Men Want Say in Unplanned Pregnancy!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


I am very aware of the basic issue:

A deamand for some sort of "equality" were equality is biologically impossible.

Want equality for men? Find a way for them to bear children. Until then, stop asking for the absurd.

Asking that men have a choice over fatherhood during the pregnancy is absurd?

You have a funny definition of absurd.

[MRT144]

che, dashi, cut it out, this is thread is about the semantics of fathering children and choice

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
Actually when I was 18 I really helped a friend of mine who was a single mother and just had a kid. She was rather desperate for one after a few bad miscarriages.

You ain't helping her now, are you? It's an 18 year committment for most of us. 18 years of sleepless nights and diminished social lives and staying home to care for sick kids instead of working, and saving for college instead of investing for retirement or making a better life for yourself, etc. IIRC, the average cost of raising a kid and putting them through college is around $400K for kids born today. That's a lot of resources. That doesn't include all the extra unpaid labor.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by DaShi
The only thing invisible is the soul.

There is no such thing as the soul or god, etc. Life exists only to make copies of itself. Sex, while a less efficient way than asexual reproduction, is more effective in the long run because variability that results ensures that the whole whole species can't be wiped out by accident. Our "enlightement," i.e., intelligence, is merely a means of securing reproductive possibilities, and one which I am actively circumventing due to my genetic inferiority.

Your body, life itself, is the vessel through which the soul can exist and experience this world. So, yes, life behaves as you describe, but it exists for the purpose of the soul. Your intelligence may have evolved, but it does so to give the soul a new experience. Static life is pointless.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You ain't helping her now, are you? It's an 18 year committment for most of us. 18 years of sleepless nights and diminished social lives and staying home to care for sick kids instead of working, and saving for college instead of investing for retirement or making a better life for yourself, etc. IIRC, the average cost of raising a kid and putting them through college is around $400K for kids born today. That's a lot of resources. That doesn't include all the extra unpaid labor.

And such children are not the topic, Che.

You are getting emotionally involved due to fathers and families when the issue is unwed couples and unwanted children out of the chute, so to speak.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by MRT144
che, dashi, cut it out, this is thread is about the semantics of fathering children and choice

But it is just as important to father children as to not father children.

Ok, I'll stop now.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

has it not ocured that some women dont want to be mothers either? Do they go through the pregnancy and birth anyways? Yes some do she is already aware that she messed up by not covering her bases. The men who decide they do not want kids should make sure that it doesnt happen by protecting themselves before conception can happen.. What other choice does a man want? Does he want to force the woman to have an abortion? All i hear about is *****1ng about money. He played and should have to pay since he didnt play careful

[MRT144]

i just dont understand how you can coerce a life threatening operation on someone because of financial concerns. if a woman dies from an abortion is the man responsible for her death then?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I think you are confusing men having a choice before birth with men walking away from families.

It's the same thing. A mother + child equals a family, and the man is walking away regardless of whether or not that kid has been born. The kid still has the same needs The man still has the same obligations.

What is the harm with fathers of unborn children being given a choice?

Increased child poverty, increased social debt, increased crime.

Where is the end of civilization as we know it?

It won't end civilization, but it does slightly ****** its progress. Again, this is the way it was less than 20 years ago. We, as a society, decided it was crap for everyone involved except the selfish bastard walking away from his responsibilities. So we changed the laws, and the vast majority of us believe it to be an improvement.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And such children are not the topic, Che.

It was an OT response to Apocalypse. It's not part of the main argument. He just made the silly observation that children don't take up that much in the way of resources.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
has it not ocured that some women dont want to be mothers either? Do they go through the pregnancy and birth anyways? Yes some do she is already aware that she messed up by not covering her bases. The men who decide they do not want kids should make sure that it doesnt happen by protecting themselves before conception can happen.. What other choice does a man want? Does he want to force the woman to have an abortion? All i hear about is *****1ng about money. He played and should have to pay since he didnt play careful

And if she doesn;t want the child, but can't bring herself to abort, then there is adoption.

But if she decides to keep it, men have no such choice.

Why should he pay when she does not have to?

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Asking that men have a choice over fatherhood during the pregnancy is absurd?

It is absurd because the choice of wheter a pregancy, if it occures, goes to full term is solely with the woman. What right or moral reasoning is there for something else? If the man trully did not want children, as has already been pointed out, he has options he can take to prevent him ever being the father of a child.

If he failed in this, the fact is the fetus is gestating in someone elses body. He has no power, nor any rights, over that other body. He should have none, as it is not his body.

If a child occurs from his failure to prevent it, then the man has, as the biological father, a responsibility to take care of his progeny, unless another couple has accepted full responsibility (adoption).

The simple fact remains, a pregnancy occurs WITHIN A WOMAN. It is absurd to expect a man to have as much say about what is going on inside the woman, as the woman herself.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by notyoueither
I think you are confusing men having a choice before birth with men walking away from families.

It's the same thing. A mother + child equals a family, and the man is walking away regardless of whether or not that kid has been born. The kid still has the same needs The man still has the same obligations.

What is being questioned is what his obligation to an unborn child out of wedlock should be.

What is the harm with fathers of unborn children being given a choice?

Increased child poverty, increased social debt, increased crime.

Those are social issues. Deal with them collectively, not by selective slavery.

Here's a hint. Women would still have a choice between abortion and adoption. Where is the social cost then?

Where is the end of civilization as we know it?

It won't end civilization, but it does slightly ****** its progress. Again, this is the way it was less than 20 years ago. We, as a society, decided it was crap for everyone involved except the selfish bastard walking away from his responsibilities. So we changed the laws, and the vast majority of us believe it to be an improvement.

I have news for you.

There is growing awareness that treating males as walking wallets is not the best answer to the ills of society from 20 years ago.

This case is an example of the growing debate.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by notyoueither


And if she doesn;t want the child, but can't bring herself to abort, then there is adoption.

But if she decides to keep it, men have no such choice.

Why should he pay when she does not have to?

Nye this is were you are wrong!! she does end up paying, way more then the man in these circumstances. for one she has the kid she is payng way more then the measly sum she gets out of him thats what i am saying.

[notyoueither]

And the choice to have the child is entirely hers. If she can't afford it, she should not have it or keep it.

Seeking to keep it on the cruel prospect that some construction worker will be there to help pay for it against his will, when his next cash job is merely a skip from town away is not the answer to caring for unwanted children.