Juridicial abortion for men

[Rosbjerg]

Inspired by an article in a Danish tabloid.

 

Most women in the west enjoy legal abortion, but in countries where this is the case, there are almost never a comparable option for men, who do not wish to be a parent.

 

Paraphrasing from the article:

It's a fact that, legally speaking, a women has a right to give birth to a child, whether the man wants her to or not. It's my opinion that this leaves men with a moral problem, because being a dad is being a dad. Fatherhood is final.

I think that a man should have the right for a sort of legal abortion in the same spirit that women have the right to a physical one and, within a certain time frame, be able to deny the fatherhood of the child, regardless of whether the woman decides to carry the child to term. The man would then not be legally obligated to care for the child and it would be considered fatherless.

 

As I thought about this I actually found myself somewhat agreeing, in certain conditions at least. If a women cheats a man, by sabotaging the condom or something similar, there are no repercussions for her, but he is now legally bound to at a minimum financially support for the child. Which I find pretty appalling, this leaves women with a substantial advantage in the legal area of parenthood and pregnancy. In fact men have almost no rights when it comes to this issue. Of course it could also be argued that since women must bear the entire burden and risk of childbirth, and abortions can be extremely unhealthy, that this is entirely fair.

 

What are your thoughts on this?

Is it just a risk that the 2 consenting adults must accept, a child may be the result of having sex and thus everyone involved is by legal definition consenting on responsibility of caring for a potential child, in case the the mother should decide to carry to terms?

 

Or should a man be able to say no? and if so, in what circumstances should he be able to that?

[Walsingham]

It's an interesting question for debate.

 

In principle I can see your point about the man needing equal rights to parenthood.

 

However, as you yourself observe, there are physical and mental issues associated with actually carrying or actually experiencing an abortion. This is an inescapable function of how humans work.

 

So, if we were dealing with abstract beings with an equal commitment to the issue I'd say, that boy parties had equal rights. In the case of humans I'd say men don't have that right.

[Kroney]

Hugely thorny issue, isn't it? Women obviously have an inalienable right to do what they want with their bodies, but that can have the effect of forcing a man to be an unwilling father. Legally speaking, a child can divorce their parents. Logically a parent should also be able to divorce their child.

 

That is a different question to whether it's ethically or morally right to do so, of course. I'd be hard pressed to think of a set of conditions in which I wouldn't find this hypothetical man repugnant.

[Gorgon]

I think long term it might be better for the stability of families if men don't have the option to renounce their children. I mean the kids wouldn't be 'fatherless' except legally. The kids would just grow up knowing he abandoned them, and what if he changed his mind. Having a good relationship with one's children usually becomes a point of prestige later in life. 

[Kroney]

I think long term it might be better for the stability of families if men don't have the option to renounce their children. I mean the kids wouldn't be 'fatherless' except legally. The kids would just grow up knowing he abandoned them, and what if he changed his mind. Having a good relationship with one's children usually becomes a point of prestige later in life. 

 

I don't see much of a difference in your post from putting a child up for adoption, but it doesn't follow that adoption should be illegal.

[Gorgon]

No it shouldn't, adoption is more an admission that you don't have the resources and stability to care for a child though. What 'I' want isn't, or shouldn't, be foremost among the considerations of capable parents, excepting the biological opt out that women have.

[Walsingham]

Actually this reminds me of a point made by a comedian I heard on the radio. He pointed out that if you want to adopt people ask you all kinds of questions. If you want to just have your own kids then you can just get on with it.

 

I guess the point is that humans go doollali about sex, and sex makes babies. Ergo making babies is never going to be entirely logical or optimal.

[Orogun01]

I think long term it might be better for the stability of families if men don't have the option to renounce their children. I mean the kids wouldn't be 'fatherless' except legally. The kids would just grow up knowing he abandoned them, and what if he changed his mind. Having a good relationship with one's children usually becomes a point of prestige later in life. 

If he changes his mind later he can apply for visitation rights.

 

Sadly this kind of legislation is necessary to prevent women who are cheating the system by willfully becoming pregnant without consent from her partner. (I actually know a girl who did that) Considering that in family court matters women seem to have the advantage, I don't see anything wrong with leveling the field.

On the same spirit of that legislation I think they should eliminate forcing child support payments and alimony. Courts have made divorce lucrative for women (and for themselves) at any given down point in a marriage a woman has the option to opt out with benefits. So it's no wonder that most divorces on the US are initiated by women.

[Walsingham]

I agree that the courts have a frankly bizarre bias in favour of women in disputes. It was needed when women had no resources to match male earners in terms of legal support, but...

