A man's right to choose.

[Papa_Complex]

You know I would tend to agree with the majority here, if there wasn't a huge disparity in the risks involved between the man and woman. Getting trapped by a woman who claimed she couldn't get pregnant? Well you really didn't do anything to protect yourself from disease, did you? the whole 'consequences' thing works both ways.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

You know I would tend to agree with the majority here, if there wasn't a huge disparity in the risks involved between the man and woman. Getting trapped by a woman who claimed she couldn't get pregnant? Well you really didn't do anything to protect yourself from disease, did you? the whole 'consequences' thing works both ways.

Except it doesn't, if she doesn't like the consequences then she can have an abortion. There are risks of it ending bad, but both parties took risks of getting diseases by sleeping with each other. The world is nothing but a risk. Hell there are much more risks having the kid.

Condoms aren't always effective as well.

You should be able to relinquish your rights as a parent/provider without the woman's consent if you are going to allow a woman to do the same without your consent. It definitely needs to be restricted to where you can only do it in a certain early time window where the woman can abort if she feels she cannot keep the child without the financial support of the father. Well that is unless the woman keeps it hidden from the man during this window, then the man gets another opportunity to opt out due to her attempt to hide it from him and collect.

[OneSickPsycho]

One word to avoid ALL of this: Anal.

And for you freaks: Painal.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Trip

Except it doesn't, if she doesn't like the consequences then she can have an abortion. There are risks of it ending bad, but both parties took risks of getting diseases by sleeping with each other. The world is nothing but a risk. Hell there are much more risks having the kid.

Condoms aren't always effective as well.

You should be able to relinquish your rights as a parent/provider without the woman's consent if you are going to allow a woman to do the same without your consent. It definitely needs to be restricted to where you can only do it in a certain early time window where the woman can abort if she feels she cannot keep the child without the financial support of the father. Well that is unless the woman keeps it hidden from the man during this window, then the man gets another opportunity to opt out due to her attempt to hide it from him and collect.

I just can't agree, based on the number of men who just walk away from their responsibilities.

For example while it didn't happen until I was a teenager my own father walked out on my mother and three kids, without sending any support whatsoever. My mother was a stay-at-homer because that was what he wanted, so there was no income until she managed to get a part time job. I started working full time, while also going to work full time. Guess which one I ultimately had to give up.

Where there is a decided inequity, there cannot be equal treatment under the law. Sometimes legal unequal treatment is actually the more fair alternative.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

I just can't agree, based on the number of men who just walk away from their responsibilities.

For example while it didn't happen until I was a teenager my own father walked out on my mother and three kids, without sending any support whatsoever. My mother was a stay-at-homer because that was what he wanted, so there was no income until she managed to get a part time job. I started working full time, while also going to work full time. Guess which one I ultimately had to give up.

Where there is a decided inequity, there cannot be equal treatment under the law. Sometimes legal unequal treatment is actually the more fair alternative.

I know the laws were different back then, and maybe the laws in Canada are still different, but any parent today in a similar situation to the one you described who does what your father did can be compelled to at least pay child support. I haven't seen too many people arguing against child support for children they already have. This article only talks about waiving responsibilities long before a child is born.

In my view if losing the possibility of receiving child support motivates a woman to either abort or put a child up for adoption they probably shouldn't be having a child anyway. On the whole I believe this type of change would result in less children raised in shitty situations.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

I know the laws were different back then, and maybe the laws in Canada are still different, but any parent today in a similar situation to the one you described who does what your father did can be compelled to at least pay child support. I haven't seen too many people arguing against child support for children they already have. This article only talks about waiving responsibilities long before a child is born.

In my view if losing the possibility of receiving child support motivates a woman to either abort or put a child up for adoption they probably shouldn't be having a child anyway. On the whole I believe this type of change would result in less children raised in shitty situations.

