[QUOTE=BlueChihuahua;47352579]Last post on the last page.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure if anyone was actually arguing the right too under any circumstance, rather the actual option too with a reason.
[QUOTE=Levithan;47352603]because there's such a thing as bodily autonomy wherein it's morally indefensible to force someone to use their body to support another person if they don't want to
you don't see doctors or courts forcing people to donate kidneys or livers, why should a woman be forced to carry a pregnancy they don't want?[/QUOTE]
The solution is not as easy as [I]"my body my rules"[/I] when you are now responsible for another.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47352561]I will 100% agree with you on that.
I just don't think one party should be able to completely decide the responsibilities of both parties involved. I don't think men should be able to force a woman to deliver a child she doesn't want, and I don't think women should be allowed to force a man to support a child he doesn't want. That's a fair and balanced system.[/QUOTE]
These aren't the same situations though. As it stands, by a man absolving his responsibility to support his own child, he's putting a significant personal and financial burden on the woman, despite being partially responsible. A man wanting a child with a woman who wants to abort it doesn't face anywhere near the same level of burden.
In the end, both parties maintain some level of responsibility by having engaged in intercourse in the first place. If we go by what you're suggesting, the man is either unable to have the child (which, since he isn't the carrier, isn't a significant burden, and the alternative is forcing the woman to go through a pregnancy she doesn't want), or he's able to just leave scot-free, whereas the woman either has to go through an abortion or an entire pregnancy (both being very significant events) and potentially have to shoulder it all on their own. These aren't equal situations - the woman carries a much greater burden no matter what.
[QUOTE=bitches;47351564]i had this horrifying image in my head of blended fetus snuck into a smoothie[/QUOTE]
I came in expecting that and read the first reply instead of the OP first off and it didn't help
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;47352679]These aren't the same situations though. As it stands, by a man absolving his responsibility to support his own child, he's putting a significant personal and financial burden on the woman.[/QUOTE]
This is where the state for should step in to help support child welfare, though for many countries that is already in effect.
Risking your life dramatically changed either through financial, career, domestic, psychological, where you live/immigrate, buy and spend etc - because you wanted some casual sex with your partner? It's a serious punishment for someone who just wanted to have some fun and - [I]in one way or another [/I] - accidentally got their partner or themselves pregnant.
Even with a condom or pill there is still the chance it does happen, even when you take every safety risk into 100% consideration. With that scenario in mind the female still wishes to keep the child and the male doesn't? Most people arguably will side with the female and claim it's the woman's choice, while the man should just deal with it because either because he was A. Stupid or B. Should accept the consequences of sexual intercourse.
How many of you gamble the risk of having a baby when you share passion with a woman or man? It's not the first thing that crosses my mind; especially when I have to suddenly think about my entire future if such a scenario came about unplanned. In fact I'd call it a real mood killer.
If one side is adamant and can prove why they cannot support a child in a court of law then they should be given the option to, much like when a woman explains why she cannot do so in an abortion. Life does become very different when you put kids into the equation, they can take over your life and goals.
[QUOTE=Vasili;47352792]This is where the state for should step in to help support child welfare, though for many countries that is already in effect.
Risking your life dramatically changed either through financial, career, domestic, psychological, where you live/immigrate, buy and spend etc - because you wanted some casual sex with your partner? It's a serious punishment for someone who just wanted to have some fun and - [I]in one way or another [/I] - accidentally got their partner or themselves pregnant.
Even with a condom or pill there is still the chance it does happen, even when you take every safety risk into 100% consideration. With that scenario in mind the female still wishes to keep the child and the male doesn't? Most people arguably will side with the female and claim it's the woman's choice, while the man should just deal with it because either because he was A. Stupid or B. Should accept the consequences of sexual intercourse.
How many of you gamble the risk of having a baby when you share passion with a woman or man? It's not the first thing that crosses my mind; especially when I have to suddenly think about my entire future if such a scenario came about unplanned. In fact I'd call it a real mood killer.
If one side is adamant and can prove why they cannot support a child in a court of law then they should be given the option to, much like when a woman explains why she cannot do so in an abortion. Life does become very different when you put kids into the equation, they can take over your life and goals.[/QUOTE]
Not to say this is ideal end all solution but you could get some sperm frozen and have a vasectomy. The failure rate is near zero and it's less invasive and damaging than lifetime of potential abortions you won't have to care about. It's even reversible, although that's kinda expensive.