 

However, i don't see the solution as being men getting the option of enforced abortion privileges. The courts just need to improve.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I have to agree with the OP. In certain circumstances a man should be able to renounce his fatherhood. Of course it should be reasonable, as one should not be able to renounce fatherhood several years after the child's birth.

 

I also agree about divorce being too lucrative and family court matters being more favorable towards women.

[HoonDing]

I have to agree with the OP. In certain circumstances a man should be able to renounce his fatherhood. Of course it should be reasonable, as one should not be able to renounce fatherhood several years after the child's birth.

Pulling out in time is critical.

[Walsingham]

TFT, Dru.

 

If there's one rule I've (almost) consistently applied it's that the head with teeth gives the orders.

[Kroney]

TFT, Dru.

 

If there's one rule I've (almost) consistently applied it's that the head with teeth gives the orders.

 

You should probably see a doctor. That ain't normal.

[kgambit]

 

On the same spirit of that legislation I think they should eliminate forcing child support payments and alimony. Courts have made divorce lucrative for women (and for themselves) at any given down point in a marriage a woman has the option to opt out with benefits. So it's no wonder that most divorces on the US are initiated by women.

 

Just curious - why do you think child support payments should be eliminated?

 

Although ~95 percent of alimony recipients are female, only 15% of US divorces involve alimony.

 

Monthly child support payments in the United States averaged $430 per month in 2010, according to U.S. Census Bureau statistics.  I believe that the UK, New Zealand, Australia and several other countries use a very rigid 20% of income calculation while it varies considerably in the US from state to state.   (I'm not going to spend tons of time digging down on this one so if anyone wants to chime in, feel free)

 

79.6 percent of custodial mothers receive child support award, while only 29.6 percent of custodial fathers receive a support award.

46.9 percent of non-custodial mothers totally default on support, while only 26.9 percent of non-custodial fathers totally default on support.

 

The high rate of divorce initiation is not limited to the US.  Approximately 2/3 (give or take a handful of % pts) of all divorces in Canada, UK, France and Japan are also initiated by women.  I didn't check all of Western Europe but I wouldn't be surprised if divorce initiation favored females in the rest of the countries as well.

[ShadySands]

WRT sabotaging contraception I'm not sure how you would be able to prove malicious intent to the courts in most cases. Also, if you are not the biological father due to infidelity you should also not be held financially responsible, though I've heard of stories where this was not the case.

 

Other than that I don't really see how you would able to get out of paying child support since nobody (unless you were raped) forced you to have sex and pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex.

 

EDIT: I know it's not exactly "fair" that we don't have an option comparable to abortion but them's the breaks

Edited December 10, 2013 by ShadySands

[Gorgon]

Pulling out doesn't prevent pregnancy you idiots. This is like the first thing they teach you in sex ed. 

[Kroney]

Pulling out doesn't prevent pregnancy you idiots. This is like the first thing they teach you in sex ed. 

 

I think they may have been guilty of being whimsical on the internet.

[Gorgon]

[Elerond]

Child supports idea is to make sure that parents disagreements don't effect child's welfare and it's cheaper for government and tax payers than paying support from government's funds. And child support is also often seen as punishment for those people who want have sex but don't want carry responsibilities that it can bring and also way to lower change that parent will abandon his or her child because it's too much work/something. 

 

In my opinion if there is option to parents get out from child support it should be only in extreme cases that include illegal actions from other party. Which would also mean that child should be taken to official custody.

 

What comes to abortion rights, men should have such only if they are one who are pregnant or otherwise carrying baby, as abortion right is part of bodily autonomy right, which means that you only can dictate what is done to your body (like in most countries nobody can force you to donate blood or organs even if you are dead).

[Naurgalen]

I think that both "abortions" are completely different things to compare.

 

A female abortion means that a woman is ending a possible human life in a physical way that will mark her physically and psychically. It is a very complicated thing in a moral or ethical way that its mostly leaved to bigger problems like rape, health problems for the baby or mother etc...

 

A male abortion means that a man doesn't want to be responsible for his son. His reasons may be reasonable (his condom broke, he was "cheated" etc...) or not, but still that last fact is present: it IS his son and he is responsible for him when he decided to **** knowing its "dangers". And at the very end, even if he was cheated, the law should punish the cheater, not the baby or dismiss the fathers responsibility for his actions.

[Orogun01]

I agree that the courts have a frankly bizarre bias in favour of women in disputes. It was needed when women had no resources to match male earners in terms of legal support, but...

