Abortion right issue question

Eulabeia · 2013-07-07T00:22:06+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Quarkster · 2013-07-06T23:33:38+00:00

If the man wants the woman to have the child and she doesn't, how would you feel about him signing a contract or taking some other measure to ensure that he would be the one to take care of the baby? Even if he was the only one?

If you're asking if I would be okay with this as an option agreed to by both the man and the woman, then yes.

chocoboat · 2013-07-06T23:30:00+00:00

This has never really been something we are interested in fighting for since birthing a child is and should be a womens choice since it is her body. However that isn't to say we shouldn't afford the male a chance at deciding wither he would like NOT to be a parent seeing as how this doesn't force anyone to carry a child to term against their will.

eilseleiram · 2013-07-06T23:34:36+00:00

I just feel lile there wouldn't be any solution because despite what one gender would want, if the other wants differently and has the right to that decision without compromise they will feel as though they don't have control of their body/won't feel equal in the decision making and thus will be upset/hurt. It would just all depend on if they could compromise something

chocoboat · 2013-07-07T00:40:33+00:00

Ok, first off, the MRM consensus on reproductive rights seems to be that women should definitely be able to get abortions, but a man should be able to unilaterally sign away both all responsibilities (to give care, to provide financial support, any others I haven't thought of) and all rights (eg visitation) to the child. This is normally termed 'Legal Paternal Surrender', and is in my opinion the best solution to a situation where a potential father wants an abortion but the mother is unwilling. It's also the most equal solution, as it means no-one need ever be forced into parenthood.

Ideally a legal paternal surrender should be within a deadline that allows the pregnant woman in question to get an abortion in response, but a practical implementation would have to include a minimum 'decision-making' time from when the man finds out about the pregnancy, lest reproductive coercion be re-enabled by keeping the pregnancy secret.

Anyway, to address your questions;

Quite a few sixteen-year-old girls drop out of high school because of pregnancy to take care of the baby and then never return. How is that fair? How would you, with the current government policies, suggest changing this – getting the girl back in school after she has had the child?

Are you saying we're not allowed to suggest campaigning for reform? because when the problem is enshrined in law, you know where the solution is.

The answer is pretty simple anyway: flexible education. There should be nothing to prevent her returning, or at least going to a direct equivalent, even if she waits a decade or two. If she has the option to pick up where she left off but chooses not to, that's on her, and she'll probably have a good reason.

2) I used to work in a pregnancy/young mothers center. A lot of the girls had had the baby under the impression that the man would help take care of it (e.g.: it's against my religion and I don't want you to have an abortion, etc), but were quickly left and stuck with the baby.

If the man wants the woman to have the child and she doesn't, how would you feel about him signing a contract or taking some other measure to ensure that he would be the one to take care of the baby? Even if he was the only one?

That's completely reasonable, if he does so freely, and she understands it does not prohibit her having an abortion. In fact if a man is pressuring a woman into continuing a pregnancy I would expect it of him to commit to his share.

I'd also like to thank you for asking this question, as it neatly torpedoes the anti-MR argument that legal paternal surrenders are not like male abortions because abortion is about bodily autonomy and not the commitment of raising a child.

3) How can you ensure a man's rights for his child without taking away a women's right to her body? (I figure that this is probably going to be the most controversial question, as I've kind of already given my opinion, so I'll add: carrying a baby, like it or not, primarily affects the woman. Labor pains. Body changes. Mood swings.)

In my experience few MRAs consider that a man should have any right to force the continuation of an unplanned pregnancy. There's an old saying that the freedoms of one person end where those of their neighbor begin. You'll be hard pressed to find someone willing to argue that a woman's freedom to not have an alien-esque parasite grow inside her ends where a mans freedom to have a child begins.

Finally, I just want to say thanks for coming here and asking a genuine question. It's great to see people who want to find out what the MRM is about, rather than assuming it's a synonym for being against women's rights.

JoshtheAspie · 2013-07-07T08:26:15+00:00

Well, any time divorce for less-than-extreme reasons, or having children out of wedlock is seen as acceptable, you're going to be left with a pretty messed up result for the children involved, and for society. Stable marriages to raise children within are a civil virtue, and the government hasn't done much but muck it up since it got involved.

