Another Abortion thread.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-01-2012, 04:53 PM
RE: Another Abortion thread.
Hey, Kim.

Yeah, something like that. For instance, we demand that if a man impregnates a woman, he is financially responsible to the child for the rest of his life. For the male, the decision to have sex locks him in to the consequence, a life of working hard to pay thousands of dollars a year in child support. If he does not, he's considered a deadbeat dad. So if what happens in a woman's body is her decision and she has the unilateral right to abandon the foetus, why doesn't the man have the right to say, "I want nothing to do with this child because it's my body and my life. If you decide to carry it to term, because it's your body, then that's your decision. I will not offer any support whatsoever."

If the consequence of the sex act is known and it's entered into consensually and the man is held accountable for the consequence of the act for the rest of his life, then why isn't the woman?

Again, I'm not about to march on Washington and demand change, I'm just wondering if the received wisdom can be re-examined.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Ghost's post
15-01-2012, 05:21 PM
RE: Another Abortion thread.
(15-01-2012 04:53 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Kim.

Yeah, something like that. For instance, we demand that if a man impregnates a woman, he is financially responsible to the child for the rest of his life. For the male, the decision to have sex locks him in to the consequence, a life of working hard to pay thousands of dollars a year in child support. If he does not, he's considered a deadbeat dad. So if what happens in a woman's body is her decision and she has the unilateral right to abandon the foetus, why doesn't the man have the right to say, "I want nothing to do with this child because it's my body and my life. If you decide to carry it to term, because it's your body, then that's your decision. I will not offer any support whatsoever."

If the consequence of the sex act is known and it's entered into consensually and the man is held accountable for the consequence of the act for the rest of his life, then why isn't the woman?

Again, I'm not about to march on Washington and demand change, I'm just wondering if the received wisdom can be re-examined.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

That's such a good point, not only in case of abortion. And now I know what won't allow me to sleep to night..need to think!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2012, 07:03 PM
RE: Another Abortion thread.
(15-01-2012 04:53 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Kim.

Yeah, something like that. For instance, we demand that if a man impregnates a woman, he is financially responsible to the child for the rest of his life. For the male, the decision to have sex locks him in to the consequence, a life of working hard to pay thousands of dollars a year in child support. If he does not, he's considered a deadbeat dad. So if what happens in a woman's body is her decision and she has the unilateral right to abandon the foetus, why doesn't the man have the right to say, "I want nothing to do with this child because it's my body and my life. If you decide to carry it to term, because it's your body, then that's your decision. I will not offer any support whatsoever."

If the consequence of the sex act is known and it's entered into consensually and the man is held accountable for the consequence of the act for the rest of his life, then why isn't the woman?

Again, I'm not about to march on Washington and demand change, I'm just wondering if the received wisdom can be re-examined.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

What you're describing here is called a "financial abortion". It can be reasonably argued, but it definitely sets feminists on fire.

At the moment of an unwanted conception due to unprotected sex, both the man and the woman are equally "guilty". However, the woman has disproportionally more control than the man before and after the consensual sexual act. Once the mistake has been made she has full control of the situation. Her choices are practically unlimited. While the man is not and should not be able to impose surgical or chemical abortion, he should be equally able to treat the pregnancy as unwanted and to decline all legal obligations and parental rights. That decision should be irrevocable and, just like in the case of an abortion he should not have any right to claim that child at a later time and try to take any part in the child's life (unless the mother decides to grant legal consent).

It has been argued that, in this case, the balance would again be shifted too much in the favor of the man. The woman would be left with two shitty choices: physically and emotionally wrecking surgery or a lifetime of financial troubles. It is a pretty convincing point, but, in my opinion, the sexual act did not in fact have the purpose of procreation. As much as some society segments frown upon it, it never had any purpose other than pleasure.

She does have the opportunity to make an unilateral decision to create offspring with the man's DNA without his consent. Of course, there is no ethical way for him to re-claim or to void his genetic contribution, but, while the sexual act was consensual, the conception wasn't.

