Men should have no responsibility for pregnancy

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Ok, before you start the attacks, hear me out:

I’m not saying that men shouldn’t take precautions like condoms. In fact I believe that condoms are great, so are vasectomies, and (if someone ever wants to make an absolute fortune) the male birth control pill!

But here’s why I think if a woman gets pregnant that a man should at least have a right to opt out and not bear any financial burden: control.

When a woman becomes pregnant she is in absolute control. She can have the fetus aborted or keep it. Plain and simple, the choice lies solely with the infected, I mean impregnated. Thus if a man wants the child and the woman does not, she is not compelled to keep it and there is no recourse for the man. But no one ever talks about a man’s feelings.

So in a culture that promotes equality I believe that we should have exactly that: equality. Since it is not fair for a man to abort a fetus that a woman wants and he does not (because he is affecting the woman’s body) it therefore follows that he should have the option of opting out.

By opting out I mean completely opting out. No financial culpability, but also no visitational or parental rights whatsoever. Period. Once a man releases his right or parentage that’s it, no contact with the child ever. But also, no financial problems either.

Now before you nay-sayers all boo and hiss think about the long-term potential benefits. Women will actually have to insist that men take precautions, i.e. condoms, or else ensure that they themselves are protected i.e. birth control pill. So by making it a consequence to women, who by the way get to make the choice instead of turning a man who only wanted to get laid into a living annuity, we force women to make better choices about when and with whom they will have children.

In addition to that, we might actually get the population of this crowded rock to a more reasonable level. Think of it: less poverty because supplies will be more plentiful for those humans that were actually wanted. More stable families, or at least two parents in a family. Boys that can actually learn what it is like being raised by men who want them.

We’ve already made it perfectly clear in this country that father’s basically have no rights, so let’s just take it to the most fair and logical next step: eliminate culpability. No choice = no responsibility. I’ve made this argument before about God and free-will.

So that’s it, let the Crooked bashing begin!

2

Huh. You claim to use the principle of equality. However both a man and a woman (equally) make the decision to copulate. The onus of a resulting child is upon them both equally. So it follows that to be fair, the responsibility of taking care of the child should be upon the two equally. This is a simplistic view ignoring other factors, but I think it is still valid.

3

Socrates,

I am not claiming that a man doesn’t engage in the act of sex. But since the outcome is beyond his control and lies with another, why should there be any financial burden if this was not his intended result.

Let me put it another way: If a man wants the fetus to be carried to birth and the woman does not, what then should be the result? In a fair system the man should have the right to have the fetus removed and placed in a surrogate and then demand payment for 18 years from the ‘unwilling mother’, yes?

This is equally as fair. As the woman would be rid of the fetus anyway what does she care if it is scraped or implanted. This is the point I am trying to make. If fairness exists then at least this possibility should be acceptable.

4

Yes, but the father would need to contribute equally. And this is not a practical solution.

They both make a decision at the stage of copulation, knowing the risks. It is fair to expect them to follow through with that decision should the risk eventuate.

5

Socrates,

I still do not see why, in a society that claims to value equality over all things, that my argument is invalid to you? Why should the man be equally responsible? He has no say in the final outcome of the impregnation and therefore should not have any of the burden, provided he chooses not to be a part of this.

I’m not saying all men would choose this option, just some. And rightly so. What if during fellatio a woman secretcly takes some of the semen and inserts it into her vagina in an effort to impregnate herself? Should the man bear the burden then? Of course not! But the courts in this country say of course he should. That is preposterous!

Until control is equal, which it never will be, the consequences of the decision should lie solely with the one who chooses, not the innocent third party who only wants to ejaculate!

