Should men have a choice in abortion?

[Gravlen]

She absolutely is.

Ignored the rest of the post that explains exactly why she isn't I see.

Since you were - and are - fundamentally wrong, there was little point in going beyond pointing that out. But OK, let me waste some time...

There are drop-off centres, for one,

Illegal here, banned or with restrictions elsewhere. But regardless, that doesn't mean she's under no obligation not to care for the child. In fact, a person who've failed to care for the child might be prosecuted after leaving the child at the Safe Haven. Example.

for another she can place the child into adoption.

Adoption does not show that a woman is under no obligation to care for the child if she doesn't want to. In fact, under existing adoption laws she is obligated to care for the child until parental responsibilities have been properly transferred. Failure to properly care for the child in the interim may result in prosecution.

Being fair is precisely the point.

Don't delude yourself. It's got nothing to do with fairness.

Seeing as the mother has the choice of being a parent or not at practically any time and can opt-out at any time, the father must have the same right.

No.

The father has finished his part in the reproductive process long before the mothers part is done. These biological differences leads to the mother having a period of time where she can choose not to become a parent. The father has no say at this point, and there's no reason for society to pretend like he should.

When the baby is born, the mother is always present. The father may or may not be. This biological difference leads to the mother having a limited opportunity to decide if she wants to continue to be a parent, in some places through legal child abandonment. It is incorrect that she can opt out at any time while the father cannot. She may not have an option of legal child abandonment (especially after about 14 days after giving birth), and adoption rules limit her choices as well, see e.g. here.

The mother can, on a whim, refuse to divulge the identity of the father once the child is born, and in a few cases, he is unable to obtain a paternity test without her consent.
Extending the power to refuse parenthood from the mother to the father is essential.

Not at all. There's no pressing need to do so.

The fathers "Responsibilities" under the current system extend only as far as the mother wants, regardless of what he wants.
Ranging from "You do not have a kid" to
"Give me money for the kid you didn't want."

Also not true. Under the current system fathers may demand paternity even if the mother claims you don't have a kid. Further, child support is owed to the child and not the mother. I have little sympathy for someone who doesn't want to support their own child.

To go even further, if it were the rights of the child being contended then refusing to divulge the identity of the father would be against the law.

What a coincidence. It is against the law. (Chapters 3 and 4, but in particular § 11.)

Children do not have rights to both parents, nor to the support of both parents, unless the woman demands it or in a few extreme cases where the father obtains custody and subsequently demands it. Though in such cases the mother is usually in such a state that custody payments are not going to happen etc.

Wrong. Children do have the right to be supported by both parents.

I can think of absolutely no reason that someone should be compelled to take care of a child against their will.

Because they are responsible for it until they've managed to safely transfer their parental obligations in a way that serves the best interests of the child.

It is not the right of the child, else adoption would be illegal, etc.

Fundamental misunderstanding on your part. Adoption is legal because it's the right of the child to be brought up in a stable environment, and if the parents are unable or unwilling to care for the child they have to find someone who can take on their obligations for them. It is legal because it would be in the best interests of the child to have the obligations transferred in those cases. That, however, does not mean that the child doesn't also have a right to support. A child actually has many rights at the same time.

In the current system it is the whim of the custody holder that can compel the other into essentially servitude. The custody holder is in most cases the female.

Calling it "servitude" is bullshit.

It's parental responsibility. It's what follows from having completed your part of the reproductive process.

[Iron States]

No its the "women's right to choose."

[Ostroeuropa]

*snip*

None of your arguments do away with the idea of allowing legal paternal surrender during the pregnancy and in the immediate aftermath. You've only shown that after a certain time (14 days) the mother is not able to do that.
The woman, while a default carer, is ofcourse obligated to care for the child. As is the father.
The adoption/safe haven process is the woman opting out. The father should also be able to do so, Until parental responsibilities are properly transferred to the state.
We are arguing over whether the father should have a say, and whether society should recognize it, so you shouldn't just straight up claim that.
Fine, give the fathers until 14 days after birth to decide. Seems an improvement.

There is a pressing need due to the unjust nature of the current system.