As much as a man who is the last specimen of his tribe/race/ethnic group cannot force a woman to keep the pregnancy and perpetuate his kind, no woman should be able to decide to create offspring for a man who doesn't want any (more/yet). As I said, biologically, this rule cannot be enforced, but the legal and social consequences can be adjusted in the interest of fairness.

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)

I would never shake a baby unless the recipe requires it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Malleus's post
15-01-2012, 07:40 PM (This post was last modified: 15-01-2012 07:44 PM by kim.)
RE: Another Abortion thread.
(15-01-2012 04:53 PM)Ghost Wrote:  If the consequence of the sex act is known and it's entered into consensually and the man is held accountable for the consequence of the act for the rest of his life, then why isn't the woman?

Hi Ghost -
I am of the opinion that if abortion were the option decided upon, I would expect the biological father to financially kick in on that, as a parting gesture if nothing else. However, I don't think sex should automatically relate anyone to custodial responsibility or privilege. This too, would be my opinion.

If a woman decides to keep and raise a child from a pregnancy, I absolutely agree, this being completely her decision; she should not expect or demand any financial support from the biological father to which she had and wants no connection. There are also instances of a biological father demanding visitation rights for such an infant and at that point, financial support becomes an issue. Indeed, many women do not advise the biological father of their pregnancy and child, for this very reason. Although there is a segment of the population of single moms who do choose to take advantage of the system, they are not the norm according to 2007 statistics.

Among the 13.7 million custodial parents in the U.S. In 2007, 54% if them had some type of child support agreement in place to allow dual access. Of these custodial parents who sought child support, only 27.3% sought government assistance to collect it. 62.7% of awarded support was received.
8% of custodial parents had informal child support agreements established between the two parents, without benefit of contractual agreement. Regarding this statistic, I gather most people involved in this financially and emotionally charged issue, are not big on trust. Undecided

Statistics line up fairly evenly with single mothers awarded support, which was comparable to the prior arranged support agreement statistics:
56.9% of custodial single mothers were awarded child support in 2007.

Custodial single fathers statistics also come into play considering they make up a portion of the 54% receiving custodial support:
40.4% of custodial single fathers were awarded child support in 2007.

On average, custodial parents mother or father, awarded child support receive about $280 per month, per child.

I kept with 2007 statistics since they were more complete in detail, but also compared what I found with 2009 statistics, and they seem to remain consistent. Many links within the following urls can help if other info is necessary. I found both to be very consistent and quite reliable sources.
When dealing with statistics, I always have to remind myself: averages are products of the extremes. I was actually kind of surprised statistics were not quite as grim the extremes of statistics usually lead one to presuppose. I learned a lot and I appreciate the discussion. Smile

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/childsupport/cs09.html
http://singleparents.about.com/od/stateb...istics.htm
________________________

I think if someone has sole custody of an offspring, they should be sole financial provider. Then too, if someone is denied requested access to such an infant, they should be absolved of any financial burden for that infant. I have no statistics to relate so that would be my own opinion.

Opinion questions or thoughts:
Single woman decides to keep infant, without support or acknowledgement of biological father. If infant is born in need of some type of medical care which could be provided by the father, what then? Say it has a rare type of blood, the same as the biological father. Should she tell him or exhaust all medical avenues before doing so? What if said child is born with condition which may or will eventually need attention, should biological father be advised or even approached?

What if the woman has a heart attack or strokes during labor(both common) and is disabled or even dies? Should the biological father be contacted? Usually a woman who's contemplated having a baby, has made preparations for these very possible things to occur. I guess I'm asking... should the father be advised of any of this or wait until a later date, if the infant survives?

Should a biological father be contacted at any time during his lifetime to be advised that he has fathered a child?

HA! Now, that's a bottom line! Wink

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2012, 08:00 AM
RE: Another Abortion thread.
I've been lurking Tongue
gathering all the opinions and such
and thats an interesting point that was raised, Yeah sure you can contact the father in the case and appeal to his reason/compassion
like you mentioned Kim but the point is i guess he should not be legally obligated to care for the child based on the premises
of this case "the mother's decision to keep the child without the father's consent, and the 'financial abortion'".

anyway im glad this thread sparked up so many good arguments and viewes,
The whole purpose was to get people to examine this issue and not enforce just 1 opinion
The issue of abortion is not black and white and should be carefully examined, and debated not just by
us but the legislators and the lawmakers who have the final say in the law making process.

