• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Post-Conception/Pre-Viability Rights for Men

Henrin said:
Except that for the man viability of unborn plays no part in his choices. It makes no difference if the man leaves before 24 weeks or after twenty four weeks as he is not connected to the child. Making the man play by the same rules as a pregnant woman is not fair as the realities of the situation for men is different.
Click to expand...


We will not do what has to be done to make the situation more equal, but here is the properly impartial argument.
1) The woman has to have the right to make the decision whether to continue or end the pregnancy simply because it involves risk to her body, and notably the risk of her death is much higher in childbirth than in early abortion. So the guy can't have input on that.
2) However, if the guy does not want to be a legal father, he should have the right to opt out. If she wants to be a legal mother anyway, that should be on her.
3) That said, there are all kinds of caveats.

First, no matter what the woman chooses, it is going to cost her money. Her least costly option is early abortion. Hence, even if the guy wants to opt out, he should have to pay the woman the equivalent of 50% of the cost of the abortion she could get, plus 50% of any costs such as overnight stays, transportation, etc., that are necessary for that option. He should have to pay that much, 50% of the least costly option.

If he wants to be considered the legal father, he should have to pay for 50% of the pregnancy and childbirth/hospitalization costs, including springing for 50% of the maternity clothes she will have to buy because her clothes won't fit her. If she is injured in childbirth or has medical issues while nursing, he should have to go in on the costs for probably six weeks afterwards.

Also, rapists should not have any say. They should not be allowed to assert legal fathers' rights vis-a-vis children who grew from their rape fertilization of a woman. The woman should have the right to prevent him from ever coming near her or the child. I don't even think he should be allowed to pay 50% of the minimal amount to her, but only to the government, which can then provide the sum to her under its name and not the name of the rapist.

But similarly, if a woman rapes a man and gets pregnant by that act, if she wants an abortion, he should absolutely not have to pay anything, and if she wants to carry to term, I really do not think she should be allowed to keep the child she bears unless the man agrees to it.

So there are all sorts of details that would have to be worked out to make the system more equal.

And the reason we are not going to do that is that, if men are given some degree of equal responsibility, they will abuse it and start wanting to have a say over whether or not a woman gets the right to choose abortion. Women know that it is better by far to take all the responsibility and incur all the costs than to let a man start to butt in on that issue.
 
choiceone said:
We will not do what has to be done to make the situation more equal, but here is the properly impartial argument.
1) The woman has to have the right to make the decision whether to continue or end the pregnancy simply because it involves risk to her body, and notably the risk of her death is much higher in childbirth than in early abortion. So the guy can't have input on that.
2) However, if the guy does not want to be a legal father, he should have the right to opt out. If she wants to be a legal mother anyway, that should be on her.
3) That said, there are all kinds of caveats.

First, no matter what the woman chooses, it is going to cost her money. Her least costly option is early abortion. Hence, even if the guy wants to opt out, he should have to pay the woman the equivalent of 50% of the cost of the abortion she could get, plus 50% of any costs such as overnight stays, transportation, etc., that are necessary for that option. He should have to pay that much, 50% of the least costly option.

If he wants to be considered the legal father, he should have to pay for 50% of the pregnancy and childbirth/hospitalization costs, including springing for 50% of the maternity clothes she will have to buy because her clothes won't fit her. If she is injured in childbirth or has medical issues while nursing, he should have to go in on the costs for probably six weeks afterwards.

Also, rapists should not have any say. They should not be allowed to assert legal fathers' rights vis-a-vis children who grew from their rape fertilization of a woman. The woman should have the right to prevent him from ever coming near her or the child. I don't even think he should be allowed to pay 50% of the minimal amount to her, but only to the government, which can then provide the sum to her under its name and not the name of the rapist.

But similarly, if a woman rapes a man and gets pregnant by that act, if she wants an abortion, he should absolutely not have to pay anything, and if she wants to carry to term, I really do not think she should be allowed to keep the child she bears unless the man agrees to it.

So there are all sorts of details that would have to be worked out to make the system more equal.

And the reason we are not going to do that is that, if men are given some degree of equal responsibility, they will abuse it and start wanting to have a say over whether or not a woman gets the right to choose abortion. Women know that it is better by far to take all the responsibility and incur all the costs than to let a man start to butt in on that issue.
Click to expand...



Welcome back! I hope you are well.

I agree with most of this. Only thing I would add is that if the man opts out and at any time before the child turns 18, the woman applies for and qualifies for public support, then he should have to pay child support until she is off assistance (or the child turns 18, whichever comes first). If it comes down to him or the taxpayer paying, it should not be the taxpayer.
 
Henrin said:
I think it should be opt-in, not opt-out.
Click to expand...

You opt-in when you have sex. There's always a probability of pregnancy, even when using birth control. This is known.
 
