Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Is ‘financial abortion’ an idea whose time has come?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is ‘financial abortion’ an idea whose time has come?

    My thoughts on this:
    1. The mother has absolutely no right to input on this decsion.
    2. The mother's state, financial stability, health, marital status, or relgion, have no input on this decision.
    3. There should be a rough time-line parity between man and woman on making the decision, however, since it is easier for a man to be uninformed of pregnancy than a woman, I would argue that his timeline starts upon official notification of pregnancy.

    Source: https://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/is-financial-abortion-an-idea-whose-time-has-come/12123

    Is ‘financial abortion’ an idea whose time has come?

    by Michael Cook


    If women have a right to get rid of a baby, why shouldn’t men? This radical idea has been kicking around for about 20 years, but seems to becoming more popular. In 1998 Brown University sociologist Frances K. Goldscheider floated the idea of a “financial abortion” in order to achieve true gender equality.

    Earlier this year the youth wing of the Liberal Party in Sweden adopted the idea. Up until 18 weeks of pregnancy, it argued, men should have the right to relinquish all rights and responsibilities for their partner’s child. Unsurprisingly, the proposal went to the same place as the Young Liberals' proposals for legalizing necrophilia and consensual incest -- nowhere at all -- as it sounded absurdly sexist and anti-feminist.

    But dyed-in-the-wool Australian feminist, comedian and author Catherine Deveney has revived the idea. The litmus test is simple:

    Is it fair for people to be forced to become parents against their wishes? If it's not fair for a woman to be forced to bear a child or have an abortion, it follows it's not fair for a man to be forced to become a parent.


    The idea becomes slightly more plausible in the light of the slogan “every child a wanted child”. What if a man does not want a child? How can you force him to love his wee sprog?

    “I believe every baby should be wanted, and every parent should be willing,” writes Deveney. “When we consent to having sex, we do not automatically consent to becoming a parent. If, when a cis male and cis female have vaginal sex, their contraception fails, it doesn't mean both people have to become parents. The options are abortion, adoption, parenting together or sole parenting.”

    The most obvious objection is that a man should be financially responsible for the child. But, says Deveney, “this kind of thinking is founded in oppressive heteronormative values and belongs in the 1950s.”

    © Copyright Original Source




  • #2
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
    My thoughts on this:
    1. The mother has absolutely no right to input on this decsion.
    2. The mother's state, financial stability, health, marital status, or relgion, have no input on this decision.
    3. There should be a rough time-line parity between man and woman on making the decision, however, since it is easier for a man to be uninformed of pregnancy than a woman, I would argue that his timeline starts upon official notification of pregnancy.

    Source: https://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/is-financial-abortion-an-idea-whose-time-has-come/12123

    Is ‘financial abortion’ an idea whose time has come?

    by Michael Cook


    If women have a right to get rid of a baby, why shouldn’t men? This radical idea has been kicking around for about 20 years, but seems to becoming more popular. In 1998 Brown University sociologist Frances K. Goldscheider floated the idea of a “financial abortion” in order to achieve true gender equality.

    Earlier this year the youth wing of the Liberal Party in Sweden adopted the idea. Up until 18 weeks of pregnancy, it argued, men should have the right to relinquish all rights and responsibilities for their partner’s child. Unsurprisingly, the proposal went to the same place as the Young Liberals' proposals for legalizing necrophilia and consensual incest -- nowhere at all -- as it sounded absurdly sexist and anti-feminist.

    But dyed-in-the-wool Australian feminist, comedian and author Catherine Deveney has revived the idea. The litmus test is simple:

    Is it fair for people to be forced to become parents against their wishes? If it's not fair for a woman to be forced to bear a child or have an abortion, it follows it's not fair for a man to be forced to become a parent.


    The idea becomes slightly more plausible in the light of the slogan “every child a wanted child”. What if a man does not want a child? How can you force him to love his wee sprog?

    “I believe every baby should be wanted, and every parent should be willing,” writes Deveney. “When we consent to having sex, we do not automatically consent to becoming a parent. If, when a cis male and cis female have vaginal sex, their contraception fails, it doesn't mean both people have to become parents. The options are abortion, adoption, parenting together or sole parenting.”

