# Financial Abortions



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kirsten-west-savali/fathers-financial-abortion_b_1015286.html



> In a 2006 TIME article, many readers were introduced to the National Organization for Men and their push to establish a "Roe v Wade for Men." Center director, Mel Feit, long known for his often antagonistic opposition to feminism, stumbled across a provocative question that was cast aside as little more than a publicity stunt, but holds urgent relevance today:
> 
> "Up until now, reproductive choice has been seen as a woman's issue: you're either pro-life or pro-choice... If we expect men to be responsible, isn't it right to give them some choices too?"
> 
> ...


Thoughts?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Before answering, can I just make clear what is meant by "financial abortion" - is it that a man ought to be able to say if the woman has a physical abortion, or that, in some cases, a man ought to be exempt from making child support payments?


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Before answering, can I just make clear what is meant by "financial abortion" - is it that a man ought to be able to say if the woman has a physical abortion, or that, in some cases, a man ought to be exempt from making child support payments?


Latter.

Nothing to do with physical abortions, everything to do with money.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

The man has made his bed; he is obliged to lie in it.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> Latter.
> 
> Nothing to do with physical abortions, everything to do with money.


This is an issue that I find fraught with difficulties, and which ought to be weighed on a circumstantial basis. I mean, if, for example, a man has taken the precaution of correctly using a condom with the 98% success rate not on his side, and he makes it clear to the woman that he does not want to support a child but she goes ahead with it anyway, it ought to be fairly clear that she is acting to her own advantage in a deliberate betrayal of trust and disregard for the man's original intentions. I'm sure, however, that cases are rarely, if ever, this clear cut. So my intuition tells me that a man ought not to always have to pay, but I'm pretty certain that many men who would claim they shouldn't have to actually bloody well should!


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I mean, if, for example, a man has taken the precaution of correctly using a condom with the 98% success rate not on his side, and he makes it clear to the woman that he does not want to support a child but she goes ahead with it anyway, it ought to be fairly clear that she is acting to her own advantage in a deliberate betrayal of trust and disregard for the man's original intentions.


I would disagree with this. If the woman lies or misleads the man about being on birth control, then it is a deliberate betrayal of trust and disregard for the man's original intentions. The man should have a good case for getting out of financially supporting the child (difficult as such a thing would be to prove). But if the birth control is there and fails, that is a risk that was inherent from the beginning and both parties accepted. If the woman is pro-life, then acting in accordance with her moral convictions can't really be labelled as "acting to her own advantage". It is the man's responsibility to find out her stance on the abortion issue prior to the act and judge whether the risk is worth it considering that the woman's position is liable to change when there is an actual fetus in her womb.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Believe it or not, there are ethical standards. One of the primary ones is to take responsibility for ones actions. Accepting that recreation may result in procreation seems pretty elementary.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

And of course all kinds of reasoning and deep thought leads up to the act of passion between hot and horny people looking to get it on after several drinks.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

starthrower said:


> And of course all kinds of reasoning and deep thought leads up to the act of passion between hot and horny people looking to get it on after several drinks.


Unless the participants have _always_ been drunk, they've had contemplation opportunity.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Couchie said:


> I would disagree with this. If the woman lies or misleads the man about being on birth control, then it is a deliberate betrayal of trust and disregard for the man's original intentions. The man should have a good case for getting out of financially supporting the child (difficult as such a thing would be to prove). But if the birth control is there and fails, that is a risk that was inherent from the beginning and both parties accepted. If the woman is pro-life, then acting in accordance with her moral convictions can't really be labelled as "acting to her own advantage". It is the man's responsibility to find out her stance on the abortion issue prior to the act and judge whether the risk is worth it considering that the woman's position is liable to change when there is an actual fetus in her womb.


Well yes, I didn't consider some of those factors being at play with my hypothetical couple, so this is a circumstantial question. With my example, I would elaborate that if the couple had a spoken agreement prior to sex that she would be happy to have an abortion, and they continue to use condoms without the pill and have an accident after which she decides to keep the baby, that would be a breach of trust from which the man should be exempt from making payments.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> The man has made his bed; he is obliged to lie in it.


Note: this thread is for people who are pro-choice.

If you are pro-life, of course financial abortions make no sense whatsoever.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

brianwalker said:


> Note: this thread is for people who are pro-choice.
> 
> If you are pro-life, of course financial abortions make no sense whatsoever.


I am not 'pro-life', nor 'pro-choice'. I am pro-responsibility, the acceptance thereof.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Unless the participants have _always_ been drunk, they've had contemplation opportunity.


A moot point after the alcohol is flowing.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I dont know what kind of a man would have no interest in assisting his progeny, accident or not.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I am not 'pro-life', nor 'pro-choice'. I am pro-responsibility, the acceptance thereof.


Do you believe abortions should be legal?


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

emiellucifuge said:


> I dont know what kind of a man would have no interest in assisting his progeny, accident or not.


What kind of woman has no interesting in making sure her progeny survives to childbirth?

Are you for legal abortions?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> I dont know what kind of a man would have no interest in assisting his progeny, accident or not.


But there are such men, and I suspect the majority would do so at least occasionally if they could get away with it.

