Men Want Say in Unplanned Pregnancy!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Oh, and I'm horrified to find myself in agreement with Shi

Hi.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Hi.

It's not too bad agreeing with you. I do about 1/20th of the time, so I'm used to it already

[MrFun]

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?

I remember in another thread not too long ago, that some people claimed the definition of rape requires penetration so that technically, only men can rape. Women can depant men and humiliate them in other ways but that would be sexual assault, right??

[Vesayen]

I am *ALL* about consistancy.

If women want the right to murder children(and i've given up hope of the right to murder being revoked) men should have the equal right to decline child support in ANY and ALL circumstances.

If women want the right to murder babies, its only fair men have an equal right to not contribute to the growth of the child.

So either ban abortion, or do away with child suport from absentee dads, we can't have it both ways.

I'm not sure if this actually violates the equal protection clause... but I don't really care either.

[Urban Ranger]

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

According to the man.

He could be a deadbeat who had a change of heart halfway through.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by 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?

I dunno, Imran. It's the man who wants to have sex most of the time.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


According to the man.

He could be a deadbeat who had a change of heart halfway through.

And the moon could be made of blue cheese.

What do you have to say about it if the facts of the case brought forward are accurate?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I dunno, Imran. It's the man who wants to have sex most of the time.

And womean are mindless and weak, is that it?

[Darius871]

Vernon Dozier would be all over this.

[Agathon]

"The courts are trying to say it may not be so fair that this gentleman has to support a child he didn't want, but it's less fair to say society has to pay the support," she said.

This is crap for a start. If society makes such laws it should pay for them. Abortions are on the national health in most countries.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Japher


She still has his seed after the sex

he doesnt have her body

Jesus... call it sperm or semen... "seed" makes you sound like Aristotle, or someone out of the Bible...

[Agathon]

I gave a paper about this about 7 or 8 years ago. It's an interesting issue.

As usual the law is FOS, but the basis of most pro-abortion arguments seems to require men not to be able to pay child support.

[binTravkin]

My 2 cents:

If a man is foolish enough to engage in sex with woman without taking any precautions (condom at least), it's completely his fault if he gets some ilness or to pay for a child from that.

There are so much of guys who just want to ride for a night and then get off. Now there's at least some reason to think twice at all.

EDIT: and the other sort of guys, who think before do, seldom get into this sort of problems.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap

As for "unwilling man", right. If the man is so "unwilling", then he should

a. Wear a condom
b. Ask her if she is on the pill.

These at best reduce the likelihood that the man will have to support a child he doesn't want. Asking her works to the extent that she's careful and honest and completely consistent. If she's all these things then she is as good as her contraceptive. But courts have held that even to the extreme of entrapment by the woman (e.g. lying about birth control, purposefully sabotaging birth control etc.) the man may be held responsible. As for condoms, I've had enough sex in my life to expect several failures by now. They're good, but not so good that someone who knows for sure that they don't want a child shouldn't be investing in a vasectomy.

[Gibsie]

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".