[QUOTE=Vasili;47352792]This is where the state for should step in to help support child welfare, though for many countries that is already in effect.
Risking your life dramatically changed either through financial, career, domestic, psychological, where you live/immigrate, buy and spend etc - because you wanted some casual sex with your partner? It's a serious punishment for someone who just wanted to have some fun and - [I]in one way or another [/I] - accidentally got their partner or themselves pregnant.
Even with a condom or pill there is still the chance it does happen, even when you take every safety risk into 100% consideration. With that scenario in mind the female still wishes to keep the child and the male doesn't? Most people arguably will side with the female and claim it's the woman's choice, while the man should just deal with it because either because he was A. Stupid or B. Should accept the consequences of sexual intercourse.
How many of you gamble the risk of having a baby when you share passion with a woman or man? It's not the first thing that crosses my mind; especially when I have to suddenly think about my entire future if such a scenario came about unplanned. In fact I'd call it a real mood killer.
If one side is adamant and can prove why they cannot support a child in a court of law then they should be given the option to, much like when a woman explains why she cannot do so in an abortion. Life does become very different when you put kids into the equation, they can take over your life and goals.[/QUOTE]
What if the woman has a moral objection to abortion? In the end it's her body. These are the sort of things you should absolutely discuss before having sex. You simply have to accept that this is a potential risk. I mean, the entire natural purpose of heterosexual sex is to procreate; by doing it for fun you're basically just cheating that. Don't act surprised if your efforts don't end up working. If you're smart you should discuss what you should expect in a worse case scenario. But in the end it doesn't change the fact that the man still has some responsibility. You should know that there's always risk, but you went ahead anyway. You could solve these problems by simply discussing it beforehand. If your partner isn't willing to have an abortion in the worst case scenario, then don't risk it. You can find another partner who's willing.
And what if the state/country you're in has banned abortion?
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;47352853]Not to say this is ideal end all solution but you could get some sperm frozen and have a vasectomy. The failure rate is near zero and it's less invasive and damaging than lifetime of potential abortions you won't have to care about. It's even reversible, although that's kinda expensive.[/QUOTE]
If you're that paranoid about having accidental children sure, but I myself do plan to have children and would rather not have to have possible expensive medical operations just to make sure my fate and timing is in my control.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;47352860]What if the woman has a moral objection to abortion? In the end it's her body. These are the sort of things you should absolutely discuss before having sex. You simply have to accept that this is a potential risk. I mean, the entire natural purpose of heterosexual sex is to procreate; by doing it for fun you're basically just cheating that. Don't act surprised if your efforts don't end up working. If you're smart you should discuss what you should expect in a worse case scenario. In the end it doesn't change the fact that the man still has some responsibility.
And what if the state/country you're in has banned abortion?[/QUOTE]
Like I said earlier I believe abortion is not as simple as [I]"my body my rules"[/I] philosophy, pregnancy is not a one sided issue. This is also why I do not believe in a default answer and it should be determined and assessed legally and medically i.e - individual cases; I don't have a default ruling.
If the state has banned abortion? Then it should be forced to provide and not demand either sex gives or takes, but that's just a ideal scenario.
As ideal it is in discussing your terms and conditions, contracts and risk assessments before having intercourse might sound logical - this isn't something partners often do, as injecting this type of fear into the scenario could really just spoil it. This is also why most pregnancies are actually unprepared and not foreseen by couples.
Yes sex has one true purpose in evolution, but humans and other animals have far distanced themselves from the the naturally predetermined. Sex is regarded as pleasure foremost and having children it's secondary function, we certainly do not follow Christendoms or other religious philosophy regarding marriage before sex/sex to only create children etc.
I will go on to say kind of oppressive attitude towards sex is incredibly damaging to human psyche but I digress.
The issue isn't so much as what people should or shouldn't do, rather what happens when it occurs. These situations are very often unplanned.
[QUOTE=Vasili;47352927]If you're that paranoid about having accidental children sure, but I myself do plan to have children and would rather not have to have possible expensive medical operations just to make sure my fate and timing is in my control.
Like I said earlier I believe abortion is not as simple as [I]"my body my rules"[/I] philosophy, pregnancy is not a one sided issue. This is also why I do not believe in a default answer and it should be determined and assessed legally and medically i.e - individual cases; I don't have a default ruling.
