The Abortion (that is this) Thread

[arg]

if the guy can prove he wanted an abortion with documentation signed by a doctor and a lawyer, but the woman still went through with giving birth, the guy should not have to pay anything. her body, her decision to have the kid, all financial responsibility is hers.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The guy should have worn a condom. Deciding not to do that doesn't give him the right to force the woman to surrender her bodily autonomy to the whims of someone else.

Even if you believe that a man should be less accountable, he should clearly have less say in whether or not a woman should have to carry the child as he will be less impacted by her doing so.

Of course. He should have no say over her decision to abort or not, because that's her decision. As follows, childbirth was entirely her decision, and he should not be held accountable for the child if it is clear that he did not want to support it.

He has no say over the woman's womb and what she chooses to do with it.

Exactly. Birthing a child would be 100% her responsibility.

 

[Omni]

So what happens if he says he wants a child and then decides that he doesn't after the fact? How will you regulate this? The responsibility clearly still belongs to him if your opinion became law.

This is an extremely common occurrence. How will you keep this from happening?

 

[rms]

The guy should have worn a condom. Deciding not to do that doesn't give him the right to force the woman to surrender her bodily autonomy to the whims of someone else.

Even if you believe that a man should be less accountable, he should clearly have less say in whether or not a woman should have to carry the child as he will be less impacted by her doing so.

Why is the woman not responsible? Why does she have sex when she is ovulating? Why does she not use birth control?

If she doesn't want to sacrifice her "sovereign" body, then she shouldn't have unprotected sex.

If you want men to have less than equal say in a pregnancy's future, then the legal system should reflect that.

I think we're misunderstanding each other. I'm saying he has a responsiblity to pay for 1/2 of the abortion or the baby's expenses (if she chooses to have the baby). He has no say over the woman's womb and what she chooses to do with it.

What other scenario in the modern world commits someone to 18-Year financial purgatory without consenting to it?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

So what happens if he says he wants a child and then decides that he doesn't after the fact? How will you regulate this? The responsibility clearly still belongs to him if your opinion became law.

This is an extremely common occurrence. How will you keep this from happening?

Then he should have to pay alimony under threat of garnished wages/fines/prison time should he try skipping out. You're right that single mothers and distant fathers are a massive issue, so I could probably agree that there should be more serious penalties for abandoning your child. I think more women would abort if they knew their husbands didn't have to support their offspring upon conception, however.

 

[Omni]

How will you determine whether or not this occurs? You didn't explain that at all. If you don't have a way to do so reliably, your law is clearly unjust.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

if the guy can prove he wanted an abortion with documentation signed by a doctor and a lawyer, but the woman still went through with giving birth, the guy should not have to pay anything. her body, her decision to have the kid, all financial responsibility is hers.

Nope. He's responsible for his actions. No outs or BS exuses. We all know the risks that come with sex when choose to do it. End of story.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

How is any crime determined? A criminal law defines the crime and the appropriate punishment for it. Presumably a mixture of DNA testing, testifying on the identity of the father, and watchful policing would be used in finding fathers skipping out on child support. Some women may get knocked-up at a party and not know who their baby daddy is; tough luck, but at least she still has the option to abort.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Nope. He's responsible for his actions. No outs or BS exuses. We all know the risks that come with sex when choose to do it. End of story.

This argument could just as easily be used to justify banning abortion entirely.

"She's responsible for her actions. No outs or BS exuses. We all know the risks that come with sex when choose to do it. Just raise the child like a good Christian mother would."

 

[crimsonfloyd]

What other scenario in the modern world commits someone to 18-Year financial purgatory without consenting to it?

He consented to the CHANCE of it when he chose to have sex. He's no victim. Wr all know where babies come from and it's the fucking essence of the act is to reproduce.

If you don't want kids either:
1. Don't have sex
2. Get sniped
3. Find a partner who is pro choice, pro birth control and on the same page as you

 

[crimsonfloyd]

This argument could just as easily be used to justify banning abortion entirely.

"She's responsible for her actions. No outs or BS exuses. We all know the risks that come with sex when choose to do it. Just raise the child like a good Christian mother would."

It's a great argument if you think that the fetus has some sort of intrinsic value, which I do not.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

And she knows what happens if she chooses not to terminate her pregnancy. You have literally no logical argument to differentiate the two, you're just making a statement saying "Them's the breaks" to justify your double-standard between men and women.

 

[Omni]

How is any crime determined? A criminal law defines the crime and the appropriate punishment for it. Presumably a mixture of DNA testing, testifying on the identity of the father, and watchful policing would be used in finding fathers skipping out on child support. Some women may get knocked-up at a party and not know who their baby daddy is; tough luck, but at least she still has the option to abort.

It's not about paternity disputes. How will you identify whether a man says he wants a child and then changes his opinion later? This happens much more frequently than a woman doing this. If you do not have a way to do so, your law is not able to be enforced properly and is thusly unjust by default.

 

[rms]

He consented to the CHANCE of it when he chose to have sex. He's no victim. Wr all know where babies come from and it's the fucking essence of the act is to reproduce.

If you don't want kids either:
1. Don't have sex
2. Get sniped
3. Find a partner who is pro choice, pro birth control and on the same page as you

Yet again you ignore all the questions about women and only talk about the man. They are both victims, but the man is the only one here who can be a double victim without consent. Or if you want to get with Fate's scenario of the man running away or what have you once he says I will support and does not. But the state helps women out there, unless he's off the grid.

 

[0Marty]

I would set it up simply - if woman makes the decision without man, she should have full responsibility (custody, money). If the make the decision together, they split. Like HBB said, it takes two to have a sex, so everything should be split equal.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

It's not about paternity disputes. How will you identify whether a man says he wants a child and then changes his opinion later? This happens much more frequently than a woman doing this. If you do not have a way to do so, your law is not able to be enforced properly and is thusly unjust by default.

arg's solution seems fine; put the burden of proof on the man that he did not want the child by making a notarized statement. If he can't prove that he didn't want the child, he has to pay child support.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

And she knows what happens if she chooses not to terminate her pregnancy. You have literally no logical argument to differentiate the two, you're just making a statement saying "Them's the breaks" to justify your double-standard between men and women.

A fetus has no value other than that projected on it by others. If the mother doesn't value for the fetus she has no responsibility to anyone to keep it alive. She does have a responsibility to make a choice and live with the consequences either way. Anyway, there's no tension or conflict in my position.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Yet again you ignore all the questions about women and only talk about the man. They are both victims, but the man is the only one here who can be a double victim without consent. Or if you want to get with Fate's scenario of the man running away or what have you once he says I will support and does not. But the state helps women out there, unless he's off the grid.

Again, he implictly consented when he ha sex. He's not a vicitim unless she straight up lied to him.

 

[Omni]

arg's solution seems fine; put the burden of proof on the man that he did not want the child by making a notarized statement. If he can't prove that he didn't want the child, he has to pay child support.

That still doesn't seem solid to me in the hypothetical situation that I would ever find this agreeable at all.

 

[rms]

Again, he implictly consented when he ha sex. He's not a vicitim unless she straight up lied to him.

Why is it that a man automatically assumes consent to financially supporting a child but a woman does not assume consent for raising a child alone?

That still doesn't seem solid to me in the hypothetical situation that I would ever find this agreeable at all.

We do know that child support is really easy to obtain, right?