6

Unfortunately it appears we both have valid points, yet neither of us has provided a good solution. We’re working within the limits of current laws, societal values medical technology, and of course nature itself, and that hinders a completely “fair” solution. I think I might leave the argument here because in my experience these ones don’t tend to go anywhere. :slight_smile:

7

Crooked Mouth,

I can see where you are coming from. In a primitive, tribal society that would work great. I mean, naturally that is how it was meant to be. If we take a look at other animals in their natural habitat, a female has multiple fathers at times. She will give birth with 1 male, he runs off to screw some more females, and that 1 female takes care of the baby on her own. When this baby is all grown up and left the nest, the mother may go find another mate to make another baby with. If we were once at this point, as primitive humans, then why did we evolve to where we are now? There has to be a reason in there somewhere.

8

Hello All,

Any woman willing to give fellatio, receive the semen in her mouth, and put that into her vagina should be praised not denounced. :evilfun:

Sweet, sweet fellatio… Oh honey…Oh yeah! :unamused:

9

Dear Crooked,
I agree with you. The man does not have any say in the outcome so why should he be held responsible? If the father of the unborn child took the pregnant woman to court to argue that he wanted to keep the child, no judge would side with him. If she wants to abort it that is her choice. If she wants to keep it that is her choice. So basically any man in such a predicament is screwed.

10

You are forgetting the pain involved in the nine months of child birth. The mother is granted the extra control because she is the only one suffering through the physical and emotional labor. You can argue that the financial repricussions for men are more severe than nine months of pain, but youde have a hard time proving that. If a life of child support far outweighs the pain of child birth, than at least SOME monetary compensation is required. I would price the pain and inconvenience of child birth at around 100,000 dollars though. I dont know which ends up being more expensive then, $100,000, or child support?

11

Also, we can have pre-sexual agreements to avoid any of the problems. Like Pre-nups.

12

Crooked Mouth,

Compelling argument. But based on a number of errors.

  1. The man is free also not to have sex. If he does choose, then he must accept the consequences.

If he does not want a child, he should not have sex.

  1. If he does have sex, he takes the risk of procreating. The woman’s wish or actions is not relevant. Having sex is a dangerous business, and one should accept that fact, and not ignore it. Intention is not relevant.

If I shoot and kill someone, my argument that I did not intend to kill him won’t get me very far (“Hey, man, I only wanted to shoot his ears off”).

  1. Life is unfair. Accept that fact and get on with life.
13

That you most certainly cannot have. Not in the US, anyway. It would be nice, but that’s not the way it works.

14

Why the hell not??? Its a legal contract regarding sex. Whats the big deal? What about prostitutes in places where prostitution is legal? Im sure there are contracts involved in that, or maybe all the prostitutes are legally required to be fixed? Anyways, it can work. Im sure people will find it it slightly awkward at first that in the heat of passion, your partner pulls out a contract for you to sign, but we’le get used to it. We are highly adaptable creatures…

15

this passage just struck me as funny, especially in the context of this thread…

-Imp

16

funny indeed…

17

First, fairness does not = equality.

Second,

Are you nuts? Men? Feelings? Get with the program…women dominate us; times have changed, things have reversed.

Now, I love how you make it sound as if abortion is no big deal. Huh, pregnant? Have an abortion, no different then an oil change now in days. “If the woman wants the kid its her own damn choice leave me out it!” --Disgusting… Revolting and disgusting.

Engaging in sexual activity you take on the burden of the consequences, that is if one’s a true man; and if not, I spit on the swine. If you didn’t want the baby, you should have worn a condem; if it failed, that’s a risk you took–perhaps you should have considered what meaningless sex really entailed.

18

First: Crooked Mouth, I tried to agree with your claim; however, I think I found something that makes it not work… here are a few things to discuss/review:

  1. Men and women consent to have sex.
  2. In a court of law mutual consent mean mutual responsibility
    a) responsibility of any and all actions
    b) not limited to future liabilities

Here is my question: Since it is more than reasonable to assume that pregnancy is always a liability (the only 100% effective birth control is abstinence–unless you are Mary, mother of God :wink:) does the mutual consent of each party mean that the man’s choice to OPT OUT is prior to engaging in fornication?

Also, your theory cannot apply to teen pregnancy. The male’s parents do not want a child, female’s parents do; guess what, everyone is fucked!