If the state has banned abortion? Then it should be forced to provide and not demand either sex gives or takes, but that's just a ideal scenario.
As ideal it is in discussing your terms and conditions, contracts and risk assessments before having intercourse might sound logical - this isn't something partners often do, as injecting this type of fear into the scenario could really just spoil it. This is also why most pregnancies are actually unprepared and not foreseen by couples.
Yes sex has one true purpose in evolution, but humans and other animals have far distanced themselves from the the naturally predetermined. Sex is regarded as pleasure foremost and having children it's secondary function, we certainly do not follow Christendoms or other religious philosophy regarding marriage before sex/sex to only create children etc.
I will go on to say kind of oppressive attitude towards sex is incredibly damaging to human psyche but I digress.
The issue isn't so much as what people should or shouldn't do, rather what happens when it occurs. These situations are very often unplanned.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't saying that sex isn't foremost regarded as pleasure, I was just saying that procreation is what your body is trying to do. You said it yourself that there is always a risk, so you shouldn't really just have sex willy-nilly and think you can just absolve all responsibility in a worst case scenario. As it stands, single mothers can really struggle in a lot of places, and the child can as well by extension. I just don't think the father, who is partially responsible, should be able to just opt-out.
don't be silly.
cover your willy.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;47353041]I wasn't saying that sex isn't foremost regarded as pleasure, I was just saying that procreation is what your body is trying to do.[/quote]
Sure, your body does a lot of things for subconscious reasons. But given that context we could say the porn-industry or prostitution is based around consistent baby making failure rather than a pleasure industry. The vast majority of people do not have sex with intention of making/risking conceiving [I](but I think that really goes without saying)[/I].
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;47353041]
You said it yourself that there is always a risk, so you shouldn't really just have sex willy-nilly and think you can just absolve all responsibility in a worst case scenario.[/QUOTE]
Shouldn't, wouldn't, couldn't etc - but one-night-stands, prostitution and casual sex with acquaintances/partners is all very common and normal. It is the wrong way to look at the question, rather we should be discussing what happens if it does. What you say goes without question for most partners having fun with each-other.
Resolving all responsibility isn't exactly a light decision someone makes.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;47353041]I just don't think the father, who is partially responsible, should be able to just opt-out.[/QUOTE]
The biggest misconception we have is is a often assumed - [I]but none-the-less harmful[/I] - idea thrown about thinking men would eagerly abandon their children if they could. The conception that fathers would consider an opt-out option lightly and abandon the mothers I consider to be untrue and adds to the negative trope surrounding men and their capability of looking after/supporting children.
Much like it being difficult for a mother to have an abortion it would no doubt be difficult for the father to just resign all responsibility i.e - paying for the child, seeing the child and otherwise being associated with him/her. It's not all positives just leaving your child to someone else and neither is it something considered lightly by either sex.
This kind of action would be divorcing yourself from all legal recognition of your son/daughter being yours in all but a biological sense.
To reiterate though: opt-out would need some explanation given in the same scenario of abortion for women or perhaps more. Women have a easier time dictating their futures when it comes to pregnancy with very little say from the father, often tying fathers down to their terms.
[QUOTE=Billy2600;47351759]Won't going to prison also have and adverse affect on future employment, etc?[/QUOTE]
it's really not that big a deal to have gone to prison. a lot of employers don't care. it's better than being black at least
I support womens rights to control their own bodies, but it does raise some interesting dilemmas in regards to pregnancy.
If the woman wants to have an abortion, but the father wants the child, the fathers fucked. Imagine what a horrible it would be to simply haveto let your unborn child die, by the mothers hand, and being unable to do anything about it.
I get that women carry the largest burden when it comes to pregnancy, and that they therefore need special rights if you can call it that, but it is kinda shitty that men are basicly incapable of being a part of a decesion that can seriously impact the rest of their lifes.
the main issue with women tricking the man is the woman being eligible for child support for a child the father didn't want to have
[QUOTE=Vasili;47353214]Shouldn't, wouldn't, couldn't etc - but one-night-stands, prostitution and casual sex with acquaintances/partners is all very common and normal. It is the wrong way to look at the question, rather we should be discussing what happens if it does. What you say goes without question for most partners having fun with each-other.
