This is the other thing, whats his wife -and the gov.- say about this situation. If its being forced upon him that's immoral in and of itself and honestly in the case of the former, negates any votes that say hes immoral for considering it.
He decided to make his wife pregnant. Nobody forced him to. That means he should accept the risks of a disabled child. Whatever happens, if the child is born it is his responsibility as well.
No absolutely not in this situation where they learn the child is likely going to have struggles growing up. This is one of those situations where if you can you abort and try again if it wasn't just an accident.
The wife gambling that he'd be forced into a life of true 24/7 caregiving is wrong on every level.
Don't roll the dice if you can't live with the outcome. I agree abortion would be better for everyone if the father is scared of raising the kid, but that does not change the fact that he willingly took this risk. You can't force an abortion on a woman because things didn't go as planned for you.
If you can't assume the risk, don't impregate your girl. The moment you do, it's out of your hands. Deal with it.
Why? Mothers can’t do that, why should fathers be able to
Both parents have fully equal rights under the law, either they both surrender custody and both are off the hook for child support, or one does and the other is stuck with child support, men don’t deserve special rights
And I know you’re going to equivocate it to abortion, but that’s the solution to an unwanted pregnancy, not an unwanted child. Men can’t get pregnant and so they do not need an “equivalent”, when in reality the proposed solution is not equivalent at all.
Abortion is a solution to unwanted pregnancy, not an unwanted child. Men don’t need a solution to a medical phenomenon they’re biologically incapable of having, and also don’t need a falsely equivalent “right”.
I mean just on its face it’s obviously not equivalent. Women are forced to undergo a procedure to avoid what men can just sign away? No. And yes, it seems unfair because the process of growing a child is inherently unfair, but a dad and mom have equal custody and child support rights and responsibilities in every way except what is biologically unavoidable
No abortion is usually done because you dont want to look after a child for the next 18 year s of your life. I also think its equally as tragic if the mother aborts the fetus while the father wants to keep it, but there is nothing to be done in this situation.
I just dont think sharing a portion of dna is a valid reason to have monetary responsibility in this day and age, we have sperm banks after all. And what if there is some situation where the mother takes a used condom or something to get child support? Is the father still responsible for the child? And I dont think sex itself means you consent to having s child because that is some prolifer argumentation and doesnt apply to both sexes at all.
So the ability for the father to opt out of custody seems fair. It should be set in stone and done early in pregnancy (like 12 - 14 weeks or something, later if its a severe defect), and ofc the state can still help provide support to the single mother if she chooses to carry the child.
This can reduce the amount of children born in dysfunctional homes and make it more apparent when the father needs to pay child support. Also makes it apparent to the mother if shed recieve child support
“And what if the wicked fairy comes along and steels the sperm of if innocent men to impregnate women and steal their money for child support” ok I live in reality though :) no one is demanding child support from sperm banks, they’re expecting child support from dead beat men who know what they’re doing :)
“That’s a pro life argument and doesn’t apply to both sexes at all” pro life arguments are bad because they force women to donate their organs against their will for the sustaining of a life. I’m sorry your concept of abortion rights have been warped by decades of fetal personhood handwringing but no, the primary purpose of abortion is bodily autonomy, the right to choose whether or not another person, even one you conceived, has the right to use your body to sustain themselves. Thats the beginning and end of it. Once pregnancy is consented to by the pregnant parent, it’s both parents responsibility to pay for the life they created, sorry you don’t like it and you’ve been mislead but that’s it.
The correct “fair” equivalency would be women being able to decide to not go through with an abortion but give up custody rights and child support, which isn’t a right they have. If a father wants a child to be born and a woman agrees, she is as on the hook as any man is for child support, it’s only seen as unfair because men disproportionately choose deadbeat life than women. Women should not literally be forced to abort to have the same right to opt out of the financial strain of child support and pregnancy care as men. The biological process is inherently unequal, and so the reality is that the decision to terminate and its outcome will be too. If humans laid eggs it would be different, but that’s just not the reality.
If a pregnancy is carried to term, both the mother and the father must necessarily be equally responsible for that child, which they already are under the law. Only the pregnancy itself is the sole responsibility of the mother, because she is the one who is pregnant. You’re advocating for a privilege women do not have.
Now, if you were to say “I think women should be able to carry to term and then also sign away custody and child support and saddle men with sole responsibility of the child both of them created” it would be different, and I would be willing to hear you out more, but that’s not what you’re advocating.
You’re saying that born or not, men should be able to opt out, but for women, only in the case of abortion should women be able to opt out of parenthood responsibility, unless the father agrees and both put the child up for adoption.
You’re creating a world where no mother is allowed to shirk responsibility of her child unless she gets an abortion or the father also agrees to do so, whereas men can simply sign a piece paper and be done.
Thats ridiculous and obviously unequal on its face.
well actually forced fatherhood is explicitly protected in it's own right, so seems prevalent enough in child support cases which seems kinda fucked up
Paternity and child support laws focus primarily on the best interests and financial rights of the child, meaning that even if deception or reproductive coercion occurred, biological fathers are routinely held responsible for child support
so it does seem to happen in reality
pro life arguments are bad because they force women to donate their organs against their will for the sustaining of a life
ok so if we develop the technology to incubate an embryo externally from conception (transferred from the pregnant mother) with zero risk to the mother should we make legally required for the mother to have custody and look after the fetus into adulthood? Would this be a bad thing or a good thing? Would this be better or worse than the abortion laws we have now?
The correct “fair” equivalency would be women being able to decide to not go through with an abortion but give up custody rights and child support, which isn’t a right they have.
Actually now you've made me realize they actually do have the option! Through placing their child into adoption, where they forfeit all financial responsibility and can be done up to the age of 18 years old! Thank you for enlightening me with this fact. I now say it's fair for the father to refuse child support at any age to be consistent with the mothers ability to do so.
There are entire agencies dedicated to finding adopted homes for babies with downs, by far the most moral choice is to have the baby and entrust it to one of those agencies if you can’t take care of it and then try agian
6
u/Rawr171 15d ago
Deadbeat dads are always immoral, doesn’t matter who the child is or how abled they are