Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andir]

What I said that the father has no choice over whether or not the mother should have the child or abort it, and that if she keeps it, it should be mandatory for the father to help provide for it (regardless of whether he wanted it to begin with or not). The only equal choice the father has regarding child-making is whether to have sex with the mother-to-be or not.

Thanks for clarifying.

[kaijyuu]

This is unfortunately one of the things that can never be fair due to biology.


There was an interesting proposal I think in the UK a while back that said mothers could decide to have an abortion, without consent of the father or any legal guardian, within a set number of months after conception. Similarly, the father could choose within those same number of months to abstain from responsibility over the child.

The reasoning was, if the mother can decide of her own volition whether she wants a child or not after conception, so should the father.

The latter part was struck down.


Still dunno how I stand on that. It's still not fair of course, since if the mother decides she doesn't want the kid, the father doesn't suddenly become stuck with a child and be forced to raise it solo (assuming he wanted the kid). In the other scenario, the mother IS stuck with a child and forced to raise it solo (again assuming she wanted it and didn't also decide to not have a child).


Don't think there will be a good solution to this sort of problem until we eliminate unwanted pregnancies. IE, the best solution would be avoiding having to deal with it in the first place. Better contraception and education.

[Glowcat]

The way I see it is that the woman has complete control over whether to give birth or not, but the potential father shouldn't be forced to raise a child he didn't want.

[scriver]

Unwanted pregnancies will never go away.

The way I see it is that the woman has complete control over whether to give birth or not, but the potential father shouldn't be forced to raise a child he didn't want.

He doesn't have to raise it - just provide support for it. It may not be fair, but abandoning a mother to raise a child on her own is definitely the worse of the options.

[Glowcat]

The way I see it is that the woman has complete control over whether to give birth or not, but the potential father shouldn't be forced to raise a child he didn't want.

He doesn't have to raise it - just provide support for it. It may not be fair, but abandoning a mother to raise a child on her own is definitely the worse of the options.

It's not abandoning if the parents talk about things before and the potential mother wants the baby but the potential father doesn't. That's coming to a mutual agreement.

[Pnx]

Trouble is you run into situations into troublesome situations like when the mother doesn't tell the father until it's too late to abort. Do we let the father off in that case? Even if the mother assumed he was going to take responsibility?

It's a tricky situation all round.

[scriver]

No, that's wanting two different things. If the mother doesn't want the aid or believes the father shouldn't have to pay, she doesn't have to involve authorities. But if she wants or needs it, the father shouldn't be able to refuse. He was in on the fun, he has to help pay for the consequences. As I said, it's not vety fair, but it's the less bad option.

[Glowcat]

Trouble is you run into troublesome situations like when the mother doesn't tell the father until it's too late to abort. Do we let the father off in that case? Even if the mother assumed he was going to take responsibility?

It's a tricky situation all round.

Mother refuses to tell the father about a pregnancy and tries to make his decision for him? That's pretty immoral on her part. Yeah, I'd still say the father could leave it if he wanted to. The woman decided that she wanted the child on her own but the father had no say when the decision could be changed, so what right does the mother have to use her own actions as a reason to coerce the father into a role he didn't want?

No, that's wanting two different things. If the mother doesn't want the aid or believes the father shouldn't have to pay, she doesn't have to involve authorities. But if she wants or needs it, the father shouldn't be able to refuse. He was in on the fun, he has to help pay for the consequences. As I said, it's not vety fair, but it's the less bad option.

In on the fun? The consequences of raising a child are tied to whether that child is actually born. A woman isn't forced to give birth, that's entirely her decision. They are two different things, and should be considered separately. It could also work that the mother gives birth to the child but only the father wanted to raise it, and she wouldn't have any responsibility past that.

[kaijyuu]

Unwanted pregnancies will never go away.

"Never" is quite a long time.

I don't think we'll eliminate them anytime soon, but ya never know.



In the meantime, I guess I'd prefer some sort of avenue for the father to avoid responsibility if he never wanted the kid in the first place and there was an accident (or "accident"; it's happened before). The state would then foot the child support bills in his absence (similar should happen for incapacitated/deceased fathers too (or mothers, in the case of the father raising the kid)). Cue people complaining about "paying for other people's kids," though.

[scriver]

In on the fun? The consequences of raising a child are tied to whether that child is actually born. A woman isn't forced to give birth, that's entirely her decision. They are two different things, and should be considered separately. It could also work that the mother gives birth to the child but only the father wanted to raise it, and she wouldn't have any responsibility past that.

