Men Want Say in Unplanned Pregnancy!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


I think you can get past alot of the blah blah blah and boil it down to a specific, simple, question: 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.

That is not the question, because that is such an assenine and moronic line of "logic"

Sex does not equal pregnancy. Pregancy will only occur if BOTH PARTIES fail to take the necessary steps to stop a pregancy. Obviously the woman has more tools to prevent pregancy, but a man has toold also.

If both parties failed to take the necessary steps, then BOTH must bear the responsibility for their communal failure.

Because of the nature of reproduction in human beings, the man's involvement in pregancy is over in seconds. The woman's takes months. Therefore, she will obviously have more choices, as is only logical, given that she bears the child, HE does NOT.

The notion of child support exist exactly because men were getting away with NEVER bearing any cost for their failure of responsiblity. There is no connection between the two issues. The end of abortion does not end the "inequality", since a woman could always put the kid for adoption, therefore also ending the possible cost to the man.

Therefore, that initial logical is, well WRONG.

[Imran Siddiqui]

then BOTH must bear the responsibility for their communal failure

Yes.. but the woman has a second choice to avoid (RU-486) or minimize (abortion or adoption) responsibility for her failure.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, it's called responsibility for both. Women get an extra choice in order to decide if they want to be responsible for their actions of unprotected sex. Men don't.

Choice and responsibility have nothing to do with each other. If the man failed to make the choice while he was involved, TOO BAD.

The man has to pay for the child for 18+ years if she decides to keep it. Sounds quite a bit more than dealing with a situation 'for seconds'.

No, he pays for 18 years if she decides to keep the child, goes to court, and then has a court of law agree with her that the man bears responsiblity, which he does, as he failed to make his choice when he was involved in the process of making a human being. Maybe next time he will be smarter.

Nor is there equality in choice under the current system. Nor equality in whether choice to have sex binds you to whatever consequences of that sexual relation, since the woman can decide to minimize the consequences, while the man cannot.

There can be no equality of choice, as men and women have different biological roles in this whole situation. Laws can't invest "equality of chocie" where none actually exists, even remotely.

But to chain them as slaves of the woman's second choice is a-ok?

Men know the consequences if they fail to make the right choice. Its sad that you want to free them of that single possible responsibility for their own screw up.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

then BOTH must bear the responsibility for their communal failure

Yes.. but the woman has a second choice to avoid (RU-486) or minimize (abortion or adoption) responsibility for her failure.

ARRRGHH

Of course she has a second choice, BECAUSE THE FETUS GESTATES INSIDE OF HER!!!

If men want this second choice, let the fetus gestates in them. Otherwise, TOUGH LUCK IDIOTS.

And yet again, if the woman minimizes her responsibility, in doing so she has totally absolved the men of all thier responsiblity meaning, these men who want no responsibility should be fighting to allow women to make the choices that leave them scott free, instead of being idiots and complaining.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If the man failed to make the choice while he was involved

And he's got one choice and the woman has two. Maybe she should have only one. Then we can tell her that she failed to make the choice when she was involved. Too bad!

he pays for 18 years if she decides to keep the child, goes to court...

And she makes the choice for him. He has no choice after the first sexual act. She does and she can bind him with her choice.

There can be no equality of choice, as men and women have different biological roles in this whole situation.

So men should be slaves to women's second choice .

If a woman has a greater cost due to her different biological role, then she should guard her choice more carefully.

Men know the consequences if they fail to make the right choice.

And pre Roe, women knew the consequences if they failed to make the right choice.

[Japher]

Gepap says what I want to say, but much better

I hope that there is some lawyer who says it with even more grace

Imran, you like HP's arse

nuff said

(and thus the curse of that sig continues )

[GePap]

I am not even going to try anymore. Fact is, I already stated everything that had to be said, and repeating self-evident arguements over and over is not the way I will spend this time.

