|
On September 19 2011 05:00 darkscream wrote:
I think the choice of abortions is not really about "whether or not you want to be a parent".
It's really more about "I have the right to do with my body as I please".
You, as a man, do not have the right to do whatever you want with the woman's body. You require her consent.
Until the baby is born, it's part of the woman. Blame mother nature for that one bro.
These things don't exist in a vacuum. Child rearing laws exist in an environment where only women decide whether or not a baby is born and where women have possession of a child immediately after birth. The relationship is a one way street, in the sense that we can't ethically alter the environment, so the laws and policies have to compensate in a way that doesn't favor or disfavor genetically determined aspects.
|
On September 19 2011 05:08 Telebear wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 19:59 PrideNeverDie wrote:
women have scraped semen off rags and shoved it inside themselves to get pregnant) can someone provide a credited example of this actually happening?? it just seems like another bullshit schoolyard rumour to me
I don't see why it would be hard to believe this has happened..
But i also expect men have say, purposely put a hole in a condom so that a girl would get pregnant.
As for the actual topic. I do think it's messed up in the cases where men aren't allowed to be equal partners in raising the child, don't have a say in whether or not it's birthed, and then are expected to assume financial responsibility. but life isn't fair and it's a complicated subject.
|
Perhaps men should be more careful where they" put" themselves if they are so worried about financial obligation.
Also, the whole child support system is broken in many ways. I fought for many years to receive child support from my ex, a physician making big $. He always tried to find a way out even though he "wanted" the children. Many men like to have children to reflect positively on them but they get out of doing the vast majority of the work of raising children, even in intact families!! Once, I was even ordered to pay support to my ex the doctor while the child lived with me!!
Both parties need to be accountable & responsible for their actions, including having & raising children.
|
Situation 1:
Man doesn't want child. Woman does. Man pays ~ $300/mth for 20 years.
Situation 2:
Man wants child. Woman doesn't. Woman pays cost of abortion, emotional trauma, body goes through hell. Woman is scorned by friends, family, society.
I think we got a good deal guys. I don't know how you just ignore the non-monetary consequences.
|
On September 19 2011 06:24 DoomsVille wrote:
Situation 1:
Man doesn't want child. Woman does. Man pays ~ $300/mth for 20 years, emotional trauma, scorned by friends, family, society.
Situation 2:
Man wants child. Woman doesn't. Woman pays cost of abortion.
I think we got a raw deal guys. I don't know how you just ignore the non-monetary consequences.
Fixed. Unless you don't believe in first or second trimester abortions. Or, for that matter, morning-after pills.
Actually, I'm not even sure if women pay the cost of abortions any more in first world countries. Maybe in America, but I'm not sure of even that.
|
It reminds me of suing your friend because he was driving and wrecked the car even though neither of you was wearing a seat belt.
|
On September 19 2011 06:24 DoomsVille wrote:
Situation 1:
Man doesn't want child. Woman does. Man pays ~ $300/mth for 20 years.
Situation 2:
Man wants child. Woman doesn't. Woman pays cost of abortion, emotional trauma, body goes through hell. Woman is scorned by friends, family, society.
I think we got a good deal guys. I don't know how you just ignore the non-monetary consequences.
Cost of abortion is only a few hundred dollars, less so depending on health care coverage. Abortion is also a safe medical procedure. Emotional trauma is related to scorn by society and depends a lot on where you live, so it can be either very bad or mild.
|
Even though I realise (by reading through a lot of posts) that the laws regarding that topic are obviously pretty controversial in the US, I'm pretty shocked how that is a lot of folks basis for arguing like they're suffering under acute brainlessness.
Blaming "weak and greedy" women for it and not being able to decide the abortion of a child as a man, really?
The OP is mainly responsible for directing this thread into a overall disgusting and phrasemongering discussion. There's no point in arguing that the laws have to be changed (in the US obviously...) and judgements have to be made considering every detail of such a case, but a lot of men are obviously venting a lot of frustration right here, making this another bullshit internet discussion
|
On September 19 2011 01:01 Potling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 00:57 Haemonculus wrote:On September 19 2011 00:53 Potling wrote:On September 19 2011 00:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:but a court does care if you let a dick inside you? why would/should the court favor a vagina over a dick? If the vagina can have sex without thinking about it and terminate the pregnancy or keep the child all within her own rights, why can't the dick? It's the woman that bears the consequences from irresponsible sex, not the man, so it's primarily the woman who needs to act responsibly, something I actually think women are capable of doing if they try. Of course, it's criminal to suggest that women should take responsibility for their own actions.
