How can feminists claim they support equal rights when they are sexist about unwanted pregnancy?

Question

I hate to stay on this topic so long, but I need to understand the logic here:

Women think it is NOT ok to force a woman to care for an unwanted child, but its ok to force a man? Abortion is a womans right to not have a child she doesn't want. So why can't a man have the same right and not have to pay child support?

Please explain how this makes sense.

Not bitter at all ladies. Just an example of hypocrisy I can't understand

Answer 1

There is so much more to caring for a child than finances. A person only paying child support has it pretty easy. They don't have to give up their freedom, their body, their own finances, their wants and needs to put them second to the child's. The man does not have to go through the morning sickness, the weight gain, the hormonal inflictions that make you feel like you are crazy, the feedings and midnight diaper changes, the fixing all the hurts, and the emotional challenges of being a parent unless he chooses to. All he has to do is plant his seed and then he's done. If the pregnancy is terminated the emotional toll that is paid is also greater for the woman. It is therefore not a fair assumption that in this instance the man and woman should be viewed equally, but they should be judged fairly. The woman always carries more of the burden, so therefore should not judged the same as a man, nor should the man complain because he also has access to birth control and the woman would not be pregnant without his help. Do you see the fairness there? You are also assuming that all fathers that are not married to the mother of thier children actually pay child support. This is not true unfortunately. Some of them actually have to be hunted down and made to accept their responsibility.

Answer 2

I'm not sure it does make sense, but I will attempt to explain a little bit of the reasoning. These scenarios are generalized, so they may not be entirely accurate, but bear with me.

In such cases, usually the man is asked to provide support in the form of money. Actually spending time with the child is considered a priviledge he earns only if he makes payments.
That time spent is often just short visits, and usually the parent chooses to make it full of fun and recreation. If the father chooses, he can have no contact with the child at all. However, the child has material needs whether he chooses to spend time with him or not. Therefore, the biological father is expected to contribute materially to the welfare of the child.

A woman who gives birth to an unwanted child bears full responsibility for the care of the child 24/7/365. She may or may not receive state finacial benefits like WIC to help cover the costs. She WILL be expected to feed, clothe, bathe and educate the child. If she did not want the child, this amount of interaction is likely to create resentment, and statistics indicate that mothers of unwanted children do sometimes commit physical abuse. The logic of abortion in such a case is to spare the child a life of abuse, knowing he was not wanted.

Answer 3

<<>>

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You are forgetting that abortion isn't the only choice a woman has when it comes to not caring for an unwanted child. She can give the baby up for adoption, and in most states she can drop the baby off at a safe point, or she can give that baby to a family member to raise. This makes the DNA argument moot, I think. If a woman can abandon her responsibility(I used to say "abort her responsibility", but this coming to my attention has made me change my wording a bit), whether it is through abortion, adoption, or "safe haven", a man should be able to also.

Answer 4

confident, nicely suited. however the 'absolutely everyone who helps equivalent rights is a "feminist"' argument is defective because it may desire to get. I help equivalent rights, equality in opportunities, and equivalent pay for the comparable volume of interest. that would not propose I could desire to be a Feminist, pondering what present day Feminism has advance into.

Answer 5

Right now and rightly so THE COURTS have determined that the child has a right to be supported. Paying a few dollars is NOT providing care for the child.

I, and I am probably not in the majority (they jump all over me in pregnancy for voicing that opinion) think children need to have two parents and adoption in my personal view should be pursued. BUT I can not force my viewpoint on another female- its her body.

Irish you made the reasonable choice in your situation. I would have done the same.

Answer 6

Personally I'm against child support having to be payed if the father of the child didn't want it in the first place. It is unfair. I don't think that a man should be able to back down out of paying child support anytime after terminating a pregnancy would be impossible or after the child is born, though.

Protection should always be used, by both a man and a woman though.

Answer 7

the same reason a woman can't choose whether a man has a vasectomy or not, or any medical procedure for that matter. a woman must have control over her body. a man has control over whether or not he has sex with women unprotected. if he uses protection rather than relying on the woman to take the pill, he will rarely have any problems. condoms are very effective.

also, i believe a man can, in fact, legally give up all parental rights. so, there you go. men do have a sort of out.

Answer 8

I explained in response to your other question why I believe, fair or not, holding father's accountable is the most HUMANE option. What I'll add here is that disputes like this occur when people hold up "equality" as the summum bonum and neglect those principles which deserve equal consideration in any adequate conception of human flourishing: values like liberty, safety, justice, community, peace, tradition...

Exalting any one of these at the expense of others leads to an inhumane approach to the world.

Answer 9

Kinz, I agree with you, but I don't think that a man can (or should) have the option of not paying child support. The courts view support to be for the benefit of the child. It's not compensation to the mother. The child had no say in the matter and deserves a financial contribution from two parents.

Answer 10

Men should have to pay a woman the going rate for an abortion , plus 3 times that amount if she goes through the experience .
If she doesn't have the abortion she should be able to prevent the father from seeing the child unless he gives a fair amount of his income to support of the child .

The only problem with this is I can see desperate women getting pregnant and even getting abortions just for the money .
So I think that part has to be eliminated also . So lets just go with the second part !

For Creatrix : The reason the state came after the Father is to recoup some of the free money they would be giving her , per her request for asssistance . If she later won lotto they would come after her to repay some of the money they gave to her . These benefits ar really loans to tide a person though hard times . If the money becomes available , wheter through finding the spouse with a good income or finding that the person came into extra money such as a large lotto payout , they request return of the funds to the people so that it can be used for other people in need or even just better streetlights .

Now how about if the father wants the child but the woman wants to abort . Should she pay him if she terminates the fetus ? Unfortunatly I can see some guys going around trying to get women prgnant so they can make a few bucks , so that doesn't work out either .

This is why good marraiges are important . In a good solid marraige these things are so much easier to work out .
And this is why good birth control : education , condoms , Plan B need to be readily available . People are not going to stop having sex outside of marraige unless you live in a fundamentalist Islamic country where the woman gets stoned to death for a first offence .