That is not the case in many countries. You are outright claiming what I assume is norwegian law on a largely american and british forum.
A father cannot demand a paternity test if the mother is not claiming child support from them. Thus, she has the ability to remove the father or include him on a whim.
Presumably you have little sympathy with women who get abortions for economic reasons too then. And yet it happens.

It might be against the law in norway. As far as I know, it is not illegal here nor in the US.

Children clearly do not have the right to be supported by both parents, and it's absurd to argue as such. For instance, assume the father is long-term unemployed and does not have the money to give child support. Instead of the government giving money to the father for them to pay the child support, the government will instead give money to the child (or it's guardian.)
The child has a right to a decent standard of living. It does not have the right to have it's parents be the ones to provide it.

It serves the best interest of the child for a legal paternal surrender to go ahead. If a father does not want the child, they should not be forced to have it. Welfare can assist with an economic gap if one exists.

Adoption is legal because it's the right of the child to be brought up in a stable environment, and if the parents are unable or unwilling to care for the child they have to find someone who can take on their obligations for them.

Thats PRECISELY what i'm arguing should happen. Except you seem to think that if the man is the one unwilling then it isn't ok suddenly.
A child has a right to support.
It doesn't have a right to support from it's biological parents. Only it's legal ones. And a legal parentship should be surrenderable.
It is servitude. You don't hold women to the same standard that you hold men to.

[The Rich Port]

That's fucking retarded.

You have a right to live without having someone else taking your life FROM you.

"You" aren't "someone else." Check that standard again. You being murdered fails on two counts to match the above argument - it happens to you, and a human is involved.

If your "right" is violated by something not caused by any other human happening to someone who isn't you, then the "right" is of pretty dubious status.

... So... You're arguing that fetuses have a right to commit suicide?

[Gravlen]

*snip*

None of your arguments do away with the idea of allowing legal paternal surrender during the pregnancy and in the immediate aftermath. You've only shown that after a certain time (14 days) the mother is not able to do that.

*sigh*

Do I really have to start over? I mean, since you obviously have no idea what argument you're making anymore...

OK, to recap:
There is no parenthood before birth. As such, you cannot give away either the child (which doesn't exist) or your parental obligations (which doesn't exist) before birth. Just to be clear, any agreement to do so (through adoption for example, or acting as a surrogate) is invalid.

After the child is born, a parent may in some jurisdictions abandon a child without being prosecuted for that act. The rules governing this process differs, both when it comes to time and which parent is allowed to go through with this. In other jurisdictions it is a criminal act to do so, and the parents risk prosecution.

My opinion is in line with both local legislation and with UK law: It should be an illegal act. The rights of the child outweigh other concerns.

The woman, while a default carer, is ofcourse obligated to care for the child. As is the father.

Which is not what you said previously, so I'm glad you came around.

The adoption/safe haven process is the woman opting out. The father should also be able to do so, Until parental responsibilities are properly transferred to the state.

In the UK, a custodial parent cannot unilaterally give up the child for adoption if the other parent has parental responsibility. We've also seen that under UK law she cannot legally abandon a child. So the woman cannot simply opt out - if she does, she'll be liable for child support (child maintenance).

We are arguing over whether the father should have a say, and whether society should recognize it, so you shouldn't just straight up claim that.

What?

Fine, give the fathers until 14 days after birth to decide. Seems an improvement.

No, that's a bad idea. The whole idea of safe haven laws is born out of desparation - because women were killing their infants or leaving them in exposed locations. We can fix that (we have fixed that) with different measures, like better social services programs, better counselling etc. It's a rare event when children are abandoned, and there's simply no need to implement safe haven laws or their equivalent.

There is a pressing need due to the unjust nature of the current system.

You seem to have a quarrel with biology.

That is not the case in many countries. You are outright claiming what I assume is norwegian law on a largely american and british forum.

And you are outright claiming what is unspecific state law in the US on what is an international forum, ignoring UK law in the process.

A father cannot demand a paternity test if the mother is not claiming child support from them. Thus, she has the ability to remove the father or include him on a whim.

I'm guessing you're talking about the law in the UK now, considering what you mentioned above - and interestingly enough, you're wrong. A father can sue for paternity. He can freely take a paternity test, and the courts can order one if they so choose. An example where a UK court has supported the paternity test, even if the mother was not claiming child support from the potential father.

