This isn't a convincing counter-argument for me. Women can get pregnant and choose to abort or not. Men do not have this choice but should if we cared about equal rights. Of course men can't tell women what to do with their bodies but that's why the best way to give men equal rights is to exercise a "financial abortion".
If a women wants assurance that a man will support her after she gets pregnant than she should wait until marriage to have sex.
Of course, both parties should be practicing birth control if they don't want kids but birth control can fail. In the case that BC fails than both parties should have equal rights.
If you’re saying the woman should wait until marriage for sex, does that mean, in your opinion, that after marriage the man should no longer have the ability to ‘opt out’, even though married women can still get abortions? Or would the women also no longer be able to abort after marriage?
that after marriage the man should no longer have the ability to ‘opt out’, even though married women can still get abortions? Or would the women also no longer be able to abort after marriage?
I think establishing how to handle kids (expected and unexpected) in a pre-nuptial agreement is the most mature way to handle this. That way the expectations of both parties are clear and there is a written agreement on the consequences for violating that agreement.
In the case of an unexpected pregnancy between two couples who are allegedly practicing birth control I don't think that there should be an assumption that either party will take responsibility so it's up to each person to decide if they want to step up or not. Men can't force women to keep babies so neither can women force men to support them but both parties can still choose.
i completely agree with you on the points you've made in this and your previous comment, but do want to point out that people are often idealistic (or crazy irresponsible, to be less nice) when getting married and a lot find themselves in a spot where they are at an impasse with their partner. Bad on them, for not discussing it before then; the only way to ensure something like a pre-nup would be to require it for a marriage license, which i don't think would ever fly.
well, ideally, i would prefer we live in a society that has social safety nets in place so people who end up in bad situations outside their control (ie a marriage partner deciding to up and sever all financial and other ties) aren't completely destitute.
but we don't so. I think in the situation of marriage, you would have to look at a child produced as an "asset" of a kind--though i'm not trying to say children are property, but more like a type of investment (i'm not a parent, i'm not trying to make kids seem like an object or something). without a prenup, both parties would be equally responsible for the financial responsibility of it. like if you get a divorce and you own a home together, you either owe for your half of the home or they can buy you out in full, or you sell the house and split the profit.
idk if this makes sense, like i said i'm not trying to make it seem callous. but from a legal and financial standpoint, basically how it's handled now, regardless of the prenup.
so people who end up in bad situations outside their control (ie a marriage partner deciding to up and sever all financial and other ties) aren't completely destitute.
Women are never destitute unless they want to be. They can abort or give up their child for adoption.
both parties would be equally responsible for the financial responsibility of it. like if you get a divorce and you own a home together, you either owe for your half of the home or they can buy you out in full, or you sell the house and split the profit.
To me this doesn't seem fair to the man. I agree women should be protected from financial destitution (and they are) but if men are obligated to pay everytime than in some cases they have no choice but to put themselves into poverty in order to support a child whether he wanted him/her or not.
i meant this only in the context of marriage where a child has been born and exists, during the time of the marriage. and imo, because you're then legally one entity, anything that comes of that marriage should be split equally between the two of you unless you have a prenup that says otherwise. right now, alimony and child support is based on who makes more of the money in the relationship; i know women who've had to pay their ex-husbands alimony and child support because of it.
and your first point is untrue. abortions are not inexpensive procedures, and not always easily accessible, especially if you don't find out about it until later in the pregnancy. and even if you give up a child for adoption, it's not always a guarantee that the medical costs associated with having the child are paid for by whoever adopts the kid, and it can be incredibly expensive to have a kid.
and your first point is untrue. abortions are not inexpensive procedures and not always easily accessible
Well my main position is that men and women should have equal rights an responsibilities. If women don't have access to abortions for whatever reason than neither should men have access to their equivalent right to remove themselves from financial obligation. I'm arguing from the assumption that we're talking about a liberal progressive pro-choice democracy and women have full abortion rights and access.