Ikari said:
You opt-in when you have sex. There's always a probability of pregnancy, even when using birth control. This is known.
Click to expand...

Having sex is in no way shape or form agreeing to gestate and give birth should pregnancy occur. Just like smoking is not agreeing to not seek to have any resulting tumours removed from one's body.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Welcome back! I hope you are well.

I agree with most of this. Only thing I would add is that if the man opts out and at any time before the child turns 18, the woman applies for and qualifies for public support, then he should have to pay child support until she is off assistance (or the child turns 18, whichever comes first). If it comes down to him or the taxpayer paying, it should not be the taxpayer.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

When my ex and I split up, I told him that I was ok with no child support (I was the breadwinner). But he clearly knew that if I every applied for public services that they would go to him to support our child.
 
All of the whining and claims of men being treated as victims of the inequalities of state laws and the constitution - the topic of this thread is framed in a way that comes closer to dealing with the true issues, which, by the way, was previously always argued under the pretense of "Child Support" - just went down the drain because in a very short post by Henrin applying his famous logic, that only he seems to appreciate - that the creator of this Thread agrees (once again with Henrin Logic).

In my sometimes not so humble opinions, there is no other place for the OPT OUT supporters to go. There's no other topic, which brings the questions around legal options vs moral choices anymore debatable...as they relate to the law and the constitution.

I'm self imposing a ban from this thread.

Good luck to all who subscribes to Henrin Logic.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Having sex is in no way shape or form agreeing to gestate and give birth should pregnancy occur. Just like smoking is not agreeing to not seek to have any resulting tumours removed from one's body.
Click to expand...

Cancer and reproduction are two very different things. Sorry if you cannot see the difference.
 
I don't think men should have the option to opt out. Can married parents just decide to opt out? Or do we call that neglect?

My problems with the current situation are, the State determining what the man should provide, especially when they don't really consider his situation. And there being no legal repercussions for a woman who denies the father access to his child.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Ikari said:
You opt-in when you have sex. There's always a probability of pregnancy, even when using birth control. This is known.
Click to expand...

wrong... that logic is already shot down. when a woman has sex she does only consents to sex... not a child. she can abort.
 
Ikari said:
You opt-in when you have sex. There's always a probability of pregnancy, even when using birth control. This is known.
Click to expand...

You can't opt-in to government force by having sex.
 
choiceone said:
We will not do what has to be done to make the situation more equal, but here is the properly impartial argument.
1) The woman has to have the right to make the decision whether to continue or end the pregnancy simply because it involves risk to her body, and notably the risk of her death is much higher in childbirth than in early abortion. So the guy can't have input on that.
2) However, if the guy does not want to be a legal father, he should have the right to opt out. If she wants to be a legal mother anyway, that should be on her.
3) That said, there are all kinds of caveats.

First, no matter what the woman chooses, it is going to cost her money. Her least costly option is early abortion. Hence, even if the guy wants to opt out, he should have to pay the woman the equivalent of 50% of the cost of the abortion she could get, plus 50% of any costs such as overnight stays, transportation, etc., that are necessary for that option. He should have to pay that much, 50% of the least costly option.
Click to expand...

So again, in order for the man to practice his choice he has to consider the woman. As long as the woman doesn't have to consider the man with her choice there is no grounds for the man to be required to consider her.

If he wants to be considered the legal father, he should have to pay for 50% of the pregnancy and childbirth/hospitalization costs, including springing for 50% of the maternity clothes she will have to buy because her clothes won't fit her. If she is injured in childbirth or has medical issues while nursing, he should have to go in on the costs for probably six weeks afterwards.
Click to expand...

We are talking about a situation where he doesn't want that. That however would be quite horrible for male rights as it would just put more conditions on male parental rights.

Also, rapists should not have any say. They should not be allowed to assert legal fathers' rights vis-a-vis children who grew from their rape fertilization of a woman. The woman should have the right to prevent him from ever coming near her or the child. I don't even think he should be allowed to pay 50% of the minimal amount to her, but only to the government, which can then provide the sum to her under its name and not the name of the rapist.
Click to expand...

On the first point I think the opinion of the child should come into the equation at some point. As for the second, child support is paid to the state and not the woman already. All you're doing here is ensuring the check doesn't have his name on it, which is honestly kind of pointless.

But similarly, if a woman rapes a man and gets pregnant by that act, if she wants an abortion, he should absolutely not have to pay anything, and if she wants to carry to term, I really do not think she should be allowed to keep the child she bears unless the man agrees to it.
Click to expand...

What's the reason for taking the child from her?

And the reason we are not going to do that is that, if men are given some degree of equal responsibility, they will abuse it and start wanting to have a say over whether or not a woman gets the right to choose abortion. Women know that it is better by far to take all the responsibility and incur all the costs than to let a man start to butt in on that issue.
Click to expand...