To pretend that childbirth is only a consequence of the mother's choice to keep it when that choice was only made because they had sex to begin with is dishonest. The child was only made because of his participation in the first place and it's birth is still a consequence of his actions, even if the mother was the one to make the choice to have it.

The same applies in reverse. If a mother gives birth but leaves the child to the father, she still has to pay for it. No difference.

Unwanted pregnancies will never go away.

"Never" is quite a long time.

I don't think we'll eliminate them anytime soon, but ya never know.

Never, because even when contraception is 100% (which I highly douby it will ever be) there will still be cases where events (like changed economic situation) changes a wanted pregnancy into an unwanted one.

In the meantime, I guess I'd prefer some sort of avenue for the father to avoid responsibility if he never wanted the kid in the first place and there was an accident (or "accident"; it's happened before). The state would then foot the child support bills in his absence (similar should happen for incapacitated/deceased fathers too (or mothers, in the case of the father raising the kid)). Cue people complaining about "paying for other people's kids," though.

Being a socialist, I have no problem paying for somebody elses child. But I think it's more fitting the father does it directly. It/s the whole point of the "right to a father" deal - it' supposed to give the father a lot of rights, but it also gives him responsibilities to the child.

[kaijyuu]

Never, because even when contraception is 100% (which I highly douby it will ever be) there will still be cases where events (like changed economic situation) changes a wanted pregnancy into an unwanted one.

Ah yes, there is that. Abortion/adoption, though that still doesn't solve the problem if one parent still wants it and the other doesn't. Guess you're right that the problem will never be 100% eliminated, but it'd still take care of the majority of cases.

As for 100% contraception, we could probably do it now, though people might have ethical concerns and it sure as hell wouldn't be practically possible. You can sterilize men without destroying all their sperm. Artificial insemination from then on.

Might be a good basis for a science fiction dystopia/utopia.

Being a socialist, I have no problem paying for somebody elses child. But I think it's more fitting the father does it directly. It/s the whole point of the "right to a father" deal - it' supposed to give the father a lot of rights, but it also gives him responsibilities to the child.

The father would of course lose any rights (visitation, etc) if they decided to do this. Outright disownment and no turning back.

[Leafsnail]

Don't think there will be a good solution to this sort of problem until we eliminate unwanted pregnancies. IE, the best solution would be avoiding having to deal with it in the first place. Better contraception and education.

This is a very easy thing to say.  But what exactly do you mean?  If you mean education about it at schools, we already have that.  If you mean handing condoms out for free to young people, we already have that.  If you mean actually inventing a better form of contraception then, uh... well, I guess that's possible, but you might have to take a lead on that.

[Glowcat]

In on the fun? The consequences of raising a child are tied to whether that child is actually born. A woman isn't forced to give birth, that's entirely her decision. They are two different things, and should be considered separately. It could also work that the mother gives birth to the child but only the father wanted to raise it, and she wouldn't have any responsibility past that.

To pretend that childbirth is only a consequence of the mother's choice to keep it when that choice was only made because they had sex to begin with is dishonest. The child was only made because of his participation in the first place and it's birth is still a consequence of his actions, even if the mother was the one to make the choice to have it.

Bull, it's not dishonest, the prior participation is irrelevant when an intervening action is possible. Impregnation is a consequence of sex but unless both parents engaged in intercourse with the express purpose of creating a child, it's an accident. The father might have to help pay for an abortion but ultimately that child will only come into being if nothing is done about it.

[kaijyuu]

This is a very easy thing to say.  But what exactly do you mean?  If you mean education about it at schools, we already have that.  If you mean handing condoms out for free to young people, we already have that.  If you mean actually inventing a better form of contraception then, uh... well, I guess that's possible, but you might have to take a lead on that.

For education: Here at least, sex ed sucks. They teach "abstinence only" like that's remotely reasonable and utterly fail to teach about contraception except to mention it exists. Past that it's scare tactics about STDs. So, BETTER education.
As for better contraception, no ideas except the wacky one in my previous post, but there are smart people out there that might think of something.

[SalmonGod]

in italy if you can prove you didn't want the girl to be pregnant, or the girl tricked you into telling you she was on the pill/broke a condom or similar

This happened to a friend of mine.  She told him that she had a medical problem which made her incapable of having children.  It turned out later that was a lie.  She really wanted to have a kid.  He's been really responsible about it, and has made incredible sacrifices (forfeited major career opportunities, given up on plans to move out of the country, etc) to do his part in being responsible for the kid.  He's quite bitter towards the girl, though, who turned out to be incredibly manipulative, dishonest, and emotionally unstable, but also a victim of severe child abuse.  She kept all this stuff hidden for months of their relationship leading up to the pregnancy, and he only began learning these things about her after they started raising the child.