Abortion deal?

Question

Everyone remember your early education about the American Government? One of the first things they cover in a Civics class is the idea of Rights and Responsibilities. Most rights have corresponding responsibilities, IE. you have the right to life, thus you can't murder someone as that is violating their right to life.

Understanding these simple principles, how is the current state of abortion law acceptable when it comes to MEN? I am not talking about a woman's rights here, I am talking about the double standard that men are placed in when it comes to rights vs. responsibilities. A man has no RIGHT to that child, and can't force a woman to carry his child to term. So how can it possibly be Constitutional to charge him 18 years of child support if the situation is reversed?

Legally, it's taxation without representation, and the last time that happened we fought a war over it. I don't want to get bogged down in moral arguments, I am asking if you think it is legally justifiable.

Most of the people answering this are assuming that both parties made a 'choice' in getting pregnant. If two people decide to have a child and the man wants to bail, then he needs to pony up the cash. What I am talking about is being responsible for the cost of raising a child, which adds up to a LOT over 18-24 years, without any rights in EITHER direction.

That would be like the government showing up at my house without asking, building a windmill, and then charging me for it's upkeep. I didn't ASK for the windmill, no one gave me any choice in the matter, and now I am footing the bill. Explain to me how that is legally justifiable.

Answer 1

It's a double standard.

Answer 2

Because men are not involved in the pregnancy.

Before the pregnancy -- both have equal rights. Both can consent, or refuse consent, to have the pregnancy happen.

After the pregnancy -- both have equal responsibilities. Both are fully responsible for welfare of the child.

During the pregnancy -- the woman has the responsibility to provide life support out of her own body. With that comes the right to refuse to provide such life support.

During the pregnancy -- the many has no responsibilities. So he has no rights either (to use your balancing model).

And if we had the technology for artificial incubators, there would be no right to abortion either. Because the woman's rights would be limited to removing herself from the equation, and having the baby raised in the creche. And then, when it's grown enough to survive on its own, both would against be financially responsible.

And it's not taxation without representation for two reasons -- first, the father can vote. That's representation. Second, he consented by being involved in the pregnancy in the first place. If he didn't consent,. and it was rape, then he's not financially responsible either.

So, yes, it's both legally and morally justifiable.

Answer 3

Oh but a man DOES have rights - he has the right to wear a condom or not wear a condom - that is HIS choice. We all know that condoms are not 100% guaranteed - that is a risk that you will always have to consider. To say "she told me she couldn't get pregnant" or "she said she was on the pill" isn't really taking responsibility for your own actions - that was also a choice that he made.

If the woman gets pregnant then it's all happening within HER body. She is the one who will have to carry the baby for 9 months and she is the one who will have to go through the pain of childbirth. This is why the decision to go through with a pregnancy belongs with her.

Men have the first choice, and women have the second. That's just the way it is. :-)

Answer 4

Because, the man was a willing participant in creating the child. He cannot force the woman to get an abortion. If there is only ONE way the state is going to make him responsible for the child, it's child support. If that's the only way....then it's the only way.

In response to your edit, I think it's universal knowledge that the reproductive organs are used for...reproduction! You know the possible outcome of sex! If you create a child, the least one should do is pay for it's upbringing.

Answer 5

I have long believed that a man should be able to make a conscious decision to being a father, and, that once that decision is made he should be forced to stick with it, but, if he does not want the baby, never has, then, I think that mom's decision to raise the child alone means that she should raise the child alone. Personal responsibility is a 2 way street. You shouldn't be able to get pregnant and force someone to be a father if he does not want to be.

Answer 6

The whole concept of "rights and responsibilities" is incorrect.

Rights are the powers of the individual that others are obliged to respect. They do not carry responsibilities. If I have the power to plant roses in my yard, that's my right, but that doesn't mean I have the responsibility to do so.

Examine the Constitution carefully. There are NO obligations of the individual set forth at all. The whole concept was to create a government that the individual was free to ignore, and make it possible for a person to live their whole lives without thinking about the government.

To hell with your "social contract" nonsense.

Answer 7

I don't think most men would carry a baby 9 month and go through labor and take that baby home and raise it alone and never get any support from the woman that got you pregnant.

Answer 8

It's the screwing you get for the screwing you got.

Since the courts enforce it, you tell me if it's legally justifiable.

If you meant morally justifiable then the answer is no.