alek0

Well, wrong, since I am a woman and I think that present law is unfair and that, since women have right to abort or give the child up for adoption, men should have right not to be parents too. I agree with what Loren Pechtel posted (decision to be made within same timeframe that abortion is acceptable etc.), so I won't repeat.

As for burden of prevention of pregnancy, my opinion is as follows. In casual encounters, condom is a must, and a woman can use additional method to increase safety if she wants. So the burden of prevention is either on male side (unless you prefer female condoms eeewwww) or equally shared. In long term relationships, one would assume that partners are capable of discussing contraception and choosing a method which is best of them. If this is not the case, why would you want to be in a relationship? Of course, contraception can fail. But if you just decide to take a risk, it is your own fault if you get pregnant. If you get fat, don't blame McDonalds, blame yourself since nobody forced you to eat there.

Precisely. And I strongly object to that. Unless we strive for true equality, sooner or later there will be a backlash and pendulum will swing back on the other side and then where will we be? While there is still discrimination against women, that problem will definitely not be solved by introducing laws favoring women instead of supporting true equality. I find such laws and rules highly offensive. If I want to achieve something, I will achieve it because I have the ability and work hard to achieve it, I don't need extra help because I am a woman. I would rather work harder in order to achieve it, than have someone tell me that I had it easy because they had to hire a woman to have diversity in workplace or whatever. Thabks but no thanks. I don't want anything which I don't deserve by my own hard work. And I take responsibility for my actions. Nobody will and nobody should take care of myself if I don't do it. If I don't want to get pregnant, it is nobody else's responsibility to ensure that this doesn't happen but mine.

Pyrrho

You conveniently left out part of what I said, for those who are obsessed with the law being absolutely equal for both people.

As for who is responsible, I have said that both parents are responsible for any children that are created. They both played a part, and therefore both should be accountable. Either one could have refused to have sex, so they both were involved in causing a baby to be born.

As for abortion, that is an option for anyone who gets pregnant. If a man ever gets pregnant, then he may have an abortion if he wants (assuming, of course, that this hypothetical man lives in a society that allows abortions).

Only those who actually get pregnant can actually have an abortion, and that is a fact of biology. When making laws, one cannot alter biology.

Majestyk

No problem. Once the baby comes out of the womb, it's no longer the sole responsibilty of the woman. So she has the choice to put it up for adoption, giving the man a choice to assume the role or let the adoption proceed.

There's still that baseball bat. Kinda like a retroactive abortion.

Pyrrho

You have not posted anything since the 'first page' of this thread. My apologies for forgetting about you.



So, what is wrong with saying that anyone who gets pregnant may decide whether or not they will have an abortion, and anyone who becomes a parent has a responsibility for the child? There is absolutely no need for my position to be expressed in terms that specify one set of rules for men, and another for women. If you object that only women can get pregnant, and therefore only women can have an abortion, I will only say that that is a fact of biology, not of law.

alek0

As already pointed out, woman has two options not to become a parent - abortion and adoption. For a man, there is no way out: if SHE wants to keep it, he has to pay for it. What precisely is your objection to the proposal that a man should have a right to renounce parental rights and responsibilities during the same timeframe that abortion is permissible? Wouldn't that make things more balanced, regardless of biological differences? What I object to is that a woman has two way out of unwanted pregnancy which will not result in 18 years of responsibility, while a man has none.

Soyin Milka

I'm not fundamentally in objection with the idea. I just don't think how it could work without creating other unfairness.

Let's take the "Loren approach". A man can decide wheter or not he wants to accept fatherhood during the ten first weeks of pregnancy. If He's not made aware of the pregnancy during the first ten weeks, he still has the right to a week's notice before having to make his choice.

Now's the time for fictional scenario number one:
An unmarried couple decide they want to have a child together. They have wild reproductive sex for a while and the woman finally gets pregnant. Nine weeks later, the man changes his mind and walks away. What does the woman do? Is that fair to her?

Please anyone, don't say that woman was careless in not getting the man to sign legal papers recognizing his responsibilities and paternity before she became pregnant from him.

I have an idea too I would like to submit to nitpicking.
A man who wants to be protected from unwanted parenthoot should let the woman know about it BEFORE she gets pregnant, not after. Put it down in writing with two witnesses co-signing it. He declines responsibilities and forfeits his rights about any child born out of this relationship. If he wants to change his mind later, he can renegotiate with the woman, but she's under no obligation.

Feather mentionned twice at least his idea of automatic waivers. Marriage for exemple would imply the husband is automatically responsible for any child he fathers, unless otherwise specified in the marriage papers. We could have a similar thing for any couple after a certain number of years of cohabitation.