Please people, see beyond the facade of "It's for the children!". Child support is an alternative to marriage for women. In fact, the massive divorce and illegitimacy resulting from child support has a horrible impact on children. I'm sorry but this is incredibly stupid. Not to mention the second quote (from someone else) is almost irredeemably sexist. Woman are "actually" capable of being "responsible," "if they try." "It's criminal to suggest women should take responsibility for their actions..." WHAT? Let's try to take this back into the real world now: The "vagina" can only terminate the pregnancy while it is still a pregnancy. A woman has no rights to refuse not to support a child. She can put it up for adoption, give it to the State to put into foster care, but she can't just say "I'm not going to do shit" and have a court of law be okay with that. The courts in this and any country more or less presume that a baby is best off with its mother and that presumption includes within it a legal obligation of the mother to care for the child. A father is not expected from the get-go to physically be present and care for the child. The mother is. If there is a double standard, it is against whoever actually sticks around to take care of the baby. The mom runs away? Guess what dad, it's up to you, actually getting someone to pay child support who doesn't want to is a long and arduous and frequently unsuccessful process. Dad runs away? Guess what mom, it's up to you. That's where the double standard is. If the woman was responsible she wouldn't have gotten pregnant outside marriage in the first place. There is nothing stopping her from getting an abortion if she doesn't want the child, either. Again, you are projecting your own beliefs (that sex outside of marriage is wrong) on to everyone, and demonizing people for making decisions which don't line up with your views. Unprotected sex outside marriage is wrong because the child needs two parents and the child and mother need economic support from the father.
Are you serious? What can woman no longer support herself at all? are they help-less armless droopy-eyed children? Welcome to the 21st century, if a man can support a child a woman can to.
|
Simplier thing.
CONDOMS !!!
|
If a man has sex with a woman and gets her pregnant he is responsible to take care of that baby. End of story.
|
The no. 1 issue of this thread is the following question:
Is abortion OK or not?
Those who say yes it is OK, are likely to agree with the OP.
Those who say it's not OK are likely to disagree with the OP.
Personally I don't see a problem with abortion, so I somewhat agree with the OP but also including the clause that if the man wants to keep the baby and the woman doesn't, the woman should be forced to fully carry the pregnancy, but the man should pay for all the costs involved and the baby would obviously go to the father without child support.
HOWEVER: In countries where abortion is limited by law (excluding purely time restrictions) and the woman can't legaly abort her child, I think the current situation is perfectly fine.
TL;DR : Agree with OP, unless prohibited by law then current situation is fine.
Edit: yes I realise i'm a man, and i don't know what it's like to have a life growing in me etc. etc. but to be honoust, I wouldn't make this decision easy myself but I do think men have just as much right to make this choice as women.
|
OP: It's the law that is at fault.
The act of having unprotected sex (or the act of having sex itself) should be seen as a consent by both parties to accept the risk of pregnancy.
The law should be set so that both parties are equally responsible from that very moment.
|
At the moment there are so much more cases of men who dont pay for their childreen or leave their girlfriends in the middle of a pregnacy (or short after) than women who would abuse the child support system, you cant even compare that. And the argument of women who "rub someones semen" is absurd, its so absurd that an OP with such an argument actually shouldnt be responded to.
Women always carry the bigger risk in a pregancy.
If you dont want a baby, use protection!
If you want a child, talk to your girlfriend about it (or take a new gf who wants childreen).
But you cant force someone to carry out a baby for you.
You want equality? Then get all those millions fucktards that leave their familys and wifes out of some selfish reasons to fulfill their part first.
|
On September 19 2011 01:01 Potling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 00:57 Haemonculus wrote:On September 19 2011 00:53 Potling wrote:On September 19 2011 00:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:but a court does care if you let a dick inside you? why would/should the court favor a vagina over a dick? If the vagina can have sex without thinking about it and terminate the pregnancy or keep the child all within her own rights, why can't the dick? It's the woman that bears the consequences from irresponsible sex, not the man, so it's primarily the woman who needs to act responsibly, something I actually think women are capable of doing if they try. Of course, it's criminal to suggest that women should take responsibility for their own actions.
Please people, see beyond the facade of "It's for the children!". Child support is an alternative to marriage for women. In fact, the massive divorce and illegitimacy resulting from child support has a horrible impact on children. I'm sorry but this is incredibly stupid. Not to mention the second quote (from someone else) is almost irredeemably sexist. Woman are "actually" capable of being "responsible," "if they try." "It's criminal to suggest women should take responsibility for their actions..." WHAT? Let's try to take this back into the real world now: The "vagina" can only terminate the pregnancy while it is still a pregnancy. A woman has no rights to refuse not to support a child. She can put it up for adoption, give it to the State to put into foster care, but she can't just say "I'm not going to do shit" and have a court of law be okay with that. The courts in this and any country more or less presume that a baby is best off with its mother and that presumption includes within it a legal obligation of the mother to care for the child. A father is not expected from the get-go to physically be present and care for the child. The mother is. If there is a double standard, it is against whoever actually sticks around to take care of the baby. The mom runs away? Guess what dad, it's up to you, actually getting someone to pay child support who doesn't want to is a long and arduous and frequently unsuccessful process. Dad runs away? Guess what mom, it's up to you. That's where the double standard is. If the woman was responsible she wouldn't have gotten pregnant outside marriage in the first place. There is nothing stopping her from getting an abortion if she doesn't want the child, either. Again, you are projecting your own beliefs (that sex outside of marriage is wrong) on to everyone, and demonizing people for making decisions which don't line up with your views. Unprotected sex outside marriage is wrong because the child needs two parents and the child and mother need economic support from the father.
Even were your objectionable premises (in italics) true, it wouldn't at all follow that unprotected sex outside of marriage was wrong. What is marriage but the approval of some sect about your personal life? A healthy and well-off heterosexual couple doesn't need marriage to raise a child any more than I needed a birth certificate to escape the womb.
On September 19 2011 07:03 Perdac Curall wrote:
If a man has sex with a woman and gets her pregnant he is responsible to take care of that baby. End of story.
If that were the end of the story, we wouldn't have a thread open. Here is an alternative. If she consented, whether or not she knew the exact risk of pregnancy to her own body, she's responsible. Where was the pill? how about an emergency contraceptive? (Birth control outside of condoms exists.)
|
On September 19 2011 07:18 esperanto wrote:
At the moment there are so much more cases of men who dont pay for their childreen or leave their girlfriends in the middle of a pregnacy (or short after) than women who would abuse the child support system, you cant even compare that. And the argument of women who "rub someones semen" is absurd, its so absurd that an OP with such an argument actually shouldnt be responded to.
So we have our oppression olympics, then an appeal to the absurdity of something that actually happens. We've had men learn that they are fathers after giving blow jobs, or after throwing out condoms during sex at their partner's apartment. Ain't common but it happens. Something that's a lot more common, though, is forgetting to take birth control pills. There's a range of how selfish and single-minded people can be. The OP mentioned the extremes, which represent a unique and disturbing human rights case.
On September 19 2011 07:18 esperanto wrote:
You want equality? Then get all those millions fucktards that leave their familys and wifes out of some selfish reasons to fulfill their part first.
I'm sure that talking to them will convince them to abandon their selfish ways so that philosphical gender equality can be attained in our society.
|
Simple solution, mothers who don't have money to support a child should not be allowed to give birth. Unless the father consent to give child support.
|
I'm actually surprised that you don't need to do paper work if you're pregnant. Lot's of people aren't capable of raising a child adequately and make very low income yet it seems to me at first glance that these are the people popping out the most baby's and end up having kids that turn out to be criminals.
They should make it so that you can only have a set number of children and you can only have children if you make above a set threshold and can pass an evaluation test to determine if you can get a license that lets you raise a child. When a women gets pregnant the man should be notified by the courts and he should have to fill out paper work letting them know if he wants to financially abort or not. Right now the system reminds of this:
Women "OMG look at that brand new car, its so nice and pretty and it will love me, but I cant afford the car payments on my own. *takes man to court to make payments even though he doesn't want anything to do with any of it, and hes forced to make car payments for 18 years whether he wants to drive the car on the weekends or not.
|
On September 18 2011 20:43 PrideNeverDie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 20:08 Ropid wrote:The child is innocent in all of this, and he/she is who the payments are for. Use a condom or vasectomy.  what about the child who is killed through a woman's choice to abort. if you are going to use the "child is innocent" argument to force men into financial obligation, shouldn't you first use the argument to stop women from killing innocent children?
I really like this point. But I have a feeling this thread will get closed pretty quick.
|
i think its pretty obvious that women shouldn't be forced to have abortions under any circumstances. however, i think its also pretty obvious that if a man doesn't want a child and an accidental/unwanted pregnancy occurs, he shouldn't be forced to pay for it for the next 20 years (just like a woman wouldn't be forced to pay for it). i don't really see how anyone can argue with that, despite how much you guys want to post stuff like "just wear a condom!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
