My view on abortion, and both parents rights to the baby.

[Nepycros]

Wrong. It's not about trauma. It's about the lack of control and choice. That's the difference, for example, between sex and rape.

I had thrown the lack of control and choice into the trauma category. Just clearing up.[/me]

[BluePriest]

Understood. The amount of trauma that the mother takes is so immense, that no matter the circumstances, the father has no say.

Pay attention, it's not about trauma. It's about the lack of control and choice. That's the difference, for example, between sex and rape.

Id like to point out that this is sorta the point. Your sex and rape example is more appropriate than the tapeworm one.

You are saying it goes like this-
1)I give you a sandwich.
2)You eat it
3)I tell you it has a tapeworm that will infect your body and force you to keep it.

In reality it is more like this
1)I give you a sandwich
2)I tell you about the tapeworm
3)You eat it anyways, knowing that it could or could not infect your body for 6 months.

You act like they had no choice in "eating the sandwich" when they did. Now if someone forced them to "eat the sandwich" then that would be another thing entirely. However, you ate the tapeworm, knowing the tapeworm was in there and that it could infect your body.

[Neopergoss]

You act like they had no choice in "eating the sandwich" when they did. Now if someone forced them to "eat the sandwich" then that would be another thing entirely. However, you ate the tapeworm, knowing the tapeworm was in there and that it could infect your body.

You act like everyone who has sex sits down and carefully weighs the consequences first, or that birth control has a 100% success rate 

Even if they knew about the risk, it's still wrong to force them to keep the tapeworm.

[BluePriest]

No I act like people SHOULD weigh the consequences first.

Honestly, this is about the only subject where "ignorance is bliss" is used and accepted as an argument. Almost everyone mature enough about making a decision about sex, knows that there is a chance that they could get pregnant. People convince themselves that they have a 0% chance, when they know full well that they do have a very slim chance.

Once again, there should be some type of agreement made beforehand that the guy and girl have to sign saying  "Hey, Im not keeping this baby if I get pregnant, you understand this right?" or something along the lines of it.  Also understand that I am only mentinoing something like this half joking, and that if a better solution was found that would take both people into account, not just the child bearer, then I would probably be all for that as well.

[Neopergoss]

Once again, there should be some type of agreement made beforehand that the guy and girl have to sign saying  "Hey, Im not keeping this baby if I get pregnant, you understand this right?" or something along the lines of it.  Also understand that I am only mentinoing something like this half joking, and that if a better solution was found that would take both people into account, not just the child bearer, then I would probably be all for that as well.

Saying people "should" do something doesn't mean that they will. Yes, I'm afraid that's simply not practical. In the absence of something like that, the man shouldn't make any assumptions and he should understand that the woman is free to do what she wishes with her body, including terminating a pregnancy.

Really, it goes both ways. Perhaps the issue would be clearer for you if someone argued that if a man isn't ready to be a father, he should have the right to demand an abortion, provided he pays for everything himself and makes it as easy as possible for the woman. This would be equally abhorrent.

[BluePriest]

Once again, there should be some type of agreement made beforehand that the guy and girl have to sign saying  "Hey, Im not keeping this baby if I get pregnant, you understand this right?" or something along the lines of it.  Also understand that I am only mentinoing something like this half joking, and that if a better solution was found that would take both people into account, not just the child bearer, then I would probably be all for that as well.

Saying people "should" do something doesn't mean that they will. Yes, I'm afraid that's simply not practical. In the absence of something like that, the man shouldn't make any assumptions and he should understand that the woman is free to do what she wishes with her body, including terminating a pregnancy.

Really, it goes both ways. Perhaps the issue would be clearer for you if someone argued that if a man isn't ready to be a father, he should have the right to demand an abortion, provided he pays for everything himself and makes it as easy as possible for the woman. This would be equally abhorrent.

Not really, in that case, just dont have contact with the person. It doesnt work in reverse at all really. The dad doesnt want it? Get a divorce if youre married. If youre not married, then just seperate.