Resolving all responsibility isn't exactly a light decision someone makes.[/QUOTE]
I didn't say they weren't normal or anything, but you have to be held partially responsible if you wind up getting a woman pregnant after an encounter. You can't just walk away from that and make them deal with it. If they want to have the baby and you don't then yeah, they're unlucky and it sucks, but under our current systems in most places the best way to support the child is to keep the father involved. Tough luck, but in the end the man impregnated the woman and therefore needs to be held to some level of accountability.
[quote]The biggest misconception we have is is a often assumed - but none-the-less harmful - idea thrown about thinking men would eagerly abandon their children if they could. The conception that fathers would consider an opt-out option lightly and abandon the mothers I consider to be untrue and adds to the negative trope surrounding men and their capability of looking after/supporting children.[/quote]
Is that really such a thing being thrown around here? This entire topic came up because of somebody throwing around the idea that women are deceitful and seem to commonly want to force men to take care of their unwanted babies, the kind of misconception that you seem to be throwing around as well:
[quote]Women have a easier time dictating their futures when it comes to pregnancy with very little say from the father, [B]often tying fathers down to their terms.[/B][/quote]
Also you seem to be making out that only the fathers can be victims here. What if the man didn't take the necessary precautions before intercourse and ended up getting the woman pregnant? What if he lied about using a condom, or removed it during intercourse without her knowledge? What if he fully consented to unprotected sex? What if he agreed to try for a baby but later changed his mind? Should the man still be allowed to back out on his responsibilities in these situations?
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;47354156]I didn't say they weren't normal or anything, but you have to be held partially responsible if you wind up getting a woman pregnant after an encounter. You can't just walk away from that and make them deal with it. If they want to have the baby and you don't then yeah, they're unlucky and it sucks, but under our current systems in most places the best way to support the child is to keep the father involved. Tough luck, but in the end the man impregnated the woman and therefore needs to be held to some level of accountability.[/QUOTE]
Your reasoning revolves around the thought that men are solely responsible for the pregnancy, which is false. Consensual sex takes 2 willful consenting participants. The woman is just as responsible for the pregnancy as a man is. Sex naturally results in a pregnancy. Both participants are equally responsible for the outcome.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;47354156]I didn't say they weren't normal or anything, but you have to be held partially responsible if you wind up getting a woman pregnant after an encounter. You can't just walk away from that and make them deal with it. If they want to have the baby and you don't then yeah, they're unlucky and it sucks, but under our current systems in most places the best way to support the child is to keep the father involved. Tough luck, but in the end the man impregnated the woman and therefore needs to be held to some level of accountability.[/quote]
So your solution is men have to suck it up and deal with their lives being irreversibly changed forever? That's not a very reasonable solution. We're not discussing what is current but rather what should be.
Women can end their responsibility by having the child aborted or put up for adoption, men have no rights for pro or con regarding children. Essentially this kind of thought process is blaming the man for being too stupid, having badluck or not preparing himself properly in some manner.
From what I gather from what you're saying: being held responsible = punishment for getting a girl pregnant - especially when you're saying its tough luck. Not only that, but using your same argument: a women can walk away with a child and make the male deal with it; the costs, specifically.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;47354156]
Is that really such a thing being thrown around here?[/quote]
Yes, though not just in this thread.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;47354156]Also you seem to be making out that only the fathers can be victims here.[/quote]
The issue we're talking about is about fathers primarily and their legal rights in child cases.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;47354156]What if the man didn't take the necessary precautions before intercourse and ended up getting the woman pregnant? What if he lied about using a condom, or removed it during intercourse without her knowledge? What if he fully consented to unprotected sex? What if he agreed to try for a baby but later changed his mind? Should the man still be allowed to back out on his responsibilities in these situations?[/QUOTE]
It should be determined by the courts and that is often the case. There is no default yes or no to those scenarios given.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47354270]Your reasoning revolves around the thought that men are solely responsible for the pregnancy, which is false. Consensual sex takes 2 willful consenting participants. The woman is just as responsible for the pregnancy as a man is. Sex naturally results in a pregnancy. Both participants are equally responsible for the outcome.[/QUOTE]
Where did I say it was solely the man's responsibility? All this time I've been saying they're both responsible. But the fact of the matter is that ultimately the woman has say with what she does with her own body, and the man can't impede on those rights.
[editline]20th March 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Vasili;47354315]So your solution is men have to suck it up and deal with their lives being irreversibly changed forever?[/QUOTE]
Why are you implying it's just the man who's having their life change forever? It's very often life changing for the woman as well. It's not like we're shifting all responsibility to the woman - they're both responsible for the pregnancy.