Presumably you have little sympathy with women who get abortions for economic reasons too then. And yet it happens.

Have you still not understood that a foetus is not a child, and does not have the rights of a child?

It might be against the law in norway. As far as I know, it is not illegal here nor in the US.

Not yet, but if/when it enters into force prison time can be handed out.

Children clearly do not have the right to be supported by both parents, and it's absurd to argue as such.

UK legislation, namely the Child Support Act 1991, disagrees with you. The law is based on the principle that both parents have a responsibility to maintain their children. UK courts agree, as do US courts, Canadian courts, Australian courts, Swedish courts and Norwegian courts. (Many basing the view in part on the the Convention on the Rights of the Child.)

For instance, assume the father is long-term unemployed and does not have the money to give child support. Instead of the government giving money to the father for them to pay the child support, the government will instead give money to the child (or it's guardian.)
The child has a right to a decent standard of living. It does not have the right to have it's parents be the ones to provide it.

It does have that right - to the best of their ability.

It serves the best interest of the child for a legal paternal surrender to go ahead.

No. The best interest of the child is ensured when the father supports the child to the best of his abilities.

If a father does not want the child, they should not be forced to have it. Welfare can assist with an economic gap if one exists.

No, it's more reasonable that the father pays for his offspring.

Adoption is legal because it's the right of the child to be brought up in a stable environment, and if the parents are unable or unwilling to care for the child they have to find someone who can take on their obligations for them.

Thats PRECISELY what i'm arguing should happen.

No, you've been arguing for unilateral relinquishment of parental responsibilities. That's a different thing.

Except you seem to think that if the man is the one unwilling then it isn't ok suddenly.

Yeah, that's obviously why I earlier said that mothers who decide to walk out on their children still should pay child support.

A child has a right to support.
It doesn't have a right to support from it's biological parents. Only it's legal ones. And a legal parentship should be surrenderable.

It is transferrable, not surrenderable.

It is servitude. You don't hold women to the same standard that you hold men to.

Try again.

[The Parkus Empire]

the man may be contributed just as much to creating the child as she did

Nah.

[Gravlen]

That's fucking retarded.

You have a right to live without having someone else taking your life FROM you.

"You" aren't "someone else." Check that standard again. You being murdered fails on two counts to match the above argument - it happens to you, and a human is involved.

If your "right" is violated by something not caused by any other human happening to someone who isn't you, then the "right" is of pretty dubious status.

Seriously, what are you smoking?

Are you suggesting that my right to family life is of pretty dubious status because my spouse may die in a car accident?

You... don't get this whole "violation of rights" thing do you...

[Khanastan]

Is this thread still going? I thought it was established that men didn't have a choice because of certain keywords. Namely "slavery".


This could use a poll to get the point across as well, if no one has already suggested it.

[The Rising Sun Katana]

Is this thread still going? I thought it was established that men didn't have a choice because of certain keywords. Namely "slavery".


This could use a poll to get the point across as well, if no one has already suggested it.

. Doesn't the Bible say that slavery is ok? Just slap'em in chains and leg-irons...... SEXY.... they like it, we like it, everyones HAPPY!!

[Ovisterra]

Is this thread still going? I thought it was established that men didn't have a choice because of certain keywords. Namely "slavery".


This could use a poll to get the point across as well, if no one has already suggested it.

. Doesn't the Bible say that slavery is ok? Just slap'em in chains and leg-irons...... SEXY.... they like it, we like it, everyones HAPPY!!

What if they don't like it?

Because I'm pretty sure that most women don't like being enslaved.

[The Rich Port]

. Doesn't the Bible say that slavery is ok? Just slap'em in chains and leg-irons...... SEXY.... they like it, we like it, everyones HAPPY!!

What if they don't like it?

Because I'm pretty sure that most women don't like being enslaved.

And that's why we have Kink.com.

[Gregariana (Ancient)]

I think the woman should make the decision ok?

[Condunum]

Is this thread still going? I thought it was established that men didn't have a choice because of certain keywords. Namely "slavery".


This could use a poll to get the point across as well, if no one has already suggested it.

