Support NeoGAF

[Shanadeus]

One could just as easily argue that a woman who decides to continue on with the pregnancy against her partners' will is acknowledging and accepting financial responsibility for the child.

Pretty much.

And even if we take abortion out of the picture (for people who are against it) the woman can still give her child away after abortion without acknowledging or accepting financial responsibility for the child.

So if a woman can literally walk away from her child - why shouldn't a man be able to as well?

 

[Gaborn]

One could just as easily argue that a woman who decides to continue on with the pregnancy against her partners' will is acknowledging and accepting financial responsibility for the child.

Sure, she is just like the man is. They both took responsibility when they had sex and that responsibility continues as long as the result of that night is alive.

 

[MiniBossBattle]

Junior time!

.

 

[Timber]

Junior time!

GAF+: Members should also have the choice moderators have in allowing Shanadeus to careen about the forum like a drunken toddler.

 

[J-Rod]

Technically, I think the woman is making a choice about whether to allow a part of her body to grow and produce a child, not becoming a parent, that is just one of the things that may or may not come with the decision. And we've established that it is indeed her decision, because it is her body. If a child is born, it's not about you anymore ( I know). There is a person in this world that can not take care of itself and at no fault of its own, so something has to be done, and the responsibilty is on the people who made it.

 

[WillyFive]

You said somebody else has to be the father. Why does there have to be a father?

Rewind:

1. OP suggests: Boy asks Girl to sign contract forbidding the Girl from becoming pregnant.

2. Girl becomes pregnant with the Boy having nothing to do with it.

3. Who was the father?

 

[Shanadeus]

Technically, I think the woman is making a choice about whether to allow a part of her body to grow and produce a child, not becoming a parent, that is just one of the things that may or may not come with the decision. And we've established that it is indeed her decision, because it is her body. If a child is born, it's not about you anymore ( I know). There is a person in this world that can not take care of itself and at no fault of its own, so something has to be done, and the responsibilty is on the people who made it.

Should women then not be able to give away their children?

 

[Buckethead]

Yep they should.

And both people should consider the consequences of their actions before they indulge in nature's great trick.

 

[george_us]

:lol

 

[Lambtron]

You mean not having sex? You could use the exact same logic to ban abortion.

Use protection or some other method of birth control. There's a lot of them. Get a vasectomy. Or you know the best way to fix these issues? Talk through it with your partner so you can make a decision together. It is the couple's decision, but it's her body.

 

[Dude Abides]

Pregnancy is 9 months long. Parenthood is not.

Pregnancy fucks women up significantly during those 9 months and permanently changes their bodies. And, of course, women have breast feed or pump for a long time afterward, further messing up their bodies. From a practical perspective, pregnancy is basically the worst thing that can happen to a woman but has no effect on the impregnator

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

You're not looking at the whole picture. Say you and your gf/wife whatever decide to have a baby, she gets mad at you and tells you shes going to go get an abortion because she's breaking up with you and doesn't want to have your baby. You as the man have 0 recourse to prevent her from aborting the baby if say you want to raise the child without her.
This is just one of many scenarios that people are bringing up that you're ignoring.

That is...still incredibly stupid.

"Hey I know you don't want the child, but I really do. So you're going to have to go through go through huge bodily changes (some being permanent) and effects during the 9 months of pregnancy. After that you have to give birth, which involves having you be in the most pain you'll ever be in your life (and mine as well), it's so painful infact that your brain by default releases chemicals in your brain to help you forget the experience because its so painful. I kind of imagine if I had to shit out a turd out of my peehole. Anyway after this, rapid weight gains, and missing a lot of time off work. All of this solely because I want the child and you don't.

Seems logical to me.

Dude Abides just nailed it. Pregnancy is not a fun thing for a woman to go through and it has a share of repercussions. Some of the replies in this thread has reeks of Gaf's sausage-fest demographic. I can't possibly imagine anybody who is somewhat educated about pregnancy agreeing with this.

except for you know this thread doesn't suck, its gotten 90+ replies in a short amount of time.

Because people are so shocked how stupid it is. If you read the thread people either outright disagree with him, are shocked or straightfaced, or have said exactly what I have or worse requesting him to get juniored.

 

[J-Rod]

Should women then not be able to give away their children?

Yes, she should, but it is irrelevant, because another capable party is agreeing to take responsibility.

 

[Dali]

Sure, she is just like the man is. They both took responsibility when they had sex and that responsibility continues as long as the result of that night is alive.

Sex is a basic human need. Ultimatums like "well dude could just not have sex" are a bit disingenuous. Nobody signs up for 18 years of servitude every time they satiate a basic biological urge. With so many options to prevent pregnancy, this "two to tango" talk is a bit archaic. A decision to have sex with someone is no longer an agreement to have kids with them.

 

[2 Minutes Turkish]

Pregnancy fucks some women up significantly during those 9 months and permanently changes their bodies. And, of course, women have breast feed or pump for a long time afterward, further messing up their bodies. From a practical perspective, pregnancy is basically the worst thing that can happen to a woman but has no effect on the impregnator

Added the bold for you. Not all women's bodies are fucked up by pregnancy. Same way not ALL husbands share the parenting responsibilities like getting up in the middle of the night.

But a man having that financial strain put on him for minimum 18 years regardless of whether he wants the child or not?

Regardless of what people think, it can't be argued that men have little to no rights in the OP's scenario. But we live in a world of fake equality amongst the sexes (both ways) anyway so people need to learn to deal with it and make decisions that avoid the hypocrisies from occurring.

 

[nyong]

Use protection or some other method of birth control. There's a lot of them. Get a vasectomy.

Again, you can tell the same thing to women as reasons why abortion is unnecessary. They made the choice to have sex. And "talking it over" is not realisitic for obvious reasons. We wouldn't be having this discussion if there weren't men who were unhappy about sacrificing their financial freedom for a child they didn't want.

No one said don't have sex. Just that sex has consequences and risks. Even condoms are only effective if they're used properly. It's simply risky to engage in intercourse and you assume the risk when you do it. If you don't want kids get a vasectomy.

This is the exact same argument put forth by anti-abortion proponents. Like, you wouldn't even need to change words around.

 

[Gaborn]

Sex is a basic human need. Ultimatums like "well dude could just not have sex" are a bit disingenuous. Nobody signs up for 18 years of servitude every time they satiate a basic biological urge. With so many options to prevent pregnancy, this "two to tango" talk is a bit archaic. A decision to have sex with someone is no longer an agreement to have kids with them.

No one said don't have sex. Just that sex has consequences and risks. Even condoms are only effective if they're used properly. It's simply risky to engage in intercourse and you assume the risk when you do it. If you don't want kids get a vasectomy.

 

[DR2K]

But if you did and it broke?

This is hardly ever the case.

 

[WillyFive]

So if a woman can literally walk away from her child - why shouldn't a man be able to as well?

Because you said that was a bad thing to do? You just want to get rid of the stigma.

There is a saying: 'A girl becomes a mother at pregnancy. A man becomes a father when he first holds his baby.' Or something like that, can't remember.

Just like Dude Abides posted, girls have a bigger part in developing/raising a baby than the father does, especially if the father is the one that works as the girl stays at home to raise the child.

That's where the stigma comes from. From a basic emotional standpoint, if a father leaves, he is dealing a huge blow to the family, where the "defenseless" mother has to do all the work. If it's the other way around, it is the "strong" man doing the good and the "evil" mother dealt the blow.

You have to take the differences in gender and their attributes into your equation. Even if our society is blurring these lines (for the better in some topics), you are talking about a very bad thing happening to people (leaving a family when you are needed most), and saying it should be OK for both sides.

 

[Shanadeus]

Yes, she should, but it is irrelevant, because another capable party is agreeing to take responsibility.

It's not irrelevant.

If the man and the woman signed a contract that said that the man wouldn't in any way be responsible for whatever child the woman decides to give birth and keep the child then you'd have the same situation as a woman giving her child away.

The man has signed away his responsibility in the event of a child to the woman who's agreed to take responsibility just as another capable party is agreeing to take responsibility if the woman decides to give away the child.

 

[Dali]

No one said don't have sex. Just that sex has consequences and risks. Even condoms are only effective if they're used properly. It's simply risky to engage in intercourse and you assume the risk when you do it. If you don't want kids get a vasectomy.

I wonder if you'd throw that around so freely if you weren't gay. A vasectomy is a pretty extreme means of birth control.

Sex has consequences, but they can be mitigated to it almost requiring a miracle for a woman to get preggers if you don't want to. Hell, you have fertile people that try to get pregnant and can't accomplish it immediately.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Sex =/= wanting a kid or accepting that you might get a kid. Some people are fucking idiots. It's 2010; Sex is primarily for pleasure not reproduction. If you'd add up all the occurrences of sex and divide the amount of children born by that number, you'd get a micro-penis sized answer. Get over yourselves and the ''shouldn't have had sex if you weren't willing to face the consequences''. Fuck that, I just mathematically showed you that these so called ''consequences'' are the exception and not the rule. Sex =/= wanting a kid or accepting that you might get a kid. Good night.

 

[Dude Abides]

Added the bold for you. Not all women's bodies are fucked up by pregnancy. Same way not ALL husbands share the parenting responsibilities like getting up in the middle of the night.

But a man having that financial strain put on him for minimum 18 years regardless of whether he wants the child or not?

Regardless of what people think, it can't be argued that men have little to no rights in the OP's scenario. But we live in a world of fake equality amongst the sexes anyway so people need to learn to deal with it and make decisions that avoid the hypocrisies from occurring.

Why would you edit to make it less accurate? Even if what you added were true it would be a trivial point.

 

[Gaborn]

I wonder if you'd throw that around so freely if you weren't gay. A vasectomy is a pretty extreme means of birth control.

It's very effective though.

 

[WillyFive]

It's very effective though.

But 'not wanting to have kids' is in no way a permanent state of mind. You might decide one day that you do want kids, and reverting a vasectomy is extremely expensive, and it may not be covered by insurance. It is very extreme, indeed.

 

[2 Minutes Turkish]

Why would you edit to make it less accurate? Even if what you added were true it would be a trivial point.

Because that seems to be the main argument against some in here 'trivialising' pregnancy and the affect it has on women.

It fucks them up.

I'm saying, it doesn't fuck ALL of them up. Many new mothers in my family have recovered perfectly fine, and didn't suffer much at all.

My mother on the other hand? Yikes. C sections were not done well back in 1980.

 

[Lambtron]

Again, you can tell the same thing to women as reasons why abortion is unnecessary. They made the choice to have sex.

This is completely different. The zygote is in the woman's body. It is a part of her body.

The patriarchy has spent hundreds of years telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies. I absolutely support it in no way.

Spoiler

And before someone comes with the awesome "DERP BUT WHAT IF IT HAPPENED TO YOU!?!?!?!" argument, I'm sterile, and my partner doesn't want children. Neither do I.

 

[Sgt.Pepper]

Make a blog, don't worry I'll check it everyday.

 

[Shanadeus]

This is completely different. The zygote is in the woman's body. It is a part of her body.

The patriarchy has spent hundreds of years telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies. I absolutely support it in no way.

Spoiler

And before someone comes with the awesome "DERP BUT WHAT IF IT HAPPENED TO YOU!?!?!?!" argument, I'm sterile, and my partner doesn't want children. Neither do I.

Exactly.

It's her choice.
Pregnancy may be horrible for the mother but it's something the female can chose to go through.

And I'm talking post conception - which the man can't.

 

[McLovin]

We do have a choice... its called a condom.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Sex is a basic human need. Ultimatums like "well dude could just not have sex" are a bit disingenuous. Nobody signs up for 18 years of servitude every time they satiate a basic biological urge. With so many options to prevent pregnancy, this "two to tango" talk is a bit archaic. A decision to have sex with someone is no longer an agreement to have kids with them.

If you have sex with someone, there's the risk they could become pregnant. Even if protected. And unless the terms are spelled out clearly in advance, there's an assumed burden of responsibly on the happy farmer.

 

[Lambtron]

Exactly.

It's her choice.
Pregnancy may be horrible for the mother but it's something the female can chose to go through.

And I'm talking post conception - which the man can't.

Sigh. This is just a fruitless game of devil's advocate. We're talking an extremely small amount of pregnancies here. Both parties should be responsible for birth control, if they don't want kids. The couple should work it out together, but ultimately it's her decision. Boo hoo, men don't get to control her body in this one way. Enjoy the myriad other ways men do and can control womens' bodies.

 

[dionysus]

Looking at this legally, the legal justification for abortion was that the woman's property rights trump the baby's right to life. In this case her property is her body. Similar to how you have the right to shoot a robber for stealing your property, your property rights trump the robber's right to life.

There is no similar property right for the man to force an abortion on the women. In fact that would be violating the woman's property rights over her body.

Therefore under the current legal framework what the OP is advocating is impossible. You would first have to legalize abortion for different reasons other than property rights, and I don't think even the most pro-abortion courts would allow that because of the potential societal ramifications.

 

[Shanadeus]

We do have a choice... its called a condom.

Also, the “don’t want to be a father- wear a condom” comments are asinine, but that’s the kind of half-brained nonsense I expected to see in this thread. “Don’t want to be a mother? Take the pill! Use a diaphragm! Make your man wear a condom!” Don't give the child up, though, that would make you a deadbeat mother.
.

If you have sex with someone, there's the risk they could become pregnant. Even if protected. And unless the terms are spelled out clearly in advance, there's an assumed burden of responsibly on the happy farmer.

Many disagree with this due to the separation we have between recreation and procreation in sex.

But let's go along with what you're saying, so you wouldn't have any problem with the contract Zoe was talking about?

Looking at this legally, the legal justification for abortion was that the woman's property rights trump the baby's right to life. In this case her property is her body. Similar to how you have the right to shoot a robber for stealing your property, your property rights trump the robber's right to life.

There is no similar property right for the man to force an abortion on the women. In fact that would be violating the woman's property rights over her body.

Therefore under the current legal framework what the OP is advocating is impossible. You would first have to legalize abortion for different reasons other than property rights, and I don't think even the most pro-abortion courts would allow that because of the potential societal ramifications.

No one has argued that men should be able to force an abortion.

 

[Dali]

If you have sex with someone, there's the risk they could become pregnant. Even if protected. And unless the terms are spelled out clearly in advance, there's an assumed burden of responsibly on the happy farmer.

Spelled out clearly as in saying "I don't want kids" prior to sex?

I think the default position for casual sex is no kids. I also think it's safe to assume a couple that gets pregnant without having talked about a kid was of the position that they don't want kids prior to having sex. So why would the understanding that kids are an unexpected result of the sex beyond its original purpose of enjoyment need to be spelled out beforehand when in both cases the default position is no kids?

If a woman becomes pregnant even after all attempts to prevent the pregnancy have been exhausted then I say it's time to break out the ol' cliche "man ups". You just drew a shitty lot and thems the breaks.

 

[J-Rod]

It's not irrelevant.

If the man and the woman signed a contract that said that the man wouldn't in any way be responsible for whatever child the woman decides to give birth and keep the child then you'd have the same situation as a woman giving her child away.

The man has signed away his responsibility in the event of a child to the woman who's agreed to take responsibility just as another capable party is agreeing to take responsibility if the woman decides to give away the child.

I don't understand your point. If the mother agrees to take the father's inherit responsibility, then he can indeed sign away his responsibility and get out of doing anything.

Edit: Again, I think the focus is on the wrong place. When a kid is born, the courts favor the kid and rightly so. He/She has to be taken care of before you even consider any agreements or contracts between the parents.

 

[Maleficence]

Don't have sex if you're not prepared to deal with the consequences. Contraception or no. You should know the risks.

 

[Brian Griffin]

Sigh. This is just a fruitless game of devil's advocate. We're talking an extremely small amount of pregnancies here. Both parties should be responsible for birth control, if they don't want kids. The couple should work it out together, but ultimately it's her decision. Boo hoo, men don't get to control her body in this one way. Enjoy the myriad other ways men do and can control womens' bodies.

Maybe I missed something but is anyone actually arguing for control over their bodies? I'm pro opt-out option but I put the choice to abort or not fully in the woman's hands. If she wants to abort and the man doesn't, too bad for him, it's her body.

 

[dionysus]

No one has argued that men should be able to force an abortion.

Then what are you advocating? A man currently does not have to be a parent. He doesn't have to be involved in the kid's life. And it varies state to state, but I don't think many states would require him to give financial support if the child was conceived out of wedlock. OF course, many people would probably be married whether they like it or not if they lived together long enough.

 

[Gallbaro]

Women should not have sex if they're not prepared to deal with the consequences. Contraception or no. You should know the risks.

fixed

 

[GhaleonEB]

Many disagree with this due to the separation we have between recreation and procreation in sex.

But there isn't, really. If you're having sex for recreation - don't we all? - then there's the risk of procreation. And I think the responsibility of the latter goes with the former, always, unless agreed upon explicitly by the consenting parties.

So long as the relinquishing of responsibly/authority was mutually agreed after I'd have no issues with Zoe's proposal.

 

[soco]

The woman has involvement in every one of those decision points to prevent it from happening, and yet she still gets to abdicate her role in those decisions and avoid responsibility.

except in the case of rape, the woman has no say in his personal decision to have sex with her. he could've opted out at any given point. she could also have, but their decisions are separate.

the rest is a matter of consequences of his refusal to do so. it's the same with having gotten an STD.

after she's pregnant, he gets no choice, and that's the way it should be.

 

[Shanadeus]

I don't understand your point. If the mother agrees to take the father's inherit responsibility, then he can indeed sign away his responsibility and get out of doing anything.

If such a contract is already a possibility then I must have completely missed it.

Then what are you advocating? A man currently does not have to be a parent. He doesn't have to be involved in the kid's life. And it varies state to state, but I don't think many states would require him to give financial support if the child was conceived out of wedlock. OF course, many people would probably be married whether they like it or not if they lived together long enough.

Basically, what I am advocating is that men should be able to opt-out of fatherhood even if the woman has gotten pregnant - but with certain restrictions that is up to discussion.

Again, if this is already the case then I must have completely missed it.

 

[Maleficence]

fixed

Why is it only the women's responsibility? It takes two to tango, so the consequences need to be shared by both parties.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Sex =/= wanting a kid or accepting that you might get a kid. Some people are fucking idiots. It's 2010; Sex is primarily for pleasure not reproduction. If you'd add up all the occurrences of sex and divide the amount of children born by that number, you'd get a micro-penis sized answer. Get over yourselves and the ''shouldn't have had sex if you weren't willing to face the consequences''. Fuck that, I just mathematically showed you that these so called ''consequences'' are the exception and not the rule. Sex =/= wanting a kid or accepting that you might get a kid. Good night.

Ignorance is not a defense. This kid you make doesn't give a flying fuck what you think sex is for.

 

[J-Rod]

If such a contract is already a possibility then I must have completely missed it.

Basically, what I am advocating is that men should be able to opt-out of fatherhood even if the woman has gotten pregnant - but with certain restrictions that is up to discussion.

Again, if this is already the case then I must have completely missed it.

If Mom says it is ok, then he can get opt-out of having parental rights, and thereby also opting out of any responsibility, including child support.

 

[Brian Griffin]

Then what are you advocating? A man currently does not have to be a parent. He doesn't have to be involved in the kid's life. And it varies state to state, but I don't think many states would require him to give financial support if the child was conceived out of wedlock. OF course, many people would probably be married whether they like it or not if they lived together long enough.

Well I'm from Washington and they most certainly can and do. I think the state also gets a cut so the courts have a huge incentive to hit men with the largest payment amounts possible. A local radio station brings up child support issue fairly often and there are many, many, men who have had their lives destroyed by child support payments.

If Mom says it is ok, then he can get opt-out of having parental rights, and thereby also opting out of any responsibility, including child support.

This shouldn't be required.

 

[zoku88]

If Mom says it is ok, then he can get opt-out of having parental rights, and thereby also opting out of any responsibility, including child support.

Needing the mother's permission isn't really the same thing, though...

And I thought all states require financial responsibility regardless of marital status.

Sigh. This is just a fruitless game of devil's advocate. We're talking an extremely small amount of pregnancies here. Both parties should be responsible for birth control, if they don't want kids. The couple should work it out together, but ultimately it's her decision. Boo hoo, men don't get to control her body in this one way. Enjoy the myriad other ways men do and can control womens' bodies.

WTH, no one is arguing that a male should be able to force a woman into an abortion. That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[xbhaskarx]

This seems really familiar......hmmmm....

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=399412

WTF, how much more of this shit do we have to bear...

 

[DUFFMCWALIN]

Help me out here:

Is Shanadeus just a freshman in college and taking an intro to philosophy course or something?

Or did he just get into weed or acid?

Hell I'm into weed and I think he's crazy.