Given certain elements of the movement, I do not consider myself an MRA... though I do still consider it a compliment when it's applied to me based off of my stances in a discussion. If there's a related label I claim, it's MGTOW.

1) Quite a few sixteen-year-old girls drop out of high school because of pregnancy to take care of the baby and then never return. How is that fair? How would you, with the current government policies, suggest changing this – getting the girl back in school after she has had the child?

Well, unless she was raped, she chose to have sex. Either way, she then chose to have the child (not abort). She chose not to legally surrender the child, or give him up for adoption. She then chooses not to go back to school later. Now she has to live with the natural consequences of her choices. While I don't like the situation she finds herself in, it seems entirely fair that she deal with the consequences of choices. Just because something sucks doesn't make it unfair.

That said, I want people who work hard to be able to get out of sucky situations, even if they are the result of previous choices. I'm nice like that.

Most of these solutions will rely on some level of family support. Since the girls you are talking about dropping out of school are minors, I think that's a reasonable expectation. The father of the baby could also be considered a part of the family for this, possibly with his family providing support as well.

I present this one because it is the simplest. The girl can maintain her presence in school, up until the baby is born, then after a short recovery period of 3-days to 2-weeks, return to school, while family members take care of the baby. The absence could be treated like any long-term illness or injury and involve make-up work. Once the baby is old enough, the family can take him to day-care.
Like the above, save that after finding out she is pregnant, the girl finds an alternate time-period set of classes teaching GED preparedness classes. These tend to cater to people who work full shifts. This would allow her to care for her child durring the normal work-day, possibly studying and doing homework when the child is napping, watching TV, etc, then go to classes once family is off work and able to watch the baby. This wouldn't have her as a high school student, but would get her an equivalent education and certificate.
Home-schooling/online education. Many people already find home-schooling to be a superior option anyway. The home-schooling movement is continually growing, and more and more resources become available. From what I've been reading, some colleges actively recruit homeschool students.

All of these solutions utilize options already available in the US, under current government policy. All of them also require a lot of work, since she's taking care of a baby much the day, in addition to getting schooling.

2) ... If the man wants the woman to have the child and she doesn't, how would you feel about him signing a contract or taking some other measure to ensure that he would be the one to take care of the baby? Even if he was the only one?

I think that being able to formally claim not only responsibilities, but rights over said child would be a good thing. In fact, this is pretty in-line with a solution that I've been contemplating for quite some time.

Given the epidemic of out-of-wedlock births, I think that the following legal situation would be highly preferable to the one that we have now.

Up to a certain period of time after finding out about the child being born, any person that may be a parent of the child may seek to claim, or give up, legal claims on and responsibilities for said child.

The custodial parent (or possible parent) may surrender the child at a safe drop-off location such as a hospital, or government child-protection facility. However, if said parent knows the identities of other possible parents, not providing available contact information would be a criminal offence, if possibly difficult to prove.

Anyone claiming to be the parent would need some form of evidence. The mother who carried the child would obviously have some evidence due to being present at the birth. The genetic mother (in the case where an egg not belonging to the woman carrying the child is inseminated), or the father would need some other form of evidence. A DNA test, or the word of the carrying mother would of course be good evidence. If a surrogacy contract, or a marriage certificate exists, they could also be used to support the claims.

In such a case where there is a dispute over the child's parentage, the child would automatically be available for the related DNA test. The actual genetic information from such a test would never be made available to the government, only a percentage match. This is to protect the rights of the child, who cannot yet decide if he wants his DNA in a government database.

No test would be required for any parent to refuse both rights and responsibilities to the child.

If more than one parent claims rights and responsibilities to the child, then there would be shared parenting. If only one does, single-parenthood. If none do, the child would be an orphan.

In this case, the rights to the child of the birth-mother, the genetic-mother (if different), and the genetic father would all be honored. None would be forced by the law to raise a child that parent did not wish to raise.

A claim to the child could be formalized before the child is born, thus assuring the birth-mother that someone else would be there to help take care of the child, as in your own question under #2.

If a parent finds out that a child he has assumped rights and responsibilities toward is not, in fact, his biological child, he may choose to give them up.

Similarly, either parent may do so at the time of divorce. This measure is necessary in case the separating couple wish to live in such diverse locations that they cannot share both rights and responsibilities over the child effectively.

I also think that it should be criminal to both know the identities of potential parents, and not take reasonable efforts to notify those potential parents.

This way, all parents that want to be involved with the child can be so, and all parents wishing to absolve themselves may do so. However, absolving yourself of responsibility does not prevent other parents from stepping up to the plate for the child.

Further, no parent would be denied access to the child, or a chance to absolve himelf of the responsiility due to a lack of notification combined with a window of choice that starts of birth.

Don't get me wrong, my most prefered solution is that we drop the PC bullcrap, and return to a societal norm where people get married before having sex, are commited to each-other through life even when pissing mad at each-other for long periods of time, and lovingly raise their children together. I think such systems lead to far healthier societies than the have today.

Of course, such a system has been judged "misogynistic", and we no longer culturally or legally reinforce marriage on either party.

That said, my proposal is closer to what we have now than traditional marriage is... and my proposed system is a lot more egalitarian than the "she chooses, he pays" model that we have now.

3) How can you ensure a man's rights for his child without taking away a women's right to her body?

I reject the premise. Based on my understanding of science, religion, and philosophy, a baby is a baby is a human, whether or not that child is located inside his mother, or 2 feet away in her arms, 10 minutes later.

As such, the baby's right not to be killed trumps the mother's desire to have the baby killed. This has nothing to do with the father's rights, but those of the child.

If the child were not a child, but merely a lump of cells that are a part of the woman, then the man who's sperm was used to alter the DNA of that lump of cells would have no right to say what she does with the lump of cells that is a growth within her body. After all, the woman isn't a mother, nor the man a father until there is a child in the picture.

Once the child is born, the question is basically reduced to one answerable by my answer to question 2.

rightsbot · 2013-07-06T22:52:18+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

Morichalion · 2013-07-07T06:15:07+00:00

Answering your questions:

Current Government policies also have directives in place to hold the father accountable for support. Meaning he's not likely to be able to pursue high school and still be able to support a child, similar boat as the girl. In either case, current government policy, at least in the US, couldn't give two shits about young undereducated parents. I'd focus on online learning environments, that could be consumed around working schedules.
This is a common suggestion. If the woman is willing to carry the fetus to term then waive her parental rights, and the man is willing to raise the child alone, do we REALLY have a problem that needs to be discussed? Unless I'm misunderstanding your scenario, and she WANTS an abortion. In which case, there should be no regulations to stop her from doing that.
The man's rights to his child begin at birth. During the pregnancy, the woman has an ongoing choice: get an abortion, or carry the fetus. She can appoint any set of advisers and claim any relevant points of data in making her decision from moment to moment.

It seems, almost, from time to time, that you're suggesting that there might be situations where a man might have the right to compel a woman to carry a fetus when she wants to have an abortion. There are people out there that feel that way, I'm just not one of them.

All of the hard questions for me start after the baby is born.

Please don't kill me.

Even if I wanted to, my schedule's way to busy.

chocoboat · 2013-07-07T06:22:52+00:00

The man has absolutely no right whatsoever to force the woman to have the baby. It is her body, and her choice. This is not perfectly fair, but it's biology and there is nothing we can do about it.

1) If the girl drops out, it is her choice. She can also choose to return, if she wants to. I'm not sure what can be changed here.

2) I have absolutely no problem with a contract like this. If both sides voluntarily agree that will be the deal, then why not.

3) You cannot. It's just part of life that not everything can be perfectly fair. It's just like if you're born with malformed legs, you're just not going to get the chance to be a professional basketball player. Life isn't always fair.

(btw there's no need to apologize for posting or worry about making people angry! these are simple and unoffensive questions)

2013-07-07T07:27:29+00:00

Her body her choice. I would like to see a civil not legal emergence of being able to sign away rights. Both ways. I want it, you don't. Sign here and go away never come back. I'm pro-choice but would take care of any child I had if I had the choice, with or without the mother involved.

Perpetual_dissident · 2013-07-07T08:21:41+00:00

IMO, the answer is legal parental surrender. Both ways.

literallyschmiteraly · 2013-07-07T09:23:24+00:00

The first two problems are too general, I think. I've known girls who got pregnant at that age and earlier simply because they wanted to. School (particularly as it is now, and especially for poor people) is not equally useful for all people. Some girls are best suited to starting a family young. As for the boys staying around, we could certainly do more to encourage it. Boys that age have difficulty making enough money to support a family, yet the government will only help the mother and child - if there is a male around, they can all starve together. Of course in that case the best solution for all is for the boy to disappear, whether he wants to or not. Since he is certainly already being blamed for "getting the girl pregnant", there are probably several motivations to bugger off out of it. A better attitude towards accidental fathers, and government programmes for getting teenage boys into viable work, would solve at least some of these problems.

As for number 3. I am in the extreme minority here, but my view is that nine months of mood swings with an epidural at the end are not a terribly high price to pay for preserving a human life, particularly one that someone else helped to create and would like to see preserved. (And I had one of the hard pregnancies and labours, let me tell you.)

Tastysalad101 · 2013-07-07T11:52:28+00:00

I personally believe that the women should have the choice over if she gets an abortion or not but i also believe the man should legally be able to "financially abort" the child.

Eulabeia · 2013-07-07T01:44:41+00:00

I've heard a lot of people say that it's the man's right to have the baby, too, so the woman can't just kill it.

No you haven't. Liar. What is said most often is that a man shouldn't be forced to be responsible for a choice that he didn't make like giving birth to the baby. That is what we want. And I can see from your comments in this thread that you're against that. So fuck you.

NWOslave · 2013-07-07T03:13:38+00:00

Well you don't have to worry about sex education, free condoms and other such help in school being of any value because the proliferation of those very programs has gone hand in hand with the proliferation of STDs, unwed mothers, abortion and all the rest.

As far as dropping out of school, modern education is a huge waste of time. Although that is what it's meant to be, you're not there to learn anything, you're there to learn to be a soldier for the corporation. Sit, obey, memorize, regurgitate, conform, obey, obey, obey. Other than reading, writing and basic math, what do you learn? Rewritten history? sociology? humanities? sex education? Political correctness?

The abortion debate is simple, any man or woman who is for abortion should immediately be sterilized as they are unwilling to respect the first right, the right to life. Everybody's life starts in the same fashion. Yes you were alive as a fetus, if you weren't you wouldn't be alive now. It also has nothing to do with religion, it is simply an ethical standard of the right to life.

So if we take abortion off the table for what it is, what are we left with? Two people with a child. Well you have to care for that child just as you were cared for as a child. For thousands of years until very recently in the grand scheme of things, people had children at 14, 15 and 16 years of age and it was no big deal. You simply grew up, you took responsibility for your actions, you became a man and a woman and realized life was more than your own instant gratification. Somehow we've gotten to the point of disposable people, disposable marriages, disposable parents, to where if it's a choice between the newest cell phone and a newborn, well the newborn has got to go.

Do you think the traditions of the shotgun wedding, married for life and not having sex with someone different at the drop of a hat and all the rest of the traditions were simply silly little notions about religion. One of the things brought back from the new world other than tomato's and corn was syphilis, and it wiped out a huge portion of North Africa and Western Europe, something akin to the black plague. Those were heady times, they also tossed off those old timey traditions, and then they brought those traditions back.

So once again we're in the self deluded genius age of progressive enlightenment, tossing off the traditions of those silly old men from the past. And we're going to have STDs, abortions, unwed mothers and fathers, constant easy divorces, broken families, one night stands where one person or both will get hurt, unloved children whose lives are in disarray running wild perpetuating the cycle.

So there are only two choices as there ever was. Either society returns to the self restrained, responsible traditions of the past, or society crumbles into an unrestrained selfish hedonistic mob.

Title	Abortion right issue question
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	14
Comments	64
Date	July 6, 2013 10:51 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1hrth6/abortion_right_issue_question/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/abortion-right-issue-question.1169356 https://theredarchive.com/post/1169356

Comments