My biggest beef about all this is that, so far in my life, men have been disappointing in how they dealt with contraception and prevention from STDs. Some of them didn't show the same care about my health than the one I showed about theirs. Maybe they get better as they grow older, I don't know. But I think if they should have more reproductive rights, they should have to bear the burden of managing them. I'll be in charge of contraception alone, okay, I can resign myself to that. But if men want to be protected from unwanted fatherhood, making that clear should be THEIR job, not mine, and it should be done before I even get pregnant.

Well, that's all I had to add about this for today.

Soyin

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Soyin Milka
I'm not fundamentally in objection with the idea. I just don't think how it could work without creating other unfairness.

Let's take the "Loren approach". A man can decide wheter or not he wants to accept fatherhood during the ten first weeks of pregnancy. If He's not made aware of the pregnancy during the first ten weeks, he still has the right to a week's notice before having to make his choice.

Now's the time for fictional scenario number one:
An unmarried couple decide they want to have a child together. They have wild reproductive sex for a while and the woman finally gets pregnant. Nine weeks later, the man changes his mind and walks away. What does the woman do? Is that fair to her?

I see your point. It seems to me he has given implicit consent in their deliberately trying to conceive.

I have an idea too I would like to submit to nitpicking.
A man who wants to be protected from unwanted parenthoot should let the woman know about it BEFORE she gets pregnant, not after Put it down in writing with two witnesses co-signing it.

Here I disagree--the normal expectation is that having a child should be a mutual decision, therefore in the absence of such an agreement the assumption should be that children are not wanted.

Feather mentionned twice at least his idea of automatic waivers. Marriage for exemple would imply the husband is automatically responsible for any child he fathers, unless otherwise specified in the marriage papers. We could have a similar thing for any couple after a certain number of years of cohabitation.

I disagree, even in marriage. Men can be oopsed even in marriage.

My biggest beef about all this is that, so far in my life, men have been disappointing in how they dealt with contraception and prevention from STDs.

So, demand better of your partners.

Majestyk

The unfairness you speak of is not a creation of the law. It is a result of the nature of human reproduction. It is not the within the purview of law to create fairness. The Law is however, mandated to treat each of us equally.

The details are open for debate but for, casual sex between acquaintances, this is a reasonable approach.

No. In your scenario here the man was obligated after your first sentence. He agreed. After that any sex, protected or not, that resulted in a pregnancy was, at least partially, his responsibility.

I would never think of making such a claim.

(nit) I agree that a man should ask if, a woman has taken precautions to avoid pregnancy before engaging in sex regardless of the nature of their relationship if, pregnancy would be undesirable. (pick) I reject the manner in which you require it, though. Again you ask the law to provide differing standards (from even your preceding paragraph) based on gender. And again I have to object.

I can accept this reasoning, so long as he also is automatically granted the privileges associated with the responsibility.

Soyin, I am sorry to hear that you have been disappointed or hurt in the past. Truly, I am. I just have to reject the concepts of responsibility without authority and differing standards under the law.

Pyrrho

A woman cannot cause a father to lose his rights to the child. If she wants to get rid of the child through adoption, he may take possession, and he may require child support from her (at least in the U.S.; I have nothing to say about the law in Hong Kong, though it may be similar to the U.S. without people generally noticing it). You are probably not thinking of such cases because, as a matter of fact, many men do not have much concern about their own children, so they often do not take custody of their children. (We need not say anything about what this may mean about those men.) So your claim that women can get out of dealing with a child by giving it up for adoption is wrong, unless the man also is giving it up. It is only when both give it up that they are both free of financial responsibility.

Again, the ONLY reason why abortion is an option for a woman and not for a man is because it is biologically impossible for a man to become pregnant. You may as well complain that it is unfair that a man may legally put his penis inside of a woman (if she consents), because no woman can do this. The simple fact is, only those who are pregnant can have an abortion.

If we follow the principle that people may do to their own bodies as they see fit (whether or not restrictions are added to this idea), then it follows that a woman may be allowed to have an abortion and a man may not ever have an abortion, NOT BECAUSE WE HAVE DECIDED TO TREAT THEM DIFFERENTLY, BUT BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A MAN TO HAVE AN ABORTION. No one has suggested in this thread that we make it illegal for a man to have an abortion.

The fact that men and women are physically different means that there will always be different possibilities for each. This is NOT a result of laws, but of biology. Saying that it is "unfair" may be true, but it is irrelevant to the way the world is, and we cannot change this fact, no matter how many laws we may enact.

Soyin Milka

That whole post was great. I just quoted the last paragraph for saving space. But I agree with everything you said in your post. Still, I'm open to make accomodations for men asking for more reproductive rights, as long as it doesn't add new burdens on women.

Soyin