[quote]That's not a very reasonable solution. We're not discussing what is current but rather what should be.
Women can end their responsibility by having the child aborted or put up for adoption, men have no rights for pro or con regarding children. [/quote]
Because it's not their body. Why should there be 100% equal say in the matter when the woman bears most of the burden in pretty much every situation?
[quote]Essentially this kind of thought process is blaming the man for being too stupid, having badluck or not preparing himself properly in some manner.[/quote]
???
If you properly practice safe sex then this shouldn't ever really be an issue. If you still somehow manage a pregnancy, then yes it's bad luck.
[quote]From what I gather from what you're saying: being held responsible = punishment for getting a girl pregnant - especially when you're saying its tough luck. [/quote]
What? It takes two to tango. You're both responsible. How am I saying it's punishment, when all I'm saying is that you both have some responsibility in the situation?
[quote]Not only that, but using your same argument: a women can walk away with a child and make the male deal with it; the costs, specifically.[/quote]
Again, you're just making it sound like this is all some really easy situation for the woman and the man is having to deal with it all. The woman still has to carry the baby, give birth to it and raise it while also having to provide for her child and herself financially, while at a bare legal minimum the guy just has to provide financial support.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;47354322]Where did I say it was solely the man's responsibility? All this time I've been saying they're both responsible. But the fact of the matter is that ultimately the woman has say with what she does with her own body, and the man can't impede on those rights.[/QUOTE]
Nor should the man be forced to support a child (financially or otherwise) that he doesn't want to; the current system effectively removes all agency from the man.
The woman should be allowed to decide what happens to her body, and the man should be able to decide to support the child or not. If the woman decides she wants to have the baby knowing that the man won't support her, then that's still her decision and the man isn't being punished without recourse.
This leaves the only problem area when the man wants the baby and the woman doesn't, but I do agree it should ultimately be the woman's decision.
[editline]19th March 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;47354322]Why are you implying it's just the man who's having their life change forever? It's very often life changing for the woman as well. It's not like we're shifting all responsibility to the woman - they're both responsible for the pregnancy.[/QUOTE]
The woman has the choice to abort the baby; the woman has the choice not to have their life changed forever. The woman shouldn't be able to chose to change the man's life forever (without his consent) as well. They both consented to have sex (presumable), each are equally responsible for the baby being conceived; why should only one of them have any agency going forward?
Again though, I'm not saying the woman should be forced to keep or abort the baby, I'm saying the man should have the choice to completely walk away should he so chose regardless of what the woman chooses. Both sides should have a choice.
[editline]19th March 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;47354322]If you properly practice safe sex then this shouldn't ever really be an issue. If you still somehow manage a pregnancy, then yes it's bad luck.
[/QUOTE]
And again, the burden is then completely on the man because if he doesn't stop the baby then and there he doesn't have any (legal) say in the matter if the woman ends up getting impregnated. Not to trivialize having an abortion; I'm sure if a woman doesn't want to have a baby they would rather not be impregnated in the first place. The point is for the woman even after getting impregnated, she still has the choice of having the baby or getting an abortion. The man has no such choice in if he's going to be supporting the child or not.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;47354156]
Also you seem to be making out that only the fathers can be victims here. What if the man didn't take the necessary precautions before intercourse and ended up getting the woman pregnant? What if he lied about using a condom, or removed it during intercourse without her knowledge? What if he fully consented to unprotected sex? What if he agreed to try for a baby but later changed his mind? Should the man still be allowed to back out on his responsibilities in these situations?[/QUOTE]
How can anyone not realize there isn't a condom? It literally tears holes in vaginas, not very big ones but still. I guess he could have poked a hole in it. Maybe there needs to be contracts and shit, because people's word alone is worth next to jack shit.
Essentially people are awful and will continue to be awful. No fault divorce exacerbated this problem making people less committed to what they created. The only problem with the formal contract idea is that it would be difficult to get that before sex at least for the first time. The current system puts way too much trust in the women's ability to be moral to both the man and the child. Systems of society appear to try to compensate for disparities in other parts. Such as wage, however wage is not really man's fault, when women don't negotiate when offered a salary and even then if higher women was really cheaper than hiring men, then I'm sure the top companies would not let sexism get in the way of their greed.
TL;DR - Get Wrekt, misplaced incentives destroying society. Manipulate or get manipulated.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;47354322]
Why are you implying it's just the man who's having their life change forever? It's very often life changing for the woman as well. It's not like we're shifting all responsibility to the woman - they're both responsible for the pregnancy.
Again, you're just making it sound like this is all some really easy situation for the woman and the man is having to deal with it all. The woman still has to carry the baby, give birth to it and raise it while also having to provide for her child and herself financially, while at a bare legal minimum the guy just has to provide financial support.
[/quote]
I'll reiterate that we're discussing fathers, though I feel like a broken record now. I'm sure you can reread my posts if you need another reference.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;47354322]
Because it's not their body. Why should there be 100% equal say in the matter when the woman bears most of the burden in pretty much every situation?[/quote]
Because - [I]as you have stated[/I] - it both becomes their responsibility, and legally the father is the one will have to pay in the case of single mothers. As it stands the father has zero rights regarding pregnancy and very few regarding childcare. The topic we're discussing is if men should have more rights for/against abortions, paying for childcare or otherwise.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;47354322]
If you properly practice safe sex then this shouldn't ever really be an issue. If you still somehow manage a pregnancy, then yes it's bad luck.
[/quote]
I'll reiterate again and again until I make this point clear; a lot of pregnancies are unplanned and unexpected. Punishing someone for this with an unwanted child is morally wrong; especially for the child conceived who will grow up with a resentful parent.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;47354322]What? It takes two to tango.[/quote]
Then the mother to decide both their futures.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;47354413]The woman should be allowed to decide what happens to her body, and the man should be able to decide to support the child or not. If the woman decides she wants to have the baby knowing that the man won't support her, then that's still her decision and the man isn't being punished without recourse.[/QUOTE]
Having an abortion isn't an easy process. Women haven't been fighting for abortion rights for decades just so they could abort foetuses left and right, it's there to provide them with a last resort that gives them control over their bodies. It can be a massive emotional and personal burden, and not all women are simply open to having one. If a woman is not at all comfortable with abortion, then why should the man be able to choose not to support the child he helped create? As it currently stands, without that support then in a lot of cases both the woman and the child have to suffer in less than ideal circumstances because the mother has to raise and support both herself.
[QUOTE=Muggi;47353869]I support womens rights to control their own bodies, but it does raise some interesting dilemmas in regards to pregnancy.
If the woman wants to have an abortion, but the father wants the child, the fathers fucked. Imagine what a horrible it would be to simply haveto let your unborn child die, by the mothers hand, and being unable to do anything about it.
I get that women carry the largest burden when it comes to pregnancy, and that they therefore need special rights if you can call it that, but it is kinda shitty that men are [B]basicly incapable of being a part of a decesion[/B] that can seriously impact the rest of their lifes.[/QUOTE]
I understand what you mean and I know pregnancy raises a lot of interesting and very difficult dilemmas, but the part I bolded is what I wanted to comment on. Of course men are a part of the decision, or at least they should be. Being part of the decision does not mean having the final say in the decision however. That is why this whole thread (for the most part) has been about how couples should discuss the options and come to a decision together.
[QUOTE=gav618;47354492]How can anyone not realize there isn't a condom? It literally tears holes in vaginas, not very big ones but still. I guess he could have poked a hole in it. Maybe there needs to be contracts and shit, because people's word alone is worth next to jack shit.[/QUOTE]
It's actually a very real situation. [URL="https://www.google.com.au/search?&q=boyfriend+removed+condom"]Just google it.[/URL]
[editline]20th March 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Vasili;47354498]I'll reiterate that we're discussing fathers, though I feel like a broken record now. I'm sure you can reread my posts if you need another reference.
Because - [I]as you have stated[/I] - it both becomes their responsibility, and legally the father is the one will have to pay in the case of single mothers. As it stands the father has zero rights regarding pregnancy and very few regarding childcare. The topic we're discussing is if men should have more rights for/against abortions, paying for childcare or otherwise.
I'll reiterate again and again until I make this point clear; a lot of pregnancies are unplanned and unexpected. Punishing someone for this with an unwanted child is morally wrong; especially for the child conceived who will grow up with a resentful parent.
Then the mother to decide both their futures.[/QUOTE]
What do you want changed then?
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;47354544]What do you want changed then?[/QUOTE]
[quote]
Deception is a valid legal reason if it’s proven to be the case. But put it this way; both sides are incompetent but one side is forced to pay out and support a child by law which many - such as myself - find to be wrong. Court of law is there to determine the scenario of the pregnancy, but it if was found to be dubious in conception without a partners consent then they should be legally able to withdraw from responsibility.