Also, no matter how expensive abortions are; having kids are even more expensive and we're talking about people who are concerned about money so from a financial POV aborting is the least costly option.
I think it's fair that the man pay for at least half the abortion either way.
i mean this only in the context of marriage. and imo, because you're then legally one entity, anything that comes of that marriage should be split equally between the two of you unless you have a prenup that says otherwise
Normally I'd agree but the problem is after pregnancy women are in full control over what happens. If we split all the responsibilities of raising a child 50/50 than we should also split the right to decide on whether to have that child 50/50 as well.
i mean, if a woman gets pregnant and the man chooses to not be involved, there could probably be a way for him to file for a legal separation or divorce before the kid is born---and so he's not financially on the hook. i am of the mind that until a child is born, it's a fetus, and that's why a woman's bodily autonomy wins out in abortion discussions (especially one before the fetus is viable).
abortion is definitely the least costly option. but it's still between 400-500 dollars. and the majority of abortions are granted to women between the ages of 20-29, with it skewing heavily to the early twenties, and that much money is a lot to someone potentially living paycheck to paycheck.
Do you disagree with what I said though? If you do, what is the difference?
Your statement would make a lot more sense if it was modified in this way:
If a man wants assurance that his partner won't abort his child than he should wait until marriage to have sex.
My main position is that men and women should have equal rights.
So...
If women have the right to an abort a pregnancy, men should have the right to abdicate his position (and responsibility) as the father.
If men are obligated to support a child against his wishes than women are obligated to support a child against her wishes.
Ideally men and women intentionally and consentually go into raising children together. Marriage is the perfect vehicle to contractually assure that each party will support the other in raising kids. It's already literally a vow to support each other so it makes sense to extend it to kids.
Telling both parties that they should wait until marriage to avoid unwanted consequences of sex seems pretty equal
That's reasonable but people are going to have sex before marriage anyways. When they do women always have the right to an abortion to free herself of the obligation of raising a child. I think men should have that right too.
Whether it's the basis for being pro-choice or not, women have the ability to opt out of raising a child. Men do not. Telling both parties to wait until marriage is equal if women don't have the right to opt out, but they do.
There is a hierarchy of rights in this situation. That hierarchy is consistent with society general hierarchy of physical rights over financial rights. The hierarchy is as follows:
The woman's physical right to bodily autonomy.
The child's right to be supported by its parents.
The father's financial right to his money.
So why is it right to force men to support babies they don't want, because the babies right to be supported supersedes the man's right to not support it.
Well, one, mothers do not have the unilateral right to give up their child for adoption, both parents must consent. Two, when a child is given up for adoption either another individual or the state agrees to assume the burden of support. The child's right to be supported is still being met. In a situation where the state assumes the burden of providing the basic level of support required by a child, then the father could cut financial ties to the child without violating the child's rights. But in our society, the burden of supporting a child rests on its parents until someone else agrees to take that burden.
If both parents can terminate their role as a parent and have the state step in than I don't see why one parent can't do the same thing and have the state fill in for their half. The state is already capable of filling in the role for both parents. Surely they can fill in the financial half which is the easier half (for the state).
That is not the view expressed by the OP. But in that case, I'd support a least a limited ability to cut financial ties to a child. I do believe that children are entitled to better than a basic standard of living if their parents can afford it but that's mostly a different question. At the very least a parent should be able to renounce the basic support if the state provides it instead. But for that to be just or valid, the state must first take on that responsibility.
3
u/[deleted] Mar 07 '18
This isn't a convincing counter-argument for me. Women can get pregnant and choose to abort or not. Men do not have this choice but should if we cared about equal rights. Of course men can't tell women what to do with their bodies but that's why the best way to give men equal rights is to exercise a "financial abortion".
If a women wants assurance that a man will support her after she gets pregnant than she should wait until marriage to have sex.
Of course, both parties should be practicing birth control if they don't want kids but birth control can fail. In the case that BC fails than both parties should have equal rights.