"Yeah, good idea. Make them buy your invisible apple. Insist that they do. Market it properly and don't stop until they pay for it." -Malleus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jackrabbit's post
16-01-2012, 02:40 PM
RE: Another Abortion thread.
This is just a side note... since we are into other related aspects of the abortion issue.

It has been argued and I would agree, that the legalization of abortion in the United States, largely due to the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, has reduced crime in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. There are other unrelated statistics which correlate the statistics on which this argument is based.

Opponents generally reject these statistics, and argue that abortion has negative effects on society or decrease in crime is brought about in other ways. As well many prochoice advocates consider it a ghastly argument and back away from associating it with Roe vs Wade, but I think it's quite compelling and prudent to consider. Think about it; an unwanted child will not grow up to be a criminal if he was aborted in the first place. This is the unutterable notion on the tip of everyone's tongue. But there is considerable history behind the statistics which do back it up.

The recent 1999 paper by economists John J. Donohue and Steven Levitt originally entitled,
The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime offers evidence that the falling United States crime rates of the 1990s were mostly caused by the legalization of abortion due to the Roe v. Wade in 1973. The findings in this paper as well as the history surrounding other similar studies come to the conclusion that legal abortion does reduce crime.

Here is an interesting and informative wiki discussing this argument. The references at the bottom are indispensable for research into counter argument and repost. I really got into this research a few years ago after I read the book Freakonomics and it's follow up Super Freakonomics. Both the books have been criticized for actually being works of sociology and/or criminology, rather than economics.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
18-01-2012, 02:14 PM
RE: Another Abortion thread.
If abortion is murder then why don't we have funerals for miscarriages?


Just wondering? It seems that when someone wants to intentionally remove the fetus they are considered people. But when the loss is unintentional we treat it like a dirty piece of toilet paper.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like germanyt's post
19-01-2012, 08:39 AM
RE: Another Abortion thread.
Hey, Germany.

The rite may be different, but you better believe that people mourn after a miscarriage.

I'm not saying that abortion is murder because I ain't getting trapped by that frame. Medically speaking, a miscarriage carries out like a massive period. The body simply purges. You can't exactly squat over a colander (I don't mean to be glib, but that's about the long and the short of it). In the cases that a surgical procedure is required to remove the remnants of the pregnancy from the uterus to avoid uterine infection, the remains have to be treated like biohazardous waste.

Hey, Malleus.

Good point. If the dad says, "so long, suckers," that's it. They've abdicated their parental rights and should not be allowed to even see the child.

Hey, Kim.

That crime thing seems pretty far beyond sketchy. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. It happened after therefore it happened because. It kind of perversely assumes that the only women who get abortions are poor women. There's a lot wrong with that assumption.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2012, 10:21 AM (This post was last modified: 19-01-2012 10:29 AM by kim.)
RE: Another Abortion thread.
(19-01-2012 08:39 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Kim.
That crime thing seems pretty far beyond sketchy. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. It happened after therefore it happened because. It kind of perversely assumes that the only women who get abortions are poor women. There's a lot wrong with that assumption.

After going over all the stats, I didn't find it sketchy at all. To correlate the numbers, they also did numerous studies involving the statistics of not legalizing abortion and similar numbers came up. Their statistical studies were global in scope so the correlation was not isolated. It wasn't just a US statistic, it was a global statistic.

Also, the statisticians didn't only assume that women who get abortions are poor... they went to great lengths to ensure this was not overlooked thereby effecting any further statistics. Preliminary statistics were taken across the board in economic status figures, genetic statistics, education, medical background statistics were also taken into consideration because they also thought this could be a study for a medical group of statistics. This was a statistical study and initially an economics study. Numbers don't assume.
The study was extremely thorough and controversial when it was presented, and continues to be argued and consistently upheld to this day.
Anyway, it was just a side note of interest and I found it enjoyable reading. Smile

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: