Why do the males get no say? (abortion, carry, money)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't agree with abortion. I see it as murder. But I have understood your point from the onset. And I also feel that fair is fair: What's good for the gander should be good for the goose.
How could abortion be murder when the thing isn't even born yet?
If that's what the woman chooses to do, fine. But the reluctant biological father cannot force her to make that choice.
And I'm not saying they should. Here, let me recap the thread for you.
I said that fathers should be able to opt out of being a father like woman can opt out of being a mother through abortion. There should be time limits on that option, just as with women.
Someone said "Yes but after the child is born, its not about the mother, its about the child", insinuating that because the child needs support, the father shouldn't have a chance to walk away. My point in the post you are responding to is that the mother, if not financially able to care for the child, has options outside of an abortion to care for that child. Like letting them become a ward of a state.
While none of these are ideal options, or ideal situations, let me be perfectly clear, again.
I think that any woman who got an an abortion for any reason other then health is wrong, but I would never tell them what they should do, or force them to do with their body what they do not want. But I also feel that if a father does not want a child, just as a woman gets a choice, the man should get a choice, and forcing him into 18 years of indentured servitude is no less heinous then forcing a woman to birth a child that she does not want.
Is that from when the man removes the girl's rusty iron chastity belt before he has sex?
LOL, thanks, I thought that was wrong after I posted it. My spell check came up with it and I was in a hurry. One needs to check their spell check sometimes.
And I'm not saying they should. Here, let me recap the thread for you.
I said that fathers should be able to opt out of being a father like woman can opt out of being a mother through abortion. There should be time limits on that option, just as with women.
Someone said "Yes but after the child is born, its not about the mother, its about the child", insinuating that because the child needs support, the father shouldn't have a chance to walk away. My point in the post you are responding to is that the mother, if not financially able to care for the child, has options outside of an abortion to care for that child. Like letting them become a ward of a state.
While none of these are ideal options, or ideal situations, let me be perfectly clear, again.
I think that any woman who got an an abortion for any reason other then health is wrong, but I would never tell them what they should do, or force them to do with their body what they do not want. But I also feel that if a father does not want a child, just as a woman gets a choice, the man should get a choice, and forcing him into 18 years of indentured servitude is no less heinous then forcing a woman to birth a child that she does not want.
It is never in the best interest of a child to make him a "ward of the state" when there is a willing biological parent to care for him. Besides, why should American tax payers have to pay for your child?
I will say it again, you have your choice when you choose to inseminate a woman. After that happens, the ball is in her court and the game is played her way.
How could abortion be murder when the thing isn't even born yet?
Simply because some people believe human life begins at the moment of conception. Such people also believe that the law should grant personhood from that same moment on, so that fetuses can have the same rights as people already born.
And I'm not saying they should. Here, let me recap the thread for you.
I said that fathers should be able to opt out of being a father like woman can opt out of being a mother through abortion. There should be time limits on that option, just as with women.
Someone said "Yes but after the child is born, its not about the mother, its about the child", insinuating that because the child needs support, the father shouldn't have a chance to walk away. My point in the post you are responding to is that the mother, if not financially able to care for the child, has options outside of an abortion to care for that child. Like letting them become a ward of a state.
While none of these are ideal options, or ideal situations, let me be perfectly clear, again.
I think that any woman who got an an abortion for any reason other then health is wrong, but I would never tell them what they should do, or force them to do with their body what they do not want. But I also feel that if a father does not want a child, just as a woman gets a choice, the man should get a choice, and forcing him into 18 years of indentured servitude is no less heinous then forcing a woman to birth a child that she does not want.
When the woman is pregnant, she assumes the risk to her life and general well being that comes with bringing a baby to term, so legally she has a bigger say. It is also impractical to force women to have children (or to terminate, for that matter). Literally,you would have to physically restrain them for 9 months and make them eat healthy, etc. otherwise women will do what they want regardless. You would never be able to prove anything if she "miscarried" or had an "accident". Not to mention the tremendous strain on the police and hospitals, etc that would come with trying to enforce rules like that. And forced abortions are even a bigger headache. Who is supposed to track all the women who would run away? Who straps them down and forces open their legs? Who deals with the psychological aftermath? It would not and cannot happen.
And once again, after the children come, the rules apply to both parents. A guy with custody can sue a woman for support. Both parents can give up parental rights, but as long as one has custody the other pays. The goal is to have the bio parents care for the child as much as possible. A man with custody can apply for Food stamps or WIC as well.
Yes it sucks for men who didn't want to be fathers, but you said it yourself. It's not perfect, it's not ideal. But tough cookies. There really isn't any other practical way to handle it. Life isn't fair.
I have argued the same point. Usually the same women who fight for a womans right to choose abortion, which I support, generally don't support a mans right to choose to walk away also.
I think there should be a "first trimester" period of choice, unless the woman in question purposely keeps the knowledge of her pregnancy from the father, then he should have a month or so to decide.
But saying that its wrong to make a woman choose to carry a child she doesn't want for 9 months, then its wrong to make a man work 18 years for a child he doesn't want also. Both are assaults on the body for things that the individual does not want.
You want a forced abortion for women who don't believe in it?
Don't want to pay, don't play.
It's pretty simple.
You're arguing with biology.
So, no matter what, men have control over a woman's body?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
A woman, with no man interested in the child, at 9 months can decide to place her child up for adoption
Therefore, the child is still taken care of.
You want to have a woman carry a fetus to term and then remove it because you don't want to pay?
Ask your wife how she'd enjoy that happening to her because you won't accept responsibility for yourself?
Last edited by chielgirl; 02-20-2012 at 01:32 AM..
No. Absolutely not. ONLY a woman can intentionally get pregnant. A man can not force pregnancy on a woman. Condoms are not effective enough and are subject to sabotage. Women should not be in a position to force fatherhood on any man, it's even uglier that the woman can force fatherhood on a man AND force him to pay child support. Sure, he should keep it in his pants, but she should keep her knees together. He is no more culpable than she is.
Oh great, women are whores and will sabotage you.
Men provide the sperm. Without sperm, pregnancy cannot occur.
I guess if men watching out for their interests is "juvenile and asinine".....
No. Men only caring how they can 'get some' with no responsibility and then complaining when they have to support the wellbeing of their own flesh and blood child because they have been irresponsible, is asinine and juvenile.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One needs to check their spell check sometimes.