Simply stated, these guys are utter idiots and deserve to lose miserably in court, as they invariably will, the dumb ****s.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course she has a second choice, BECAUSE THE FETUS GESTATES INSIDE OF HER!!!

That's nice, then she should be more careful with her first choice. She gets, instead, with her second choice to decide the fate (and responsibility) of both her and the guy. You say this would absolve the male of his responsibility, wouldn't her choice of abortion or adoption do the same? So you are for men not having any responsibility for their sexual actions, as long as the women can make that decision for him. Like a master and a slave.

These men who want no responsibility should be fighting to allow women to make the choices that leave them scott free

Yeah, because this suit will overturn Roe. There's using your intellect .

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by GePap


ARRRGHH

Of course she has a second choice, BECAUSE THE FETUS GESTATES INSIDE OF HER!!!

There's no need to shout, sir.

[Shi Huangdi]

Sex does not equal pregnancy.

That doesn't really affect my point. If you'd prefer I could change the wording of the question to "Does sex imply consent to take care of any child that is produced should pregnancy result from the sex?"

Presumably, the consent to take care of a child doesn't come from nowhere. For instance, say a woman was able to use chemicals to knock out and then rape a man; I don't think in that case you would argue the man should have to pay child support. What exactly is it that obligates you to provide for a child?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


That doesn't really affect my point. If you'd prefer I could change the wording of the question to "Does sex imply consent to take care of any child that is produced should pregnancy result from the sex?"

Presumably, the consent to take care of a child doesn't come from nowhere. For instance, say a woman was able to use chemicals to knock out and then rape a man; I don't think in that case you would argue the man should have to pay child support. What exactly is it that obligates you to provide for a child?

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 you must use examples like that to make the point, it sort of invalidates the point.

As for consent, pregancy is a known possible outcome of sex. If the man chose to have sex, then he is accepting the consequences of the act, and it is up to him to make sure he dose not befall one of the consequences. If he fails to prevent something which he has the power to actively prevent, then he bears responsiblity, just as the woman also bears responsibility.

Is that "consent"? No. Anymore than not wearing a seatbelt is giving "consent" to being killed in a car crash. Consent is not the issue. Responsibility is. You know what the possible side effects as it will of sex are, and if you decide to have sex, you are deciding to have to deal with the consequences, unless you took the necessary precautions to lessen those consequences.

[Shi Huangdi]

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.

Obviously. I was just bringing up a situation like that to show that it isn't merely being the parent which gives you the responsibility, but rather some action or choice you make.

If he fails to prevent something which he has the power to actively prevent, then he bears responsiblity, just as the woman also bears responsibility.

Continuing to play the semantics game, are we?

Fine. Substitute "Gives Consent to care for the child" with "Incur responsibility to care for the child". The point remains the same. Does responsibility to care for a child come from having sex that led to a pregnancy, or from choosing to take on the responsibility at a later date?

[Spiffor]

I'd just like to point out that even men who take precaustions in order to avoid pregnancy can get the woman pregnant. It can either be because of an accident (the condom breaks, the pill was forgotten), or because the woman lied to the man about her taking the pill. I know several examples of women getting pregnant despite the men's precautions. I don't see why the men should be forced to take care for 18 years of a child they took steps to avoid conceiving.

I have read all of GePap's posts here, and I am still at a loss as to why he opposes men having a say during the pregnancy.

[Spiffor]

Oh, and I'm horrified to find myself in agreement with Shi

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GePap
If men want this second choice, let the fetus gestates in them. Otherwise, TOUGH LUCK IDIOTS.

*******.

My ex and I prevented pregnancy the best way we could. However, as any longlasting couple, we might have had an accidental pregnancy. Now, we both agreed to abort if that was the case, but what if she changed her mind during the pregnancy? I would be stuck with her choice (and for 18 years, at that), despite we agreeing to something else beforehand.

Considering that sex was a common endeavour, there is no reason for her to be the only one to decide.