This is why government gets into messes in modern society. Back in the day, everyone in the village knew each other, and a man couldn't easily get away with fathering a child and abandoning it. (Exceptions being: soldiers, aristocrats, etc. - but the principle still held much of the time.)

Today it is relatively easy for a man to abandon a child. We either have to accept it or we have to let government formally take the role that society used to play informally.

On issues like this modern-style conservatives can't win. They don't want to let society go to pot, but they don't want to let the government have any power, and the market certainly isn't going to solve the problem.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

science said:


> But there are such men, and I suspect the majority would do so at least occasionally if they could get away with it.
> 
> This is why government gets into messes in modern society. Back in the day, everyone in the village knew each other, and a man couldn't easily get away with fathering a child and abandoning it. (Exceptions being: soldiers, aristocrats, etc. - but the principle still held much of the time.)
> 
> ...


Why does the child have the right to free food from other members of society?

Doesn't abortion solve this problem? Before, if a man abandoned a woman, she was helpless.

In most Western nations, abortions are legal, and if you're not incredibly poor you can cross borders to get one.

Shouldn't the right to abortions relinquish men of this responsibility, since it gives the woman the choice of relinquishing t?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

brianwalker said:


> Why does the child have the right to free food from other members of society?


In cases like this, I don't think in terms of rights unless it is absolutely necessary. The question is, do you want the kid to starve to death, or not?



brianwalker said:


> Doesn't abortion solve this problem? Before, if a man abandoned a woman, she was helpless.


In some sense, abortion was always possible, as was allowing the baby to die from exposure. Been practiced a lot in traditional societies. The existence of a "solution" has in this sense always been possible.

But I guess your logic is that if the woman is abandoned and unable to support the child, she should be forced to have an abortion. It's funny, it's the mirror image of the pro-life position.



brianwalker said:


> In most Western nations, abortions are legal, and if you're not incredibly poor you can cross borders to get one.
> 
> Shouldn't the right to abortions relinquish men of this responsibility, since it gives the woman the choice of relinquishing t?


I guess you're trying to argue that the choice to have an abortion should not lie ultimately with the woman alone. But the fact is that a pregnancy is asymmetrical, and so is everything associated with it.

Do you want to live in a society where men get away with abandoning their children?


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

science said:


> I guess you're trying to argue that the choice to have an abortion should not lie ultimately with the woman alone. But the fact is that a pregnancy is asymmetrical, and so is everything associated with it.
> 
> Do you want to live in a society where men get away with abandoning their children?


Who said I was pro-life? Who said that the man should get any choice with what a woman does with HER BODY? You guys are the ones who are saying that the woman should have a choice what to do with the MAN'S PROPERTY.

Do you want to live in a society where women can get away with killing their children before they're born? These rhetorical questions are meaningless.

In cases like this, I don't think in terms of rights unless it is absolutely necessary. The question is, do you want the kid to starve to death, or not? 
Healthy white adoptable babies are a shortage in the US.

No babies starve to death in the US unless from parental neglect.



> In some sense, abortion was always possible, as was allowing the baby to die from exposure. Been practiced a lot in traditional societies. The existence of a "solution" has in this sense always been possible.
> 
> But I guess your logic is that if the woman is abandoned and unable to support the child, she should be forced to have an abortion. It's funny, it's the mirror image of the pro-life position.


1. The woman could always give it up for adoption. 
2. The question isn't whether she should be forced to have an abortion, but why she should have the privilege of relinquishing all responsibility when the man cannot.

What happened to this?



Hilltroll72 said:


> Believe it or not, there are ethical standards. One of the primary ones is to take responsibility for ones actions. Accepting that recreation may result in procreation seems pretty elementary.


Shouldn't a woman be responsible for her own actions?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

starthrower said:


> A moot point after the alcohol is flowing.


Temporarily ignored, always present. Responsibility doesn't drown in booze; that is pretty much the rule in law, as well as in ethics.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

brianwalker said:


> [...]
> Shouldn't a woman be responsible for her own actions?


She _shares_ responsibility for getting pregnant. That's _shares_.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

brianwalker said:


> Who said I was pro-life? Who said that the man should get any choice with what a woman does with HER BODY? You guys are the ones who are saying that the woman should have a choice what to do with the MAN'S PROPERTY.
> 
> Do you want to live in a society where women can get away with killing their children before they're born? These rhetorical questions are meaningless.
> 
> ...


Sorry man, if you want to have this conversation with me you'll have to do it in the politics group. This has gotten too heated for the main board.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> What kind of woman has no interesting in making sure her progeny survives to childbirth?
> 
> Are you for legal abortions?


I dont wish to derail this thread into an abortion debate, but:

Im not of the opinion that 'personhood' begins at contraception. Therefore, up to a certain age of gestation, the woman may take other considerations into account and should not consider it the termination of a progeny's life to abort before this time. Liken it to contraception if you will; the prevention of a potential offspring - which I understand some religious persons also take offence to.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> She _shares_ responsibility for getting pregnant. That's _shares_.


Are you for legal abortions?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

brianwalker said:


> Are you for legal abortions?


For?

I am not opposed to legal abortions, but that's not a meaningful question. The question is: what should constitute a legal abortion.

You seem to be dodging the issue you started with; perhaps you misrepresented it?


----------