. Doesn't the Bible say that slavery is ok? Just slap'em in chains and leg-irons...... SEXY.... they like it, we like it, everyones HAPPY!!

Can you please just stop talking?

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

Is this thread still going? I thought it was established that men didn't have a choice because of certain keywords. Namely "slavery".


This could use a poll to get the point across as well, if no one has already suggested it.

I assume there are still some people who think "But it's HIS baby too and he has a right to her body!"

[Benuty]

This thread just just devolved into "Holy shit balls" mode. Well...

[Czechanada]

Is this thread still going? I thought it was established that men didn't have a choice because of certain keywords. Namely "slavery".


This could use a poll to get the point across as well, if no one has already suggested it.

I assume there are still some people who think "But it's HIS baby too and he has a right to her body!"

The best solution would be to reprogram everyone's genetics so that two zygotes are always created during impregnation.

That way, both the man and woman have a fetus each to abort or not, so everyone gets a choice in this instance. *nods*

[Condunum]

I assume there are still some people who think "But it's HIS baby too and he has a right to her body!"

The best solution would be to reprogram everyone's genetics so that two zygotes are always created during impregnation.

That way, both the man and woman have a fetus each to abort or not, so everyone gets a choice in this instance. *nods*

So long as we all get both sets of reproductive systems, I'm good.

[Czechanada]

The best solution would be to reprogram everyone's genetics so that two zygotes are always created during impregnation.

That way, both the man and woman have a fetus each to abort or not, so everyone gets a choice in this instance. *nods*

So long as we all get both sets of reproductive systems, I'm good.

Hermaphrodites would be difficult to implement. I was just advocating that every woman should get pregnant with twins (or any even set, for that matter.) *nods*

[Condunum]

So long as we all get both sets of reproductive systems, I'm good.

Hermaphrodites would be difficult to implement. I was just advocating that every woman should get pregnant with twins (or any even set, for that matter.) *nods*

Both systems or bust. *nod*

[The Rising Sun Katana]

. Doesn't the Bible say that slavery is ok? Just slap'em in chains and leg-irons...... SEXY.... they like it, we like it, everyones HAPPY!!

Can you please just stop talking?

That one was a totally nonsensical attempt at stupid humor and not serious in any way so......... I like the black leather cat suit by the way.

[Condunum]

Can you please just stop talking?

That one was a totally nonsensical attempt at stupid humor and not serious in any way so......... I like the black leather cat suit by the way.

Oh my god make it stop

[Khanastan]

I assume there are still some people who think "But it's HIS baby too and he has a right to her body!"

The best solution would be to reprogram everyone's genetics so that two zygotes are always created during impregnation.

That way, both the man and woman have a fetus each to abort or not, so everyone gets a choice in this instance. *nods*

Or we could introduce compulsory in-vitro, and sterilize everyone. That way, babies must be ordered from a mountain facility in Switzerland, and delivered by stork to the "parents".

That way we can regulate baby-making and make sex redundant. The root of all teen angst will be gone forever!

And storks will become useful, respected members of society. How awesome is that?

[Czechanada]

The best solution would be to reprogram everyone's genetics so that two zygotes are always created during impregnation.

That way, both the man and woman have a fetus each to abort or not, so everyone gets a choice in this instance. *nods*

Or we could introduce compulsory in-vitro, and sterilize everyone. That way, babies must be ordered from a mountain facility in Switzerland, and delivered by stork to the "parents".

That way we can regulate baby-making and make sex redundant. The root of all teen angst will be gone forever!

And storks will become useful, respected members of society. How awesome is that?

And parents will no longer have to lie about reproduction! Perfect.

[Khanastan]

Or we could introduce compulsory in-vitro, and sterilize everyone. That way, babies must be ordered from a mountain facility in Switzerland, and delivered by stork to the "parents".

That way we can regulate baby-making and make sex redundant. The root of all teen angst will be gone forever!

And storks will become useful, respected members of society. How awesome is that?

And parents will no longer have to lie about reproduction! Perfect.

I'll get the Swiss the money, and you get the storks... whatever it is storks eat.

[Ifreann]

And parents will no longer have to lie about reproduction! Perfect.

I'll get the Swiss the money, and you get the storks... whatever it is storks eat.

Babies, I assume.