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.
If Mom opts out, there is no baby that needs to be raised and supported financially.
If Dad opts out, there is still a baby that needs to be raised and supported financially.
It’s not a parallel situation. If the outcome was the same, I would advocate for equal rights. If both sexes could get pregnant and conceive, both sexes would be entitled to the exact same rights. But both genders do not end up with the same outcome.
It doesn’t have to do with giving both genders rights. It has to do with the fact that the outcome is completely different based on which parent opts out of parenthood—and that difference is a pretty big one—a matter of a whole new human being existing in the world. It's about the baby.
Your point isn't logically sound.
You say:
If Mom opts out there is no baby.
If Dad opts out there is a baby.
But that's not necessarily true. Your logic makes a faulty assumption that if Dad opts out then Mom does not opt out.
This is how it truly goes:
If Mom opts out there is no baby.
If Dad opts out and Mom does not opt out, there is a baby.
In other words, Dad opting out does not preclude Mom also opting out. Regardless of whether he opts out or not, she retains all her options. So if she chooses to have the baby over his objections then she is making an informed decision and can be held accountable for that decision.
right, it's basically like saying that by law, women can have sex free of child risk, and men cannot.
anyway, whatever we're doing now sure ain't working -- there are more single moms than ever. it is disgusting.
I am sorry, but your post made me laugh. Women do deal with the consequence of participating in unprotected sex. A woman deciding to have an abortion is not an easy decision. Getting an abortion is not a fun activity for women to endure. Some women have abortion because they lack support with raising the child. Men who feel trapped into being a parent due to child support should not complain. Parenting includes more than just paying child support. Raising a child on your own is a harder job. A baby should be seen as a blessing and not a consequence. If someone does not want to have a baby, than they should practice safe sex or abstinence. I think complaining about this issue does not make the person look responsible. Do some men want permission to be a dead beat father? I just don’t get it.
If Mom opts out there is no baby.
If Dad opts out there is a baby.
But that's not necessarily true. Your logic makes a faulty assumption that if Dad opts out then Mom does not opt out.
This is how it truly goes:
If Mom opts out there is no baby.
If Dad opts out and Mom does not opt out, there is a baby.
In other words, Dad opting out does not preclude Mom also opting out. Regardless of whether he opts out or not, she retains all her options. So if she chooses to have the baby over his objections then she is making an informed decision and can be held accountable for that decision.
You're right, but I am only comparing "one parent opts out, one parent sticks with it" scenarios since that's what the OP was addressing.
As I've said in previous threads, I have no sympathy for "deadbeat dads". If some guy told a woman he would be there for her and the baby and then bolted, he SHOULD pay child support or go to jail.
My solution is only for those men who want to opt-out during the time a woman can still obtain an abortion. It is also for those who want to remain a law-abiding citizen.
Please elaborate on this reality you speak of. Some used the "reality" argument in the past for keeping women and minorities at a legal disadvantage.
You are arguing out both sides of your mouth here.
Also, I wasn't lumping anyone together-- I was speaking about a specific type of male who seems to want to place all the responsibility on the mother.
In any case, I think you just like to be contrary, so, yeah, go find someone else to "correct" with your semantic games.
Okay, I get the whole "my body my choice" argument (I don't agree with it), but there is something I just don't get; didn't women in the 1920's fight to be equal with men? And equal means that they both have the same rights, right? So why do we want men to have no rights now, especially when it cakes to babies (which is ridiculous considering the baby is half his)? Makes you wonder.
Okay, I get the whole "my body my choice" argument (I don't agree with it), but there is something I just don't get; didn't women in the 1920's fight to be equal with men? And equal means that they both have the same rights, right? So why do we want men to have no rights now, especially when it cakes to babies (which is ridiculous considering the baby is half his)? Makes you wonder.
You're cramming 2 ideas together that dont belong together.
You're cramming 2 ideas together that dont belong together.
Enlighten me.
(Not being rude, really wanna understand what you're saying)
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.
