Men Want Say in Unplanned Pregnancy!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Hey, but like you said, if you don't want to pay the costs, you shouldn't have had sex, right? You should have made sure there was protection, right?

I will assume you know how sexual reproduction in human beings work, so I will ignore the basics:

The man and the woman both have an ability to take steps to prevent an unwanted pregnacy.

The woman will always bear a cost to an unwanted pregnancy, while a man may bear some, or none. Obviously then, it falls more upon the woman to safeguard herself against the much greater cost she will always have to endure. BUt the fact remains, IT TAKES TWO TO GET PREGNANT. The male has 1 chance to make his choice, to wear a condom, get a vasectomy, or use some type of birth control himself, or make sure the woman is using birth control. IF the man fails to make his choice then, well, HE HAS FORFEITED HIS CHOICE. Done.

I have no sympathy for men who fail to make their choice when they had their chance. They will have to bear the consequences of their actions, just like the woman must.

Because the woman bears invaribly much greater costs all the time from pregnacy, she gets more choices than the men. It is only fair, as again, the cost to the woman is inevitably higher.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Essentially you support guys who want to make sex utterly cost free for men.

Hey, if the choice to have sex for women doesn't equal making a choice to have a child, why should it for men? If that results in no cost for men, so be it, but there should be equal oppertunities to make a choice. Both made the choice to have sex. Both should have the choice to not support a child.

If the costs are so much greater for women, then shouldn't they take that into account before they hop into the sack? After all, if men have to engage in such personal responsibility, shouldn't the women be even more aware of the consequences, since it is their body?

[Japher]

Child support, as far as I know, is a percentage of salary or as agreed on by the court. Not a set fee.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
She can give it up for adoption and be under zero obligation for the rest of the sprog's life.

Men do not have that choice.

You are still comparing two different things.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


She can give it up for adoption and be under zero obligation for the rest of the sprog's life.

Men do not have that choice.

If the woman gives the kid for adoption, the biological father bears no cost wahtsoever. IN chosing adoption, she frees both biological parents from any cost.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
This is just a nasty big o' can of worms.

This test case is of a man who never wanted a child, and was assured by the mother that she was incapable of conceiving.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


If the woman gives the kid for adoption, the biological father bears no cost wahtsoever. IN chosing adoption, she frees both biological parents from any cost.

Why is she the only one with that choice?

[snoopy369]

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.
And women DO NOT have control over his seed. The man does.

Women have control over their eggs, just as much as men have control over their seed. If we're not talking rape - and that's not relevant here IMO - then both chose to have sex with each other.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

You are still comparing two different things.

I don't believe so.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The woman will always bear a cost to an unwanted pregnancy, while a man may bear some, or none. Obviously then, it falls more upon the woman to safeguard herself against the much greater cost she will always have to endure.

Yes, it's her body. Why does personal responsibility not attach so greatly to her?

IF the man fails to make his choice then, well, HE HAS FORFEITED HIS CHOICE. Done.

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.

Because the woman bears invaribly much greater costs all the time from pregnacy, she gets more choices than the men.

Because the woman bears greater costs, she should be more careful. They should get equal choices.

Like you said, men have no costs if the woman chooses to abort or adopt, but have great costs if the woman carries to term. The woman gets to decide how much cost she will bear. She can terminate early and give up little costs or keep it to term and give great costs. The man has no say over costs whatsoever.

[Japher]

IN chosing adoption, she frees both biological parents from any cost.

mental health man

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Hey, if the choice to have sex for women doesn't equal making a choice to have a child, why should it for men? If that results in no cost for men, so be it, but there should be equal oppertunities to make a choice. Both made the choice to have sex. Both should have the choice to not support a child.

Your statement above is false. The only outcome in which the man bears any cost is if the woman choses to keep the child and then goes to court to get child support. If a woman gets an abortion, or puts the kid up for apodtion, the man bears no cost. Or the woman could seek no child support (very likely if she did not really know the guy), and the man remains scott free.

If the costs are so much greater for women, then shouldn't they take that into account before they hop into the sack? After all, if men have to engage in such personal responsibility, shouldn't the women be even more aware of the consequences, since it is their body?

I addressed this elsewhere.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Why is she the only one with that choice?

She isn't, if he claims the child. The woman is the only one making the choice if the man makes no attempt to keep it.

[Shi Huangdi]

I'd imagine which side contributes more varies case by case, depending on the relative wealth of the partners and how harsh on the non-custodial partner the judge happens to be.

I think Imran raises a valid point here from a legal perspective. Obviously nobody ever signs a contract to assume care of a child. Consent to care for a child is either implied from having sex in the first, or it is a conscious decision sometime later to accept the new child, or to reject it by having an abortion or putting it from adoption.

If consent to care for the child is implied by choosing to have sex, then the government has the right to compel the woman to not have an abortion since she's already chosen to care for the child.

If the consent to care for the child comes after sex through the choice of the parents, shouldn't the man also have a right to choose whether or not to care for the child?

[GePap]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Women have control over their eggs, just as much as men have control over their seed. If we're not talking rape - and that's not relevant here IMO - then both chose to have sex with each other.

And women can and do use birth control.

If both parties failed to control things, then both parties responsible have to bear a cost.

Women always bear a cost greater than men. These whinners want to absolve men of any cost, if the whinners decide to absolve themselves of all responsibility.