The Instigator
PinkSparkles
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
1Devilsadvocate
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Men Should be Able to Give Up Their Parental Responsibilities

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
PinkSparkles
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,219 times Debate No: 28819
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

PinkSparkles

Pro

Men should be able to to give up their parental responsibilities such as paying child support. This would also mean they're giving up their rights. The man would have to give up his rights and responsibilities within a certain period of time, like within 90 days of the child's birth, or if the child is already born, within 90 days of finding out he has a child.

1st Round Acceptance
No new arguments in 4th round
1Devilsadvocate

Con

I Accept.
Debate Round No. 1
PinkSparkles

Pro

Under our current laws, women are afforded the right to decide when they become parents. Even if they choose to have unprotected sex, they have access to emergency contraception and abortion. Men are not afforded the right to decide when they become parents. If a woman chooses to have a child, the father of the child is financially responsible whether he wanted her to keep the baby or not. In this day, when men and women are treated as equals by the government, forcing a man to accept the responsibilities of parenthood before he chooses is discriminatory.

Women have equal access to birth control
In the past, women did not have equal access to birth control. It was reasonable to make men pay child support because women could not protect themselves from becoming pregnant. Men, however, could prevent a pregnancy. This is not the case anymore. Women have access to more birth control products than men. They can use the birth control pills, IUDs, the birth control patch, the cervical cap, the diaphragm, the vaginal sponge, the shot, and sterilization [1]. Men can no longer be held responsible under the premise that they should have used birth control. Women have access to many birth control choices and are still given the choice to terminate a pregnancy, therefore clearing them of responsibility.

Men are not given a choice when it comes to keeping the child
If a couple engages in intercourse that results in pregnancy, women are not required to ask the father whether or not he wants to raise his child, even if a man is financially prepared and is willing to take full custody. She can choose to have an abortion, and he has no legal means to stop her. Men also do not have the right to force women to have abortion, even if they are not financially able to raise a child. Men should not have to pay child support to women if women do not have to allow them to be part of the decision. If it is solely the woman’s choice to keep a child, it should also be her responsibility to care for the child.


Sources
[1] http://www.plannedparenthood.org...
1Devilsadvocate

Con

1Devilsadvocate forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
PinkSparkles

Pro

Con did not respond so I have nothing to say at this time.
1Devilsadvocate

Con

I apologize for missing the previous round, I had it all typed up here, I guess I must have forgotten to submit it.

The difference is that forcing the woman would be forcing physical pain on the individual, while forcing the man is forcing him to pay money.
This of course requires elaboration.

When a man & women agree to have unprotected sex, they are agreeing to have a child, unless stated/implied otherwise.

Now according to this logic the woman is agreeing to carry the fetus, & the man agrees to help support the child monetarily.

The question is why is it that the woman can force the man to keep his part of the deal, but not vise versa.

I'll give an analogy:
When a person is hired, there is an agreement. The worker agrees to work & the employer agrees to pay.

Unless specified otherwise; the employee can quite (i.e. make the deal void) for any reason at all, while
The employer on the other hand cannot simply cancel the deal.

The reason is because the former would be forcing a person to do something with his self, while the latter is forcing a person to give money which he agreed to give.

We can't force parents to care for a child, but we can force them to pay for it's care.

Now according to this it would seem to be unethical (even without getting into the pro life issue) for the woman to abort against the fathers will. It could be argued though, that since she cannot be forced to carry the fetus, it is thus common practice to abort, thus the agreement to carry is not inherently implied, & thus not unethical as far as the fathers "right".

Now even if one doesn't agree to the above, the suggestion proposed by pro is certainly unfair.

It goes to the other extreme in that it only looks at the fathers side, (i.e. from his point of view).

Pro writes:
"The man would have to give up his rights and responsibilities within a certain period of time, like within 90 days of the child's birth, or if the child is already born, within 90 days of finding out he has a child."

Why should the man have so much more time than the women?

If the male doesn't want to support, he should at the very least have to decide that before the child is born.
After the child is born & obviously cannot be killed, the man can't now say, "oh I don't take responsibility".
Sorry bro, it's too late, should have thought about that before (having unprotected sex, or at the very least before) the child is born.

According to pro's logic the mother too should also be able to change her mind within 90 days.
Then who's going to take responsibility of the child?
Debate Round No. 3
PinkSparkles

Pro

"The difference is that forcing the woman would be forcing physical pain on the individual, while forcing the man is forcing him to pay money."

Forcing the man forces him to work to make the money. This could lead to physical pain. He could be forced to give up hig goals and dreams which could lead to mental pain.

"I'll give an analogy:
When a person is hired, there is an agreement. The worker agrees to work & the employer agrees to pay.

Unless specified otherwise; the employee can quite (i.e. make the deal void) for any reason at all, while
The employer on the other hand cannot simply cancel the deal.

The reason is because the former would be forcing a person to do something with his self, while the latter is forcing a person to give money which he agreed to give."

If an employee and an employer agree to come together and form a product, the employee is obligated to work under the guidelines set by the employer and consult the employer about the product. The employee is not allowed to decide what he thinks is best for the product without consulting his employer. If he does this, he will not get paid.

I dont think this analogy is relevant to this debate because it implies that the man and woman are not equals. An employer has more power than an amployee when it comes to the company/product. Since the father would be the one paying, he would be the employer, and the pregnant woman would be the employee. According to this analogy, the man has more power when it comes to the pregnancy than the woman does, which is not the case.

Forcing a person to give money is forcing them to do something with themselves. Maybe the man does not plan on working and chooses to depend on his parents for all his needs. Forcing him to pay child support is forcing him to do something with his body that he does not want to do.


"Why should the man have so much more time than the women?

If the male doesn't want to support, he should at the very least have to decide that before the child is born.
After the child is born & obviously cannot be killed, the man can't now say, "oh I don't take responsibility".
Sorry bro, it's too late, should have thought about that before (having unprotected sex, or at the very least before) the child is born."

90 days after the birth was just a suggested time frame to clarify the argument. Thats why I said : "The man would have to give up his rights and responsibilities within a certain period of time, like within 90 days of the child's birth, or if the child is already born, within 90 days of finding out he has a child." I wanted it to be clear that this would not apply to fathers who have been involved with their child for years but want to drop their responsibilities when they hit hard times.

"According to pro's logic the mother too should also be able to change her mind within 90 days.
Then who's going to take responsibility of the child?"

Women actually do have the opportunity to change their mind after the birth. Some states will allow women to change their mind within a year after the birth under Safe Haven laws. [1]


[1] http://www.nationalsafehavenalliance.org...










1Devilsadvocate

Con

A woman should not have be forced to choose between aborting her fetus, & taking sole financial responsibility her child.
Unprotected sex creates an obligation on both parties to support the child which the act creates.
The male mat not exempt himself by telling the mother to abort it.

Pro completely misrepresented my analogy.
Pro presented my analogy as a direct analogy. making the male the employer & the woman the employee.
This is a disgusting way of viewing it. The man & woman are equal partners.
This is NOT a direct analogy. The sole purpose of the analogy was to bring out & illustrate the difference between forcing/obligations with regard ones money, verse ones self/body. Ones money & ones body are not treated the same.

Pro writes "Forcing a person to give money is forcing them to do something with themselves."

This is actually another illustration of the difference between ones body & ones money with regard obligations/force.
If a person doesn't have money which he owes, we don't force him to compensate by doing labor with his body.
However, if & when he has money we will force him to pay.
So ones money & ones body are not treated the same.

Pro defends the right of the father to back out even after birth, just as a mother can under Safe Haven laws.
This issue is complicated, & the law means different things in different places.
The safe haven act is not a "right" of the mother to abandon her child. The purpose of this this law is solely to protect the child. If a mother holds onto a child that she doesn't want, it will lead to neglect or worse. Thus we allow her to give over the child. Often she will not have to pay child support, the reason for this is because if she would have to pay, she might hold onto the child & neglect it or worse, in order to avoid paying. All this is done not for the mother, but solely for the well being & protection of the child.
The father may not be able to do this because there is no need for it. This is a safety law for the child not a right for the parents. where this law is needed to protect the child, it applies, where it isn't it doesn't. Simple as that.

There is a common misconception that equal means same.
Men & women should be treated equally, not necessarily the same.

The resolution "Men Should be Able to Give Up Their Parental Responsibilities" has been negated.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Pro argues, since women control most of the choices as to whether to have a child (contraception, abortion), men should be able to opt out of resposibility for that child, like within 90 days of birth. First, Con argues "Why should men have more time than woman?" Pro shoots this down by introducing Safe Haven laws. Second, Con argues "At the least he should have to decide before birth. Pro points out this is a concession since he had not committed to "90 days after birth", only to the idea of opting out. Overall, I feel Pro controlled the debate.

I do agree with Con's final point that women shouldn't have to choose between the pain of abortion and sole responsibility for a child, but Pro presented other options (contraception and Safe Havens), and argued the alternative of men enduring hardships with no choice at all is worse.

(I do wonder why Con did not focus his argument on the fact that many women have consciencous objections to abortion, and why Pro did not raise the pain of child birth as a counter to the pain of abortion--it seems to me, there will be pain whether a fetus is removed alive or dead!)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
PinkSparkles1DevilsadvocateTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff. But in the end con arguements stand out and they make more sense that if they agree to have a child the men should atleast get a say.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
PinkSparkles1DevilsadvocateTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments for details.