the entire burden of the child herself.
Well Ruveyn this is kind of the central argument here. With recent advances in contraceptive technology, it is impossible for a man to "knock up" a woman anymore. It is the woman who allows herself to get knocked up. I can see why that would be a hard decision for the hypothetical woman, but it is entirely her actions that put her there.
Quote:
I think it depends on the situation wherein the conception has taken place. If it's case of rape I do think the victim should be financially compensated by the rapist (alimony)
Yeah I think so too, but it should probably be kept very separate from child support laws, maybe handled by the victim compensation side of the law. _________________ One cannot be wise without understanding reality. If you do not understand human nature, everything in your philosophy is flawed.
The pro side boils down to this: the man knocks up the women and says get an abortion, I don't want the child and I won't support it. The women is between a rock and a hard place. If she gives in then she may be doing an act she find abhorent. So she is faced with the choice of doing what she thinks is wrong or bearing the entire burden of the child herself.
Well Ruveyn this is kind of the central argument here. With recent advances in contraceptive technology, it is impossible for a man to "knock up" a woman anymore. It is the woman who allows herself to get knocked up. I can see why that would be a hard decision for the hypothetical woman, but it is entirely her actions that put her there.
If she got "knocked up" then he had a part in knocking her up. Contraception is both 50% and 100% the responsibility of each party involved. The easiest and most reliable method of contraception is still the condom. Remember, birth control can disrupt a woman's endocrine system and can have side effects which make them unsafe for some women to take.
If a child comes into being in this world both parties should be held responsible except in instances of rape or the rare instance of stolen sperm.
RikersBeard wrote:
Quote:
I think it depends on the situation wherein the conception has taken place. If it's case of rape I do think the victim should be financially compensated by the rapist (alimony)
Yeah I think so too, but it should probably be kept very separate from child support laws, maybe handled by the victim compensation side of the law.
Maybe, if the guy doesn't want to support his child, he should have a licence plate that shows that he does as a warning to other potential baby's mommas.
Maybe gold-diggers who try to trap men by getting pregnant should have warnings too.
Yeah cause it is exactly the same.. *facepalm*
snapcap wrote:
Maybe, if the guy doesn't want to support his child, he should have a licence plate that shows that he does as a warning to other potential baby's mommas.
This is actually a great idea, not the license plate thing, but if males really want to be able to give up their responsibilities to children, they should get the female to sign a notarized contract specifying that she understand the financial risk that would be having sex with him. _________________ .
Joined: Dec 03, 2011 Age: 29 Posts: 35 Location: Japan
Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 9:34 pm Post subject:
Quote:
If she got "knocked up" then he had a part in knocking her up. Contraception is both 50% and 100% the responsibility of each party involved. The easiest and most reliable method of contraception is still the condom. Remember, birth control can disrupt a woman's endocrine system and can have side effects which make them unsafe for some women to take.
If a child comes into being in this world both parties should be held responsible except in instances of rape or the rare instance of stolen sperm.
Let us leave rape victims out of this for a minute.
"A woman does not "fall pregnant", she does not trip, fall and land on a man's dick, she engineers it to be there."
Women have all the choice when it comes to childbirth, literally everything. They choose, when, where, how, and with who they become pregnant. Once they are pregnant, they have all the choice too. They can choose to abort the pregnancy (in a variety of ways, not just the legal options, they can "accidentally" fall down stairs, drink too much, "accidentally" sit on a coat hangar, they can sometimes even dump their newborns in garbage without fear of prosecution.)
From a secular point of view I have no problem with this, I don't think women should be forced into birthing or caring or supporting children they do not want - even if at the time of conception they were all for it. Now as a woman, I'm _sure_ you agree with this. But turn things around. What if the man does not want to care for or support the child, suddenly all these "choices" and their vocal supporters disappear. Men have no choices post-conception, and a few less than desirable ones pre-conception. The mother can choose to literally enslave him for the next two decades on her whim because she either forgot or lied about being on birth control.
With so much choice and power, comes total responsibility.
A quick note on condoms compared to other contraceptives, as said in the video they are "visible" contraception, a woman knows damn well whether the man is using one. Female contraceptives are invisible, the man only has her word - so that's power in her favour once again. What's more there's a real incentive not to use one, going bareback is so much better. _________________ One cannot be wise without understanding reality. If you do not understand human nature, everything in your philosophy is flawed.
The pro side boils down to this: the man knocks up the women and says get an abortion, I don't want the child and I won't support it. The women is between a rock and a hard place. If she gives in then she may be doing an act she find abhorent. So she is faced with the choice of doing what she thinks is wrong or bearing the entire burden of the child herself.
Well Ruveyn this is kind of the central argument here. With recent advances in contraceptive technology, it is impossible for a man to "knock up" a woman anymore. It is the woman who allows herself to get knocked up.
Translation: Birth control is ENTIRELY the responsibility of the woman. If a woman gets pregnant, even on birth control, even using said birth control correctley and with a consenting man who knows what kind of birth control she's on, it's HER fault.
Quote:
I can see why that would be a hard decision for the hypothetical woman, but it is entirely her actions that put her there.
Translation: men have NO part in making a zef. Women are self-fertilizing.
...