In my case my father refused to pay, which meant that a court order for payment would be required. When your total home income is something like $6K a year, a month without money can put you on the street. I ended up skipping school, most days, so that I could work full time and try to keep everything from falling apart, at age 16. It was something like 6 months before there was an order to pay in place, and they weren't divorced until a year and a half after that.

There are an awful lot of men who knock up a woman and then just disappear, once they find out. Abortion isn't a trivial operating. You aren't going in to have a wart removed. I know a little about this, as a friend was the assistant to the doctor who went to jail, multiple times, while trying to make abortion safe and legal in Canada. Leave aside the personal or religious reasons for not having an abortion; it's still a serious medical procedure, with serious possible negative outcomes. Forcing anyone into a position where they have to undergo a substantial medical procedure is just wrong, on oh so many levels.

Imagine the flip-side. You've fathered a child out of wedlock so you must now get a vasectomy, whether you want one or not.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

In my case my father refused to pay, which meant that a court order for payment would be required. When your total home income is something like $6K a year, a month without money can put you on the street. I ended up skipping school, most days, so that I could work full time and try to keep everything from falling apart, at age 16. It was something like 6 months before there was an order to pay in place, and they weren't divorced until a year and a half after that.

There are an awful lot of men who knock up a woman and then just disappear, once they find out. Abortion isn't a trivial operating. You aren't going in to have a wart removed. I know a little about this, as a friend was the assistant to the doctor who went to jail, multiple times, while trying to make abortion safe and legal in Canada. Leave aside the personal or religious reasons for not having an abortion; it's still a serious medical procedure, with serious possible negative outcomes. Forcing anyone into a position where they have to undergo a substantial medical procedure is just wrong, on oh so many levels.

Imagine the flip-side. You've fathered a child out of wedlock so you must now get a vasectomy, whether you want one or not.

So basically you are against this because you might have been aborted if your situation happened today? Why should other kids go through this route? Fathers who don't want their children are going to happen, maybe this would help that situation.

No one is forcing anyone to have a medical procedure. It is just an option a woman has if she cannot financially support the child. She can still put it up for adoption. Plus pregnancy is a far more dangerous procedure than an abortion procedure today.

[Triple]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

In my case my father refused to pay, which meant that a court order for payment would be required. When your total home income is something like $6K a year, a month without money can put you on the street. I ended up skipping school, most days, so that I could work full time and try to keep everything from falling apart, at age 16. It was something like 6 months before there was an order to pay in place, and they weren't divorced until a year and a half after that.

I think this pretty much summarizes the source of your argument; your reasoning is more emotional than logical/rational. You have personal experience with how a disappearing father and his lack of financial support can stress a family.

It sounds to me, however, that your dad left well after you (and your siblings?) were not only born, but teenagers. The argument in question asks if fathers-TO-BE have the right to financially abort themselves from children who have yet to be born. To which I say, "absolutely."

Like Trip said, the mother faces medical "consequences" whether she aborts the fetus or carries it to term. Until we develop the time travel necessary to simply "undo" the conception, these risks will exist either way.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Triple

I think this pretty much summarizes the source of your argument; your reasoning is more emotional than logical/rational. You have personal experience with how a disappearing father and his lack of financial support can stress a family.

It sounds to me, however, that your dad left well after you (and your siblings?) were not only born, but teenagers. The argument in question asks if fathers-TO-BE have the right to financially abort themselves from children who have yet to be born. To which I say, "absolutely."

Like Trip said, the mother faces medical "consequences" whether she aborts the fetus or carries it to term. Until we develop the time travel necessary to simply "undo" the conception, these risks will exist either way.

You can think that if you like, and I provided the information by way of full disclosure, but I think that it allows me to see the situation more rationally from both sides. Believe me; I tend to evaluate my opinions quite carefully, to know whether or not they are unduly influenced by emotion. That is why I even thought to make that disclosure.

From my side of it, it looks like many people here have an opinion that's based on selfishness, rather than coming to a rational conclusion.