 

However, i don't see the solution as being men getting the option of enforced abortion privileges. The courts just need to improve.

The legal system on the US is very open to interpretation by judges, a lot of cases have been decided by judicial bias. So legislation should be put in order to prevent this, as we cannot stop judges from being biased in certain matters, we can limit the extent of what they can affect. Plus; this not enforced abortion privileges, it a legal abortion by which a father can deny his child if he doesn't wish him/her. 

 

 

On the same spirit of that legislation I think they should eliminate forcing child support payments and alimony. Courts have made divorce lucrative for women (and for themselves) at any given down point in a marriage a woman has the option to opt out with benefits. So it's no wonder that most divorces on the US are initiated by women.

 

Just curious - why do you think child support payments should be eliminated?

 

Although ~95 percent of alimony recipients are female, only 15% of US divorces involve alimony.

 

Monthly child support payments in the United States averaged $430 per month in 2010, according to U.S. Census Bureau statistics.  I believe that the UK, New Zealand, Australia and several other countries use a very rigid 20% of income calculation while it varies considerably in the US from state to state.   (I'm not going to spend tons of time digging down on this one so if anyone wants to chime in, feel free)

 

79.6 percent of custodial mothers receive child support award, while only 29.6 percent of custodial fathers receive a support award.

46.9 percent of non-custodial mothers totally default on support, while only 26.9 percent of non-custodial fathers totally default on support.

 

The high rate of divorce initiation is not limited to the US.  Approximately 2/3 (give or take a handful of % pts) of all divorces in Canada, UK, France and Japan are also initiated by women.  I didn't check all of Western Europe but I wouldn't be surprised if divorce initiation favored females in the rest of the countries as well.

 

It should be voluntary or after having consented to the birth of the child, because then they are responsible for bringing it to the world. Forcing a father to pay support to a child they don't want is similar to having them be fined. The assumption here that they committed wrongdoing by taking part on the conception, but it takes two to do the deed. I don't see why is only one party that has to assume responsibility. 

 

Thanks for the facts, I was only privy to the ones about the US.

Pulling out doesn't prevent pregnancy you idiots. This is like the first thing they teach you in sex ed. 

Neither does abstinence, that is the first thing that they teach in Christianity.

[kgambit]

 

 

It should be voluntary or after having consented to the birth of the child, because then they are responsible for bringing it to the world. Forcing a father to pay support to a child they don't want is similar to having them be fined. The assumption here that they committed wrongdoing by taking part on the conception, but it takes two to do the deed. I don't see why is only one party that has to assume responsibility. 

 

Thanks for the facts, I was only privy to the ones about the US.

 

 

I believe that most child support awards in the US are based on both parents ability to provide for the child and adjusted accordingly.  One parent is almost always going to assume a larger financial burden, but that does not mean that both parents do not each have some responsibility.  Since the average monthly cost of raising a child is about 1100$ a month, a 430$ average child support payment puts a greater burden on the parent with custody (usually the woman) because they are responsible for housing costs which is a large portion of child care costs.  

 

Frankly I don't see that type of financial distribution as being biased toward the woman at all.   Or how child support shifts responsibility solely to one party.

 

http://everydaylife.globalpost.com/much-money-raise-child-until-18-6528.html

 

No birth control method is 100% foolproof so if a prospective father really doesn't want kids, then he can keep his fly zipped (or buttoned).   

Edited December 10, 2013 by kgambit

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Pulling out doesn't prevent pregnancy you idiots. This is like the first thing they teach you in sex ed.

 

Neither does abstinence, that is the first thing that they teach in Christianity.

I laughed hard enough for tea to come out of my nose. Edited December 10, 2013 by KaineParker

[ShadySands]

 

 

Pulling out doesn't prevent pregnancy you idiots. This is like the first thing they teach you in sex ed.

Neither does abstinence, that is the first thing that they teach in Christianity.

I laughed hard enough for tea to come out of my nose.

 

Same except some energy drink

[Walsingham]

Just in case anyone reading this is genuinely confused, Gorgon's right. You really shouldn't rely on 'withdrawal'.

 

~~

 

kgambit, you make an interesting point about the custody taker having to bear significant costs. But this rather assumes a fair apportionment of custody. I know a LOT of dads who fight tooth and nail for contact after courts awarded custody to - and admittedly I'm biased since I know that dads - nutloop mothers.

 

On a practical note, given that depositions are usually given by representatives, how hard would it be to anonymise the two parties? No reference to mum or dad, just 'individual X'?