    The most obvious objection is that a man should be financially responsible for the child. But, says Deveney, “this kind of thinking is founded in oppressive heteronormative values and belongs in the 1950s.”

    © Copyright Original Source


    The article is interesting and certainly raises some ethical questions.

    There are echoes of earlier social attitudes towards infants [albeit those were premised on a living child]. Both the Classical world and ancient Scandinavian societies entitled the father to reject an unwanted offspring.
    "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

      The article is interesting and certainly raises some ethical questions.

      There are echoes of earlier social attitudes towards infants [albeit those were premised on a living child]. Both the Classical world and ancient Scandinavian societies entitled the father to reject an unwanted offspring.
      In general, it comes down to: Her Body, Her Choice, Her Responsibility.

      It means men will no longer be forced into indentured servitude for 18 years based on the decision of another that he has no say in. He'll have the same right to not be forced into a responsibility he does not want as a woman.

      Comment


      • #4
        As a woman Hypatia shouldn't be spouting her opinions on the matter.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

          In general, it comes down to: Her Body, Her Choice, Her Responsibility.

          It means men will no longer be forced into indentured servitude for 18 years based on the decision of another that he has no say in. He'll have the same right to not be forced into a responsibility he does not want as a woman.
          Would you envisage the scenario continuing into marriage/long-term relationships?

          I can certainly see a potential argument for the man not wishing to be burdened with the financial responsibilities of a child [or an additional child] although there is a risk that in such situations all contraceptive provision [and reliability] will rest with the woman. The man could, effectively, use his prerogative as an excuse not to take his own contraceptive precautions.

          Then of course there is the other aspect to continuing with a pregnancy. If the woman has been persuaded [or pressured] by others to continue the pregnancy [against perhaps her initial wishes] it could likewise be contended that they should [given their desire for the child to live] replace the biological father's role and share in the costs of bringing up that child until it reaches the age of maturity.
          "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

            Would you envisage the scenario continuing into marriage/long-term relationships?
            I would envision the rights continue with the father in exactly the same way abortion rights do with women. As a woman is free to abort a child for any reason without consulting her husband/long-term partner, he is free to do the same. Though, I cannot expect such a relationship would continue should such a right be executed.

            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            I can certainly see a potential argument for the man not wishing to be burdened with the financial responsibilities of a child [or an additional child] although there is a risk that in such situations all contraceptive provision [and reliability] will rest with the woman. The man could, effectively, use his prerogative as an excuse not to take his own contraceptive precautions.
            Well, that would be his perogative. I would argue that in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, it would be reasonable to expect the man to pay for 1/2 the abortion fee if the woman chooses to go that route, though, at the same time, that would mean that it would be reasonable to expect the woman to pay for 1/2 the filing fee for a financial abortion, for parity purposes.


            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            Then of course there is the other aspect to continuing with a pregnancy. If the woman has been persuaded [or pressured] by others to continue the pregnancy [against perhaps her initial wishes] it could likewise be contended that they should [given their desire for the child to live] replace the biological father's role and share in the costs of bringing up that child until it reaches the age of maturity.
            I would argue that such a thing would need to be done via legal form and agreement. People face "pressure" all the time. If you pressure a member of your legislature to resign against their initial wishes, are you responsible for replacing their salary, or are they responsible for their decision to resign or not?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
              I would envision the rights continue with the father in exactly the same way abortion rights do with women. As a woman is free to abort a child for any reason without consulting her husband/long-term partner, he is free to do the same. Though, I cannot expect such a relationship would continue should such a right be executed.


              Well, that would be his perogative. I would argue that in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, it would be reasonable to expect the man to pay for 1/2 the abortion fee if the woman chooses to go that route, though, at the same time, that would mean that it would be reasonable to expect the woman to pay for 1/2 the filing fee for a financial abortion, for parity purposes.




              I would argue that such a thing would need to be done via legal form and agreement. People face "pressure" all the time. If you pressure a member of your legislature to resign against their initial wishes, are you responsible for replacing their salary, or are they responsible for their decision to resign or not?
              I think you might be on to something.
              "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                I think you might be on to something.
                Well, anything is better than forcing a rape victims pay child support.
                https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...-child-support

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                  Well, anything is better than forcing a rape victims pay child support.
                  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...-child-support
                  Can a woman actually "rape" a man? A sixteen year old having sex with a twelve year old is illegal in our societies but was the twelve year old boy forced against his consent? He presumably had an erection - otherwise I am thinking the mechanics would have been quite awkward and entailed a lot of fumbling. He presumably also released some sperm, either as drips or a full ejaculation, otherwise she could not have become pregant.

                  He was certainly seduced by a slightly older girl but I am not sure if one could call it rape. The term statutory rape is a legal definition but I also understand that different US states have local laws pertaining to this offence.

                  However, the payment of child maintenance for young men in that situation is obviously very difficult.

                  Even under your own suggestions, as a minor aged twelve, he could not have exercised his prerogative to refuse any financial commitment given that he was not of legal age to engage in sexual intercourse.
                  "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                    Can a woman actually "rape" a man? A sixteen year old having sex with a twelve year old is illegal in our societies but was the twelve year old boy forced against his consent? He presumably had an erection - otherwise I am thinking the mechanics would have been quite awkward and entailed a lot of fumbling. He presumably also released some sperm, either as drips or a full ejaculation, otherwise she could not have become pregant.

                    He was certainly seduced by a slightly older girl but I am not sure if one could call it rape. The term statutory rape is a legal definition but I also understand that different US states have local laws pertaining to this offence.

                    However, the payment of child maintenance for young men in that situation is obviously very difficult.

                    Even under your own suggestions, as a minor aged twelve, he could not have exercised his prerogative to refuse any financial commitment given that he was not of legal age to engage in sexual intercourse.
                    By definition, he could not have consented. Though, I'm not going to go down a derail on male rape.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                      By definition, he could not have consented.
                      Not necessarily. He may have not wanted to engage initially but surely biology kicked in. He must have been able to penetrate and release at least some sperm if only a dribble.

                      Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
                      Though, I'm not going to go down a derail on male rape.
                      Then why did you introduce the topic of male rape?
                      "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        Not necessarily. He may have not wanted to engage initially but surely biology kicked in. He must have been able to penetrate and release at least some sperm if only a dribble.



                        Then why did you introduce the topic of male rape?
                        I introduced rape victims being forced to pay child support, not male rape itself. So, for the second time, I am not going down that derail. Feel free to start your own thread on how you think male rape can't happen if the guy gets an erection.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                          I introduced rape victims being forced to pay child support, not male rape itself. So, for the second time, I am not going down that derail. Feel free to start your own thread on how you think male rape can't happen if the guy gets an erection.
                          I would suspect that male rape victims have to first be identified as having been raped - a point to which my comments had relevance.

                          As for male anatomy and sexual behaviour - that is not my area of expertise.
                          "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                            In general, it comes down to: Her Body, Her Choice, Her Responsibility.

                            It means men will no longer be forced into indentured servitude for 18 years based on the decision of another that he has no say in. He'll have the same right to not be forced into a responsibility he does not want as a woman.
                            I said something very similar another thread: either give the man equal say in whether or not the unborn child is killed, or remove from him any obligation to care for the child if the woman decides to give birth.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                              I said something very similar another thread: either give the man equal say in whether or not the unborn child is killed, or remove from him any obligation to care for the child if the woman decides to give birth.
                              Give him equal opportunity to say "no." A husband whose raised his kids for 5 years and decides to walk out is one thing. One who finds out 5 years after the fact that a one night stand produced a child is another.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 06:43 AM
                              9 responses
                              70 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 06:27 AM
                              14 responses
                              55 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                              Started by seer, 06-17-2021, 11:25 AM
                              7 responses
                              70 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post oxmixmudd  
                              Started by oxmixmudd, 06-17-2021, 11:16 AM
                              54 responses
                              327 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post eider
                              by eider
                               
                              Started by seanD, 06-16-2021, 11:57 PM
                              31 responses
                              188 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Gondwanaland  
                              Working...
                              X