Men Want Say in Unplanned Pregnancy!

[General Ludd]

If the relationship between the man and the woman is such that the woman would not allow the man to have a say, chances are that the man does not deserve to have one.

[Spiffor]

That, or the woman is egoist, and will complete her pregnancy regardless of what the man wants, and then will milk the man for a child only she wanted.

[Az]

Spiffy, Imran, NYE make a better case. BY FAR.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Like I said before... seems like a good rational for banning abortion. She failed to take the necessary steps to avoid impregnation, then she is responsible for the child because half of the necessary genetic material comes from her.

The question of responsibility has no bearing on the legality of abortion. Otherwise we'd ban heart bypass surgery because the patient failed to exercise and eat a healthy diet, or we'd ban leg casts for novice skiiers who went down the expert slopes.

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Does consent to have sex imply consent to care for a child?

If it does, then the government has the right to stop the woman from getting an abortion. If it does not, then the government doesn't have the right to make the man pay child support.

Likewise, the government would have the right to stop a heart bypass surgery if we reason that consent to eat at McDonald's implies consent to get clogged arteries.

The difference between sex and fast food is (among other things) the fact that my eating at McDonald's will not result in your having to get a heart bypass or in your having to pay for my heart bypass, so it's still open to question whether the government has the right to make the man pay child support. However, the matter of banning abortion (or, for that matter, banning adoption) is irrelevant to the topic.

Originally posted by GePap
Given the basic truths about biology, Men do have one place to chose. If they failt to make the choice then, well. TOO BAD.

The basic truths of biology also say that men have one place to pay a cost in reproduction -- once the man has expended the calories necessary to do the deed, his biological role is finished.

It is society, not biology, that makes men pay a further cost in the reproductive process. Likewise, it is society, not biology, that determines that men have only one place to choose. Biology certainly isn't irrelevant to the topic, but it's not the be-all end-all means of determining who has what moral and fiduciary responsibilities in the reproductive process.

Originally posted by GePap
Essentially you support guys who want to make sex utterly cost free for men. I simply do not support such amoral whinners.

I am surprised that you are attaching an inherent moral judgment to the act of sexual intercourse.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Spiffor
That, or the woman is egoist, and will complete her pregnancy regardless of what the man wants, and then will milk the man for a child only she wanted.

In which case it is solely the man's poor choice or judgment of character that has landed him in that position.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hey, I can see Ben Kenobi making the same argument for women. If she fails to make her choice before sex, she's forfeited her choice.

Exactly. If the men take on the responsibility of having to raise and take care of the child, as soon as they choose to 'give their seed' to the women, then the women have taken on their responsibility when they choose to receive.

No one is forcing the women to sleep with the man, she makes that decision herself, and both share the responsibility of that decision.

[Sprayber]

It seems to me that women want the best of both worlds in this matter. If a man is to potentially be held finacially responsible for a child then he should be given some say in matters such as abortion and child adoption since he is one half of the equation. If the woman does not wish him to have a say in those questions, than she should expect no finacial contribution from him.

My father did not pay for any of my raising and as far as I'm concerned it was worth all the hard times to not have someone out there forced to be around me or to pay for my way against their will.

[Ben Kenobi]

Simple solution: a man can give up his responsibility to the child by undergoing a vasectomy, at his own cost. That way he's not just taking the easy choice with no issue of responsibility or reprucussions (Anyone who thinks abortion is an easy way out, please go and stick a vacuum cleaner up your urethra), and he's also demonstrating that he does NOT want children, like he claims. And then when he does want children in the future, he can get it reversed.

If a woman wants to "avoid responsibility", she has to undergo a medical procedure or give her body up for nine months before adoption. If a man wants the same privelige, it's not as simple as saying, "nah, can't be bothered".

Uh, only men can get sterilised?

[binTravkin]

It seems to me that women want the best of both worlds in this matter. If a man is to potentially be held finacially responsible for a child then he should be given some say in matters such as abortion and child adoption since he is one half of the equation. If the woman does not wish him to have a say in those questions, than she should expect no finacial contribution from him.

QFT
Either this or that, but not both!

[Ben Kenobi]

I am surprised that you are attaching an inherent moral judgment to the act of sexual intercourse.

QFT!

Sig worthy.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Uh, only men can get sterilised?

Don't be silly. If a woman wants to avoid the responsibility of pregnancy, she has to get a medical procedure (which could include a sterilisation!) or give her body up for nine months should she fall pregnant. I just think that if a man wants to avoid the responsibility as well, he can go through the equivalent procedure and make sure it doesn't happen again.

Of course this is entirely unrealistic and would never happen, but nor will men ever be absolved from caring from their children except if the mother so desires.

[lord of the mark]

child support and say in abortion are two unrelated topics.


Child support is not a right of the mother. Its a right of the CHILD. Against BOTH parents.

Obviously an child who fails to live, for whatever reason, has no such right. But the reason for the failure to live is not relevant.

A woman doesnt have the right to an abortion in deference to her financial needs, but in deference to her rights over her own body (the exact source and nature of those rights in US con law is another discussion). SCOTUS ruled in Roe, that the for her to be forced to carry to term is a violation of those rights. Should Roe be overturned, the majority of the population in many states will undoubtedly retain the right to abortion, out of concern for those same rights.

Since a man loses no control over his body by the woman carrying an pregnancy to term, there is no right in question. The fact that he retains a legal obligation to the child, when it is born, is irrelevant to the discussion. Is this unfair? sure, but life is unfair.

Analogous situation. John Doe and Jane Doe are divorced. John owes Jane alimony. Jane has a serious illness. Jane will die unless she undergoes surgery X. But surgery X is extremely painful, and there is no way to avoid this pain. Jane has a common law right to decline the surgery, and die. John has NO right to insist that she decline the surgery and die, even though it will benefit him financially. The fact that Jane has the right, and will likely exclude Johns interests in making her decision, despite his considerable interest in it, does not give him any right in it. Should she decide to get the surgery and live, its tough nuggies, John.


Ditto if you make a woman pregnant. Whatever she said or did about her fertility. Your obligation is NOT to her, but to your son or daughter. Who IS your son or daughter, regardless of the womans words or actions.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
child support and say in abortion are two unrelated topics.


Child support is not a right of the mother. Its a right of the CHILD. Against BOTH parents.

Women can opt to give the child up at birth and nobody's going to be demanding she support the child for the next 18 years.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


IN the case you mentioned, no court in the land would make the man pay child support, plus the woman would probably lose the child as she would be in prison for rape.

.

if the woman is imprisoned and loses the child, and the man takes custody, wont he have to support the child? If he refuse to keep the child, even though he has resources, and social services takes custody, shouldnt social services have recourse against his resources?

Folks seem to be assuming that "child support" = a set of checks written by the father to the mother. While thats what it usually is in practice, I dont think thats what it means in law.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Japher
I got an idea...

don't stick your penis in her pvssy

there's your say

That's right, stick it in her pooper. But dont use hand cream, I read it's for external use only...But I'm not the one that freaked out afterwards...




Spec.