A man's right to choose.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Two things, to that; as I've said before the man isn't put through the same physical compromises and the kid didn't ask to be conceived, so why penalize the kid?

The physical compromises for the woman happen regardless of her decision. Both are life altering experiences.

The kid isn't a kid yet.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Two things, to that; as I've said before the man isn't put through the same physical compromises and the kid didn't ask to be conceived, so why penalize the kid?

On both points you appear to be making assumptions about what a woman's decision would be.

On the first point, I don't see a woman being put through any unique physical compromises when comparing keeping the baby and putting the baby up for adoption. Either way on the physical side she is carrying the baby to term and whether a man is responsible for parental obligations doesn't change that process at all.

Secondly I am going to make my own assumption about what you mean, but your assertion that a kid would be penalized leads me to think you are referring to either being raised without paternal financial support or being aborted. Of the potential options being raised exactly the same, just with no paternal financial support is very likely to result in a "penalty" to the kid. The result of adoption is much more difficult to predict in my view. Abortion by its nature is a touchy subject but as Trip already pointed out the pro-choice movement has sold this country on the idea that a kid isn't a kid until they are born.

Taking a look at the available options there is a decent chance adoption would actually benefit the kid while having no physical effects on the mother.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

On both points you appear to be making assumptions about what a woman's decision would be.

On the first point, I don't see a woman being put through any unique physical compromises when comparing keeping the baby and putting the baby up for adoption. Either way on the physical side she is carrying the baby to term and whether a man is responsible for parental obligations doesn't change that process at all.

Secondly I am going to make my own assumption about what you mean, but your assertion that a kid would be penalized leads me to think you are referring to either being raised without paternal financial support or being aborted. Of the potential options being raised exactly the same, just with no paternal financial support is very likely to result in a "penalty" to the kid. The result of adoption is much more difficult to predict in my view. Abortion by its nature is a touchy subject but as Trip already pointed out the pro-choice movement has sold this country on the idea that a kid isn't a kid until they are born.

Taking a look at the available options there is a decent chance adoption would actually benefit the kid while having no physical effects on the mother.

The only assumption that I make about the woman's decision is that she'll either decide to carry it to term, or to abort it. As far as I know those are the only two choices available.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

The only assumption that I make about the woman's decision is that she'll either decide to carry it to term, or to abort it. As far as I know those are the only two choices available.

Doesn't a father actually get a say in adoption? I think he has to sign away his parental rights as well for this route to happen.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

The only assumption that I make about the woman's decision is that she'll either decide to carry it to term, or to abort it. As far as I know those are the only two choices available.

OK, so no differentiation between adoption and keeping the baby? Then how do the factors you mention even come in to play?

[Trip]

I just see it as making everyone responsible for their decisions, the past wouldn't matter as this would have to be a limited decision based on a very short time window leaving women plenty of time to decide if abortion or adoption is right for them.

Everyone gets a fair and equal decision on it.
Woman finds out she is pregnant, decides she may want to keep it and informs father.
Father does not want a child or is not prepared for child, gets to wave parental rights.
Woman gets to decide if she can support the baby on her own or if abortion/adoption are the necessary paths for her own success.

Hell, a fee paid to the woman for a standardized cost of abortion to wave your parental rights would be perfectly fine by me.

It really just seems like you don't believe abortion is a perfectly fine alternative to me. If you don't that is more than understandable to me, this route would most likely cause a dramatic increase in them.

[Papa_Complex]

Except, as I've said, the responsibilities, penalties, etc. are from from equal. Seriously; we're just going in circles. You want 'equality' and I want 'equity.'

[Trip]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Except, as I've said, the responsibilities, penalties, etc. are from from equal. Seriously; we're just going in circles. You want 'equality' and I want 'equity.'

Are you talking about fairness or financial equity?

You aren't getting fair, you aren't ever going to get fair in a pregnancy scenario because only one party can even biologically do it. The system is inheritently unfair and there can never be 'equity' in that sense.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

OK, so no differentiation between adoption and keeping the baby? Then how do the factors you mention even come in to play?

That's no differentiation between abortion, adoption, or keeping it. Any way you slice it the woman has physical consequences that the man doesn't. The man can walk away and it's like literally nothing has happened. Not so the woman.

Originally Posted by Trip

Are you talking about fairness or financial equity?

You aren't getting fair, you aren't ever going to get fair in a pregnancy scenario because only one party can even biologically do it. The system is inheritently unfair and there can never be 'equity' in that sense.

Call it overall equity, fairness, social balance..... Whatever you like.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

That's no differentiation between abortion, adoption, or keeping it. Any way you slice it the woman has physical consequences that the man doesn't. The man can walk away and it's like literally nothing has happened. Not so the woman.

Call it overall equity, fairness, social balance..... Whatever you like.

How is it balance to put a financial collar around a man for 18 years? The woman has options, the man does not. You are punishing the man for a far longer time frame and his is much more harsh, plus he has 0 options in this punishment to shorten it. Being able to hold someone financially hostage is not anywhere near overall equity. You are also creating a child that will be punished and have severe issues by this as well.

My wife is at 14 weeks right now, if she had an abortion today, her life would of been minimally impacted.