Ok, but again, if the man must consider the woman in his decision than it seems only fair to make her consider him.
 
Fishking said:
Well, to stay inside the parameters of your O, and to also keep in line with my pro-life ideology, I'm forced to support an unfair towards men position. If a man is having sex, and a baby results from said sex, he should be responsible for the support and care for said child and have no opt-out option.
Click to expand...
How about if it were tied to the existing abortion policy? Women still have the right to slaughter unborn children then the man has the right to opt out of care if the woman decides to keep the baby. But if the law ever changes to what you presumably would like to see happen...a ban on abortions...THEN the man has no opt out rights.

Fair enough?
 
Ikari said:
You opt-in when you have sex. There's always a probability of pregnancy, even when using birth control. This is known.
Click to expand...
The act of consensual sex doesnt eliminate the womans right to choose to slaughter her unborn child. Why should it eliminate the fathers right to opt in or out of the childs care?
 
VanceMack said:
How about if it were tied to the existing abortion policy? Women still have the right to slaughter unborn children then the man has the right to opt out of care if the woman decides to keep the baby. But if the law ever changes to what you presumably would like to see happen...a ban on abortions...THEN the man has no opt out rights.

Fair enough?
Click to expand...

Well, my position is dealing with current realities and as it is and I openly admitted that my answer was not fair. Yes, your suggestion is more fair but not necessarily for the baby. As far as banning abortions, that's not particularly an option as that is a failing strategy at this point. If the pro-life position cannot win the cultural battle over abortion then trying to force a law won't matter. The votes won't be there. Instead, we should focus on doing what we can to reduce variables that contribute to abortions.
 
Ikari said:
You opt-in when you have sex. There's always a probability of pregnancy, even when using birth control. This is known.
Click to expand...

So you're against abortion?
 
VanceMack said:
The act of consensual sex doesnt eliminate the womans right to choose to slaughter her unborn child. Why should it eliminate the fathers right to opt in or out of the childs care?
Click to expand...

The law is as the law is, but the fact remains that there's a human on the line. And we can say "oh yes, it should be fair and men should be able to beat our responsibility too", but to do only increases the suffering of another. One has responsibility to the life they create, and intended or not, that life is real and so are the consequences. Consensual sex is the opt in.
 
Ikari said:
The law is as the law is, but the fact remains that there's a human on the line. And we can say "oh yes, it should be fair and men should be able to beat our responsibility too", but to do only increases the suffering of another. One has responsibility to the life they create, and intended or not, that life is real and so are the consequences. Consensual sex is the opt in.
Click to expand...
Yes...the law is the law but we are discussing a philosophical perspective. If the world is all about equality, then why would a mans rights be any different than a womans? Why would you hold the position that the choice to have sex MANDATES the man be responsible, but gives the woman an option to either keep the child or slaughter it rather than care for it?
 
VanceMack said:
Yes...the law is the law but we are discussing a philosophical perspective. If the world is all about equality, then why would a mans rights be any different than a womans? Why would you hold the position that the choice to have sex MANDATES the man be responsible, but gives the woman an option to either keep the child or slaughter it rather than care for it?
Click to expand...

If we're not considering the law, but pure philosophy, my argument stands as stated. Neither man nor woman could "opt out" as it were under nominal circumstances.
 
I support some sort of resolution here and have for some time.
If a man and a woman simply produce a choice in which only the woman has any say than there seems to be some inequality. If they produce another life form than they should have equal say. But, of course, if there is another life form, a zygote, than there is an issue of zygote rights.
I don't like what seems to be the obvious answer here (that is that the man has no responsibility for the potential child) but that would seem to be where "equality under the law" would lead. You can't have one party signing a contract on day 1 and the other getting to decide until some time later.
 
Ikari said:
If we're not considering the law, but pure philosophy, my argument stands as stated. Neither man nor woman could "opt out" as it were under nominal circumstances.
Click to expand...

And yet under the law as well as from your philosophical perspective, the woman CAN opt out. Out of sheer convenience (or rather inconvenience).
 
Ikari said:
I have long argued on the pro-life side.
Click to expand...

I didn't know. It's one of the areas I didn't remember what you have said but knew that your logic worked both ways so I was wondering.
 
VanceMack said:
And yet under the law as well as from your philosophical perspective, the woman CAN opt out. Out of sheer convenience (or rather inconvenience).
Click to expand...

Not from my philosophical perspective, it doesn't. So not sure what you are talking about there. From a legal perspective, sure as abortion is legal. But even it being legal doesn't mean that the man should be able to opt out of child care. There's a child involved, and making the child suffer is a far greater injustice than paying child support for a kid you helped create. So I guess if you want to complain that it's unfair, then yes it is. But I'm not going to actually support one being able to divorce themselves from the responsibility entangled with creating a child. There's a human on the line, and that cannot be ignored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom