Should a Man be Forced to Pay Child Support for a Child He Wanted to Abort?

[visceral_instinct]

I get sick of people arguing that dealing with it/accepting the consequences = having the child.

If I crash while mountain biking, should I 'accept the consequences' and just lie on the ground with multiple fractures instead of being 'spoiled' and getting medical help? After all, I chose to tear down that incline at upwards of 30mph, I should be adult enough to accept that I will smash my skeleton if I crash, and not whine and expect some medic to set my fractured limbs or sew up lacerations.

See how asinine that sounds? That's how you sound when you whine about how 'accepting consequences' = having the baby.

 

[copernicus66]

I get sick of people arguing that dealing with it/accepting the consequences = having the child.

If I crash while mountain biking, should I 'accept the consequences' and just lie on the ground with multiple fractures instead of being 'spoiled' and getting medical help? After all, I chose to tear down that incline at upwards of 30mph, I should be adult enough to accept that I will smash my skeleton if I crash, and not whine and expect some medic to set my fractured limbs or sew up lacerations.

See how asinine that sounds? That's how you sound when you whine about how 'accepting consequences' = having the baby.

If you tear out an unwilling individual's organs to replace the ones you lost in the crash, then you'd be a piece of shit. An innocent individual shouldn't have to suffer unwillingly because of your reckless behaviour.

 

[visceral_instinct]

Please repeat the question. Bold is for my convenience.



So if the condom breaks, or his partner forgets to take the pill, he shouldn't be held responsible for the conceptus?



So? Analogous situations do not need to be identical, but similiar in particular key aspects. Killing another individual in order to improve your 'comfort' is spoilt (scratch that... *homicidal*) behaviour.



'A blob of cells' could be used to provide a rough descriptor for any living being. 'A blob of cells' is just a way for pro-choicers to dehumanise the fetus so that it becomes nothing more than a piece of shit to be disposed of by the woman whenever it pleases her. But god help the man who slips her some RU486 to dispose of that 'piece of shit' developing inside her womb.



Sometimes both choices are evils, but one is the lesser evil. It is more responsible to raise an 'unwanted' child (or adopt it out) than to kill it outright.



Precisely. My right to swing my fist stops when said fist comes in contact with your face. My right to do what I wish with my penis stops when it is about to penetrate the orfice of an unwilling female (or male!).



As the laws currently stand, women cannot abort after a certain time period. Sounds good to me.



A fourth month old baby with a rudimentary cerebral cortex vs a 25 year old with a fully developed cortex? Shit, why does the born baby have the same right to life that a 25 year old does?



At least you're consistent. I am also consistent. If men were to fall pregnant, I would expect them to carry it until term.

Please repeat the question. Bold is for my convenience.

Consider such a scenario: A couple already have 8 children, one of them was sterilized in a less drastic way such as vasectomy, but it went wrong and she is pregnant. You would call her a spoiled brat for aborting a bunch of cells when she already has 8 to look after and can't afford another one?

So if the condom breaks, or his partner forgets to take the pill, he shouldn't be held responsible for the conceptus?

NO, he shouldn't.

So? Analogous situations do not need to be identical, but similiar in particular key aspects. Killing another individual in order to improve your 'comfort' is spoilt (scratch that... *homicidal*) behaviour.

It's not analogous in the first place. Killing an individual is not analogous to getting rid of a blob of cells.

'A blob of cells' could be used to provide a rough descriptor for any living being. 'A blob of cells' is just a way for pro-choicers to dehumanise the fetus so that it becomes nothing more than a piece of shit to be disposed of by the woman whenever it pleases her. But god help the man who slips her some RU486 to dispose of that 'piece of shit' developing inside her womb.

It's still not a person and therefore getting rid of it does NOT equate to killing an individual.

Sometimes both choices are evils, but one is the lesser evil. It is more responsible to raise an 'unwanted' child (or adopt it out) than to kill it outright.

No it isn't. One, children take up worldly resources. They also need looking after, if you weren't prepared and have other stuff going on in your life, you won;t be in a position to do that. Two, again with your talk of killing a child. It's. A. Little. Viscous. Blob.

Precisely. My right to swing my fist stops when said fist comes in contact with your face. My right to do what I wish with my penis stops when it is about to penetrate the orfice of an unwilling female (or male!).

And your right to express your will stops when you make rules about what I do with my internals.

As the laws currently stand, women cannot abort after a certain time period. Sounds good to me.

Oh I'd abort it way before that.

A fourth month old baby with a rudimentary cerebral cortex vs a 25 year old with a fully developed cortex? Shit, why does the born baby have the same right to life that a 25 year old does?

A BORN baby can survive on its own outside the womb.

At least you're consistent. I am also consistent. If men were to fall pregnant, I would expect them to carry it until term

Your personal opinion. I would have no problem with them aborting it. Hell, I would have no problem with giving a third trimester fetus a little kalium chloride to the heart, but I won't argue that, that's just me.

 

[visceral_instinct]

If you tear out an unwilling individual's organs to replace the ones you lost in the crash, then you'd be a piece of shit. An innocent individual shouldn't have to suffer unwillingly because of your reckless behaviour.

What does tearing someone's organs out have to do with anything?????

 

[copernicus66]

What does tearing someone's organs out have to do with anything?????

Because abortion results in the death of an innocent, unwillingly individual, whereas your original analogy did not. Perhaps it would have been better for me to state that people should deal with the consequences of their actions without resorting to unethical actions (such as fetus killing).

 

[copernicus66]

NO, he shouldn't.
A BORN baby can survive on its own outside the womb.

Holy shit, is your baby 'Superbaby'? It can find and eat its own food, clean up its own mess, put on its own clothes, and pay the rent for its own house? That's one impressive infant.

 

[visceral_instinct]

I love how you ignored much of my post.

Regards fetus killing, see my point about destroying a blob of cells v. killing an infant.

Regards you second post, I reckon that merely having to look after something is a hell of a lot less invasive than having it living inside your body, taking nutrients from your bloodstream and lying against your other internal organs, don't you?

 

[iceaura]

Because abortion results in the death of an innocent, unwillingly individual,

No, it doesn't.

Wrong. It is a body.

Wrong. It isn't. Where is the death certificate? The burial site?

The right of the fetus to life supercedes the woman's right to comfort.

Not even human beings, let alone embryos, have a right to use another's body for their own life without consent. Comfort is not involved.

A man's right to father his child supercedes the woman's right to comfort.

A man has no such right inside another's body. Comfort is not involved.

 

[visceral_instinct]

Completely agree with your point about using another's body, Ice. Well said...

..and I also take issue with this

Originally Posted by copernicus
Conversely, a woman should have *no* right whatsoever to abort the unborn child except when her life is in imminent danger.

So if a woman was raped, you would force her to have the child?

Come on. You can't even play the 'spoiled' card there.

 

[iceaura]

So if a woman was raped, you would force her to have the child?

Worse than that, he would grant the rapist the right to father his child inside the raped woman.

If he were to remain consistent.

Usually, you get to a line of absurdity these guys will not cross. The local Catholic Hospital, that refuses to perform abortions on the grounds that a fully human being exists from "the moment of conception", recently amended its formal treatment of miscarriages, after someone pointed out the oddity of throwing fully human and possibly still living human beings in a garbage pail and incinerating them with excised appendixes and the like. All these years, and they hadn't noticed.

 

[visceral_instinct]

What the fuck....

 

[Liebling]

Choice, begins at conception.

If you can't trust a woman to make a decision based on your morals and values, then you shouldn't lie down with her. If you don't know what choice she would make, and haven't had that conversation with a woman about the whatif's, then you shouldn't be having sex with her. And if you do "choose" to have sex with her, you should be handling birth control on your own. There is no harm to an unborn child to wear a condom while having sex. It doesn't matter if she's "on birth control" because you have the right, before you have sex, to refuse to make a baby. You make that choice, man or woman.

No one person should ever force another's suffering, no matter what. Men do not have a right to force a woman to carry a child to term. If you want to make those kinds of choices, do so BEFORE you lie down.

That said;

If you do procreate unwantedly, I do not feel that a man should be forced to abide by a woman's choices for the next 18 years of his life. Women can be very sneaky creatures, and can/do trick men into believing that they are safe with her even while she is undermining and betraying that trust. There was a thread on another forum years ago that was interesting in that it laid out ground rules and how the payment system would work out in the event that you found yourself in this situation, but I can't find it now.

But the bottom line in all of this, is that a man has a choice before he lays down and should make sure the choice he is making is the right and moral one. It's about being responsible, it's about taking responsibility for your choices and how it affects everyone else around you as well. If you don't want a woman making the "wrong" choice, make the right choice for yourself. If you make the wrong choice, then why should your judgement and values supercede a womans choice?

 

[copernicus66]

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

Wrong. It isn't. Where is the death certificate? The burial site?

Non-sequitur logic fallacy. No death certificate and/or burial site has no bearing whatsoever on whether a body existed, unless you want to claim that all those Jews who were thrown in the ovens never had bodies.

So since your argument is a non-sequitur, I won't even make the observation that miscarried fetuses and fetal body parts can be (and are) buried.

Not even human beings, let alone embryos, have a right to use another's body for their own life without consent.

Sure they do. Children indirectly use their father's body without his consent. After all, in most cases earning the money for child support involves physical activity. Even the mother must act in such a fashion so that she does not neglect her child, which again implies that another being has indirect control and use over her body. A child still obtains nutrition through its (unwilling?) parents, its just not as blatantly direct as it was during pregnancy.

Comfort is not involved. A man has no such right inside another's body.

A man has a right to make decisions on the child inside of her, given that he contributed his genetic material to it. A father has a responsibility to his child, born or unborn. More importantly, society as a whole has a responsibility to protect the unborn child who in its most vulnerable state has the 'gall' to obtain nutrition through a woman.

I'm sorry that a woman's autonomy must be impinged upon in order to protect the far more valuable rights of the child to live, and the father not to have his child's life snuffed out. But nature ain't fair. Deal with it. None of this 'Waa waa waa, pregnancy is uncomfortable so I should be able to kill your child. Boo hoo hoo, woe betide me!"

Spoilt brat talk. There's no way in hell a man would be taken seriously if he pulled that shit.

 

[copernicus66]

Worse than that, he would grant the rapist the right to father his child inside the raped woman.
If he were to remain consistent.

Wow, broadbrushing the opposition and simplifying their views in an attempt to belittle them. It's blatantly obvious that you're arguing in good faith .

 

[copernicus66]

Choice, begins at conception.

Yes, a woman chooses to spread her legs at conception. After that, she must deal with the consequences without resorting to killing an innocent. See, I'm pro-choice too.

 

[Liebling]

What about your responsibility? It takes two to split a cell.

You don't get to make up morals someone else lives by. And since it's not illegal, it's not against the law. It's not murder unless you can be prosecuted for it in our society. Just because you feel like it is, doesn't make it so. It's up to every society and community to come up with the laws on that. You can call it murder all you'd like, but you'd have to move to a different country to get anyone to hold a woman accountable for it.

Repeating a mantra doesn't make it true.

You make a choice as well, and you have the choice to live by your own morals. If a situation compromises those morals, you have no one to blame but yourself unless you were forced into it by duress, or physicality. You can't remove yourself from the role you play in that, regardless of the outcome.

If someone begins a situation that causes a fatal car crash along the line, they can still be held accountable for the death. We see involuntary manslaughter cases all the time. You still make the choice of whether or not to begin that life, you have a share in the responsibility of the outcome no matter what the outcome might be. Your choices stop when it becomes a part of another persons person. Do you have ownership of a bullet fired into another man's head just because you bought the bullet and fired the gun?

You seem to want to absolve yourself of the guilt, but you are just as dirty if you make the wrong choice.

 

[q0101]

Yes, a woman chooses to spread her legs at conception. After that, she must deal with the consequences without resorting to killing an innocent. See, I'm pro-choice too.

You seem to be comfortable with the idea of forcing women to endure the pain of an unwanted pregnancy and child birth. Well I think that every person that claims to be pro-life deserves to suffer for their beliefs. Perhaps a little unwanted suffering might change the way you think. I would like to know what a woman thinks about abortion after she has been forced to give birth to a child that was conceived while she was being gang raped. And for the men, well I wish that I could infect you with a parasite that mimics the symptoms of pregnancy. I want you to gain weight. I want your breast to swell and leak fluid. I want your abdomen to become painful and distended. I want you to experience several days of headaches, nausea, and diarrhea. And I want the last days of your illness to mimic the birth of your unwanted child. Perhaps a bad case of kidney stones and constipation would be appropriate. That could be followed by a combination of things like rectal bleeding, hemorrhoids, and urethral stricture disease.

 

[visceral_instinct]

Sure they do. Children indirectly use their father's body without his consent. After all, in most cases earning the money for child support involves physical activity. Even the mother must act in such a fashion so that she does not neglect her child, which again implies that another being has indirect control and use over her body. A child still obtains nutrition through its (unwilling?) parents, its just not as blatantly direct as it was during pregnancy.



A man has a right to make decisions on the child inside of her, given that he contributed his genetic material to it. A father has a responsibility to his child, born or unborn. More importantly, society as a whole has a responsibility to protect the unborn child who in its most vulnerable state has the 'gall' to obtain nutrition through a woman.

I'm sorry that a woman's autonomy must be impinged upon in order to protect the far more valuable rights of the child to live, and the father not to have his child's life snuffed out. But nature ain't fair. Deal with it. None of this 'Waa waa waa, pregnancy is uncomfortable so I should be able to kill your child. Boo hoo hoo, woe betide me!"

Spoilt brat talk. There's no way in hell a man would be taken seriously if he pulled that shit.

Children indirectly use their father's body without his consent. After all, in most cases earning the money for child support involves physical activity. Even the mother must act in such a fashion so that she does not neglect her child, which again implies that another being has indirect control and use over her body. A child still obtains nutrition through its (unwilling?) parents, its just not as blatantly direct as it was during pregnancy.

Which is still a whole lot less invasive than having the thing actually live inside you, lying against your vitals, putting pressure on them and generally fucking you up.

A man has a right to make decisions on the child inside of her, given that he contributed his genetic material to it.

His genetic material, versus her entire body, having to accommodate what is equivalent to a parasite.

More importantly, society as a whole has a responsibility to protect the unborn child who in its most vulnerable state has the 'gall' to obtain nutrition through a woman.

A woman who CHOSE to have those children, because she WANTED them.

I'm sorry that a woman's autonomy must be impinged upon in order to protect the far more valuable rights of the child to live, and the father not to have his child's life snuffed out.

You value the 'rights', if that is even a legitimate conept, indistinct piece of tissue far more highly than those of a full grown human being?

Go do some thinking. Then get back to me. Let me try and make it concrete for you. Think of any woman you know. Maybe she's tall or short or thin or a little asymmetric looking. Maybe she's talkative, or reckless, or likeable, or arrogant. My point? She's an individual. Now, think of a blob of material that has scarcely developed into something human. Which do you value more? Which should have more rights??

 

[visceral_instinct]

Hey, Copernicus? I really admire how you're picking and choosing the parts of my posts you feel you can refute and ignoring the rest. You still haven't answered this

Consider such a scenario: A couple already have 8 children, one of them was sterilized in a less drastic way such as vasectomy, but it went wrong and she is pregnant. You would call her a spoiled brat for aborting a bunch of cells when she already has 8 to look after and can't afford another one?

You've also ignored 2 of my above posts. Make your point properly, or go and impale yourself on it.

 

[copernicus66]

You seem to be comfortable with the idea of forcing women to endure the pain of an unwanted pregnancy and child birth.

More comfortable that killing an unborn child, that's for sure.

Well I think that every person that claims to be pro-life deserves to suffer for their beliefs. Perhaps a little unwanted suffering might change the way you think.

It might, or it might not. After all, polls suggest that women are more likely to be pro-life than men.

By the way, I wonder if any of the bleeding hearts on this thread will call you on your vindictiveness? Somehow I doubt it, because you are belittling those big bad pro-lifers.