[OldTrees]

Possibilities:
Either the Woman chose or didn't chose to have sex

• This separates the Rape situations where the Woman did not volunteer to participate

Either the Woman knew that sex could lead to reproduction or they didn't

• This separates those who entered with knowledge of risks and those that didn't. Awareness of a risk however small they imagine it to be counts.

After these two conditions are satisfied we have a Woman that voluntarily chose to risk becoming an incubator for a parasite. At this point she could be considered to have already made a moral contract that specifies specific duties to the others involved. (Likewise if you replace Woman with Man above. Obviously minus the hosting part.)

[QuantumT]

Really, it goes both ways. Perhaps the issue would be clearer for you if someone argued that if a man isn't ready to be a father, he should have the right to demand an abortion, provided he pays for everything himself and makes it as easy as possible for the woman. This would be equally abhorrent.

This sounds completely fine to me. The women can go ahead and choose to have the child anyway, but the father shouldn't be in any way responsible for it, financially or otherwise.

[Neopergoss]

Not really, in that case, just dont have contact with the person. It doesnt work in reverse at all really. The dad doesnt want it? Get a divorce if youre married. If youre not married, then just seperate.

Some people take the responsibility of being a father seriously. These people could not imagine abandoning their child. A child should not have to grow up without a father. For these people, your proposed solution wouldn't work.

Really, it goes both ways. Perhaps the issue would be clearer for you if someone argued that if a man isn't ready to be a father, he should have the right to demand an abortion, provided he pays for everything himself and makes it as easy as possible for the woman. This would be equally abhorrent.

This sounds completely fine to me. The women can go ahead and choose to have the child anyway, but the father shouldn't be in any way responsible for it, financially or otherwise.

What you're advocating would make the already difficult task of being a single mother a lot harder. I can't really get behind something like that.

Yes, that does mean that I think a woman shouldn't be compelled to abort or not to abort, but if she chooses to have the child, the man should provide financial support. It's not that the woman's choices are more important than the man's, but unfortunately for men a woman's control over her body is more important than a man's desire to have/not have a child and the child's need for adequate care is more important than the father's desire not to have a child. And it's not as unfair when you think about the fact that a mother has to provide child support for a single father, too.

[QuantumT]

What you're advocating would make the already difficult task of being a single mother a lot harder. I can't really get behind something like that.

Yes, that does mean that I think a woman shouldn't be compelled to abort or not to abort, but if she chooses to have the child, the man should provide financial support. It's not that the woman's choices are more important than the man's, but unfortunately for men a woman's control over her body is more important than a man's desire to have/not have a child and the child's need for adequate care is more important than the father's desire not to have a child. And it's not as unfair when you think about the fact that a mother has to provide child support for a single father, too.

The woman has a choice that the man does not though. She can choose to have an abortion, a choice that the man has no control over. You give every single bit of power to the woman and ignore the man completely.

[Kael Hate]

*jumps on the end of the conversation*

I believe that until the child is born the Choice is utterly the womans. A man should have no control on if the baby is to be taken to term or not.

If the woman wants the child then it should be discussed if the man will commit to the childs upbringing or not. If he chooses not to then its her financial problem to deal with because she chose to have the child regardless of his wishes. If he does commit to the upbringing of the child financially and/or emotionally then its his child and he should have any rights that the mother has to that child including visitation and descision making.

People will disagree, but a child is its essense an asset. You can choose not to invest in it but once you do you have to agree to the terms. If you commit to it, its yours, if you don't its not and you have no right to it.

[OldTrees]

*jumps on the end of the conversation*

I believe that until the child is born the Choice is utterly the womans. A man should have no control on if the baby is to be taken to term or not.

-snip-

People will disagree, but a child is its essense an asset. You can choose not to invest in it but once you do you have to agree to the terms. If you commit to it, its yours, if you don't its not and you have no right to it.

If a Woman voluntarily has sex knowing that there is a chance of pregnancy, is that not an investment in an asset that then has terms to agree to?
Ex: A couple decides they want to have a child. After impregnation the Woman changes her mind. Does she still have the right to abort if the Man does not want to abort? They have both invested even if the woman invested more and continues to invest more.