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

[Neopergoss]

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.

You're right, I do disagree. A parent has certain responsibilities to take care of his or her offspring. I, for one, couldn't live with myself not knowing if my child was OK (though I don't have one yet). I know someone who was abandoned by their father and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

[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.

-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.

Yes. I believe its still her choice utterly. Its her body that nourishes the fetus, its her effort that is required to maintain the pregnancy. The man is obligated in nothing. He can only offer and hope she accepts at this stage. IF she accepts his investment in the project then upon birth the project is shared.

And if you wish to say that the man is invested at this stage because it was his sperm the point is negligable. A mans sperm offers only DNA for the construction of the child, its equvalent to the whole process as paperwork is to the construction of a Superstructure. 

[Kael Hate]

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.

You're right, I do disagree. A parent has certain responsibilities to take care of his or her offspring. I, for one, couldn't live with myself not knowing if my child was OK (though I don't have one yet). I know someone who was abandoned by their father and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Thats a social implication brought on by programming from your culture and not factual instinctive programming.

[Neopergoss]

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.

You're right, I do disagree. A parent has certain responsibilities to take care of his or her offspring. I, for one, couldn't live with myself not knowing if my child was OK (though I don't have one yet). I know someone who was abandoned by their father and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Thats a social implication brought on by programming from your culture and not factual instinctive programming.

So ideas that come from "factual instinctive programming" override social ones? Why? Does that mean eating vegetables is worse than eating donuts? Besides, can you really make the claim that social ideas are completely independent from instincts? Really my biggest objection to this is that I don't believe your claim that a child only wants to know its father because of social conditioning. Don't most societies give fatherhood considerable importance?

[Kael Hate]

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.

You're right, I do disagree. A parent has certain responsibilities to take care of his or her offspring. I, for one, couldn't live with myself not knowing if my child was OK (though I don't have one yet). I know someone who was abandoned by their father and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Thats a social implication brought on by programming from your culture and not factual instinctive programming.

So ideas that come from "factual instinctive programming" override social ones? Why? Does that mean eating vegetables is worse than eating donuts? Besides, can you really make the claim that social ideas are completely independent from instincts? Really my biggest objection to this is that I don't believe your claim that a child only wants to know its father because of social conditioning. Don't most societies give fatherhood considerable importance?

The Point is that I am evaluating the situation on a Higher level.

Your point of view is influenced by what you have experienced and nothing to do with actualism. Its just the same as Joey who became destitute after his Girlfriend had a baby he didn't know about and that he isn't allowed to see but he has to give up more than half his income for. Its a social or personal experience and taints your view. It also fits in with those who deny the right to euthanasia because its their religion says its against the lord to commit suicide. It has nothing to do with factualism and all to do with cultural programing.

Lets disregard humans for a minute and evaluate nature. All animals including insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals will neglect and/or abandon a child if they feel it is within their best interests to do so. They also promote the death of ineffective half-casts. The mother animal always makes that descision on its environment because of her needs and only after birth does the male have an opportunity to be involved with the childs growth and carry on the childs nurture if the mother leaves it.

Fatherhood, if it exists has always been about means. Sons make income, sons retain wealth and name. Daughters mean dowry, a transferable item usable for political nature to gain more asset. Remove this ability to gain asset and fatherhood suddenly dissapears, a bear or lion will kill its own children to make sure it has more females and better sustainable feeding grounds.

[Neopergoss]

The Point is that I am evaluating the situation on a Higher level.

Your point of view is influenced by what you have experienced and nothing to do with actualism. Its just the same as Joey who became destitute after his Girlfriend had a baby he didn't know about and that he isn't allowed to see but he has to give up more than half his income for. Its a social or personal experience and taints your view. It also fits in with those who deny the right to euthanasia because its their religion says its against the lord to commit suicide. It has nothing to do with factualism and all to do with cultural programing.

Lets disregard humans for a minute and evaluate nature. All animals including insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals will neglect and/or abandon a child if they feel it is within their best interests to do so. They also promote the death of ineffective half-casts. The mother animal always makes that descision on its environment because of her needs and only after birth does the male have an opportunity to be involved with the childs growth and carry on the childs nurture if the mother leaves it.

Fatherhood, if it exists has always been about means. Sons make income, sons retain wealth and name. Daughters mean dowry, a transferable item usable for political nature to gain more asset. Remove this ability to gain asset and fatherhood suddenly dissapears, a bear or lion will kill its own children to make sure it has more females and better sustainable feeding grounds.