If one side is adamant and can prove why they cannot support a child in a court of law then they should be given the option to, much like when a woman explains why she cannot do so in an abortion. Life does become very different when you put kids into the equation, they can take over your life and goals.
Like I said earlier I believe abortion is not as simple as "my body my rules" philosophy, pregnancy is not a one sided issue. This is also why I do not believe in a default answer and it should be determined and assessed legally and medically i.e - individual cases; I don't have a default ruling.
If the state has banned abortion? Then it should be forced to provide and not demand either sex gives or takes, but that's just a ideal scenario.[/quote]
More rights for fathers in pregnancy and child related cases by law.
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;47354522]Having an abortion isn't an easy process. Women haven't been fighting for abortion rights for decades just so they could abort foetuses left and right, it's there to provide them with a last resort that gives them control over their bodies. It can be a massive emotional and personal burden, and not all women are simply open to having one. If a woman is not at all comfortable with abortion, then why should the man be able to choose not to support the child he helped create? As it currently stands, without that support then in a lot of cases both the woman and the child have to suffer in less than ideal circumstances because the mother has to raise and support both herself.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=DaMastez;47354413]Not to trivialize having an abortion; I'm sure if a woman doesn't want to have a baby they would rather not be impregnated in the first place. The point is for the woman even after getting impregnated, she still has the choice of having the baby or getting an abortion. The man has no such choice in if he's going to be supporting the child or not.[/QUOTE]
I don't disagree that having an abortion isn't easy, and there are people fighting to removing women's right to decide to have an abortion. That doesn't change the fact that the woman still has all of the agency post-impregnation (however much or little that is depending on local laws), short of the man doing something like this thread is about, and the man is stuck dealing with the result of that decision regardless.
[QUOTE=Vasili;47353214]The biggest misconception we have is is a often assumed - [I]but none-the-less harmful[/I] - idea thrown about thinking men would eagerly abandon their children if they could. The conception that fathers would consider an opt-out option lightly and abandon the mothers I consider to be untrue and adds to the negative trope surrounding men and their capability of looking after/supporting children.[/QUOTE]
Well statistically, about one in three kids born in the United States today have their biological fathers absent from the home. [url=www.fatherhood.org/father-absence-statistics]That's according to the Census Bureau anyway[/url].
There are a lot of men in this country who simply don't want to take care of their kids and be proper parents (even some mothers too, but with mothers, there's biological components in place to facilitate attachment to her offspring-- which is why maternal abandonment isn't as common). Because parenting is hard and takes money and responsibility. Personally, my father was this way and still is. My mother tried to take care of me at least.
Why can't people think before they have sex. If you don't want a child wear a condom or abstain from sex.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47352411]Let me break this down farther, because I think I may not be clearly illustrating my point here.
2 consenting adults have sex and a pregnancy results.
If the woman doesn't want the child, she has the right to terminate the pregnancy, regardless of what the man wants.
If the man doesn't want the child, but the woman does, he can neither terminate the pregnancy, nor absolve himself of any responsibility.
Do you see the problem in this yet?[/QUOTE]
If you give men the possibility to simply sign a form and waive parental responsibilities, what legal justification could you give to disallow women from doing the same? Women can't currently sign away parental responsibility but have the child anyway and dump it entirely on the father, so why should men be allowed to do that?
[QUOTE=Ceil;47354961]Why can't people think before they have sex. If you don't want a child wear a condom or abstain from sex.[/QUOTE]
Because
1. Sex feels good. Really good. For many it's the best feeling in life.
2. No contraceptive is 100% effective. Shit happens. And when it does, it does so hard.
[QUOTE=Fetret;47354529]I understand what you mean and I know pregnancy raises a lot of interesting and very difficult dilemmas, but the part I bolded is what I wanted to comment on. Of course men are a part of the decision, or at least they should be. Being part of the decision does not mean having the final say in the decision however. That is why this whole thread (for the most part) has been about how couples should discuss the options and come to a decision together.[/QUOTE]
Being "part of the decision" doesn't mean much when the woman can always have the final word.
Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with that (it's the woman's body after all). But on the other hand I don't think it's right to force the father to pay for child support if he doesn't want a child in the first place. imo the state should be the one to pay for child support in such a situation.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