However, there must be a way for we men to get out of this… I have to think about it…
Perhaps a convenient push down the stairs? :astonished:

Jokes aside, I will think on this…

19

Crooked Mouth, Men should have no responsibility for pregnancy. To begin with should, what should? And responsibility is more of a direct order then a should if your still with your girl. Its about the girl, to say the man has responsibility is basically saying: “Look, you are responsible for this child!” Then the girl shaggin a rugby team and doing a disappearing act, leaving the man completely unresponsible. The man is never responsible for the child to begin with.

Now, women (or the female side of nature) is a wonderful thing. She wants children from different partners with different genes. The male wants many children with one partner and all partners. If not all, then one will be his gene making machine forever. She, however, has different ideas. This seems to be why alot of male animals sacrifice there lives for sex, infact it seems build into the fabric of all social intercourse.

A survival thing, the old cliche (sp) that men are the ones going round making all the babys has been reversed. As ugm stated, women have the power. In Britian its resulted in these guys named Fathers For Justice braking into Windsor palace, 10 Downing street and waving flags around saying “its not fair!” alot. Here the old system was that you had to pay the CSA 1/3 of your income. If the girl you inpregnated was on benefits she would recieve less then the 1/3 your paying the CSA because you also need to pay for social she was claiming. This is all regardless of wether she did indeed shag the enter rugby team or not.

Now its changed again because of all the suicides. Its 15% of your wage for one child and 25% for as many more as you want. Which isnt a pretty bad deal when you think about it. But… the girl may not let you see your child anyways, unless you prove shes retarded; she could be sitting there getting next to nothing of you with her next genome next to her readying the next child.

So heres the rules if your a man and you dont think the bitch your with is likely to stay around:

Dont put your name on the birth certificate.

Dont forget thy whip!

Deny everything!

Ethics dont talk money. The state owns you, your property, your family and your choice.

This all sounds like one of the reasons why she wont let me take her up the arse.

20

On a man’s roll concerning abortion/pregnancy (this is how I think it should go):

If a man wants to keep the baby he conceived and give it the care it needs to grow into self-reliance – and/or if he is ethically against abortion, and wants to put the child up for adoption – the woman should have to go through the nine months of pregnancy and the labor, and if the child is not given up for adoption, should be equally responsible for the care (atleast financial) of the child (into self-reliance).

She, just as well as he, could have “opted” out of this responsibility by using birth control, or avoided the risk through abstinence. She knows that sex results not only in children (the man shares in this aspect of it), but in 9 months of pregnancy and, in the end, labor. The risks are higher for her, yes – she should take more care in her sexual behavior, therefore. This is assuming she was not raped. A man who “forces” conception, cancels out any (granted) “rights” he may have otherwise had – however, he still retains ‘financial’ responsiblity, if she should keep the baby.

If the man does not have any decision in whether or not she can abort the baby, he should not be held responsible for the child if she chooses to keep it (unless he chooses to take responsibility).

In other words…

If a woman can escape her responsibilities (abort the child) without the man’s consent, the man should be able to do so as well (declare that he does not want to know or be responsible for the child), if she chooses to keep it.

Another issue involved in this, is when a mother keeps a child secret from the father. The father, if he did not force conception, should be allowed a D.N.A. test (assuming he becomes aware of the child), and to share responsibility for the child – even if the mother disagrees (unless she has good reason to disagree – she would have to argue that in court).

I would like to conclude by saying that just because you conceive a child, does not mean you own it (one could argue, that if /anybody/ has interest in caring for the child, or if they are ethically against abortion, whether they conceived it or not, then the baby should not be aborted, and (if not put up for adoption) the ‘interested’ party should be able to take/share responsiblility for the child).

I would say that the mother’s/father’s desire to raise the child should come before any other interested party – not because they “own” the child, but because studies show that biological parents are less likely to abuse a child than parents who raise children they did not conceive (this may be part of “nature” that we should pay attention to).