I think disregarding humans is a mistake. If you want an evolutionary perspective, it might be a good idea to look at hunter-gatherer societies: (http://books.google.com/books?id=Yz_JkWGbMaQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=fatherhood+cross-cultural&source=bl&ots=uuGjW2VKgO&sig=zzZyAtv9ScahMzX-1ekhstk098Q&hl=en&ei=2t66TficJ9GTtweynaHDBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDEQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=fatherhood&f=false)

There is a body of scholarly research on human fatherhood undertaken from evolutionary and cross-cultural aproaches. This research tells us that in only 5% of species of mammals do males provide parental care. In addition, in all human societies, men spend less time in direct childcare than women. In human hunter-gatherer societies, men tend to spend more time with young children than in most other societies, especially ones in which men make a living herding livestock.

There are indeed many cultures in which fathers are uninvolved in child care. It's a fairly even split. (http://maxizip.com/2010/11/fatherhood-cross-cultural-variation-in-fathering-theories-of-fatherhood-and-families/) I think it's fair to say that we live in a society where this involvement is expected. I don't think that's a bad thing, since it's apparently also associated with gender equality. I don't think either type of culture is any less natural than the other or one would be rarer.

Cross-cultural research shows that about half of the world’s known societies have exhibited close father-child relationships, with contact typically increasing as children grow older. Compared to societies with distant father-child relationships, those with involved fathers are more likely to be peaceful and include nurturing deities of both sexes in their creation stories (Sanday 1981). Distant-father societies are more likely to have stern male gods, with groups of men routinely excluding women from community decision-making, demanding deference from wives, and engaging in competitive displays of manliness (Coltrane 1996). Higher levels of father involvement with children are thus associated with more intimate husband-wife relationships and more gender equality in the society, whereas lower levels of father involvement are associated with more distant husband-wife relationships and more overt male dominance.

Btw, I also know someone who has to pay for a child he doesn't take care of. He has some financial problems, but I don't feel for him the same way as the person whose father walked out on them.

OT: Is there a way to include a hyperlink

?

[QuantumT]

I'm not quite sure why this is so hard, maybe this will demonstrate the point.

Mother doesn't want child --> abortion
Father doesn't want child --> ??

[Neopergoss]

I'm not quite sure why this is so hard, maybe this will demonstrate the point.

Mother doesn't want child --> abortion
Father doesn't want child --> ??

It's not a fair situation. The mother has more at stake, so it's her decision.

[OldTrees]

I'm not quite sure why this is so hard, maybe this will demonstrate the point.

Mother doesn't want child --> abortion
Father doesn't want child --> ??

It is more complicated

	Mother wants child	Mother doesn't wants child
Father wants child	Family	this thread
Father doesn't wants child	Single Mother	Abortion

[QuantumT]

I'm not quite sure why this is so hard, maybe this will demonstrate the point.

Mother doesn't want child --> abortion
Father doesn't want child --> ??

It's not a fair situation. The mother has more at stake, so it's her decision.

I don't see how it's at all fair to give all the power to the mother. If she decides to have the child, then she can deal with the consequences. She shouldn't be able to force the father to feel the impact of a choice that he had no influence over.

[Neopergoss]

I'm not quite sure why this is so hard, maybe this will demonstrate the point.

Mother doesn't want child --> abortion
Father doesn't want child --> ??

It's not a fair situation. The mother has more at stake, so it's her decision.

I don't see how it's at all fair to give all the power to the mother. If she decides to have the child, then she can deal with the consequences. She shouldn't be able to force the father to feel the impact of a choice that he had no influence over.

Until science advances to the point that Arnold Schwarzenegger's pregnancy becomes a reality, I really don't see a better solution. If she decides to birth the child but not keep it, she has the same burden if the father tries to raise it. For reasons already explained, the choice about whether to birth the child should be hers alone.

[QuantumT]

Until science advances to the point that Arnold Schwarzenegger's pregnancy becomes a reality, I really don't see a better solution. If she decides to birth the child but not keep it, she has the same burden if the father tries to raise it. For reasons already explained, the choice about whether to birth the child should be hers alone.

The mother shouldn't get to have her cake and eat it too. Either she gets full control of the choice AND the consequences or she gets neither.