Men Want Say in Unplanned Pregnancy!

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Equal rights are ludicrous?

When there is no underlying basis for that equality?

YES

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


When there is no underlying basis for that equality?

YES

Any woman can walk away from her child, after birth.

Give it up for adoption. Give it up to the care of the State.

What do you find unequal about men being able to say, prior to or at birth, that they do not want to be part of that child's life?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap
"Indentured servant"?.

in·den·ture ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-dnchr)
n.
A contract binding one party into the service of another for a specified term. Often used in the plural.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap
The first is called adoption, and it is still a choice. And the state will only trake children away from unfit parents. Being unwilling does not make unfit.

If the man does not want a child, use birth control. If that fails, too bad. Hope the woman didn't want that child either, or that she won;t seek child support.

Until men get pregant, what this group wants is bull****.

It is fairly clear that you have no interest in the arguments of the plaintiffs in this case, or those who disagree with you.

However, I think you are incorrect about where the bull**** lay.

So we're even.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Any woman can walk away from her child, after birth.

Give it up for adoption. Give it up to the care of the State.

And if the woman does so, the man is equally free.So what is your point? The man only "become and indentured servant" if the woman chose to do so as well. See? EQUALITY.

What do you find unequal about men being able to say, prior to or at birth, that they do not want to be part of that child's life?

Men have that right-hell, they can even demand a written contract from the woman. BUt they need to say this before they start having sex without taking the necessary precautions, and then, as LoTM pointed out, society might decide that screw the selfish idiot, he has a biological offspring and he has a responsibility to it that overrule his selfish desires.

[notyoueither]

Right. You're trolling.

Have fun.

[Dr Strangelove]

One salient question to me is whether or not she lied to him about her so called condition. It's quite possible that she had been unable to conceive with some other man previously and had been told that the problem was hers by a doctor. The technology to diagnose male infertility is rather crude. At this time all we can do is judge the gross morphology and motion of the sperm, and diagnose certain genetic abnormalities. There are probably cases where a man is unable to conceive due to conditions that can not yet be detected. OTOH she may have had some gynecological condition like uterine adhesions, fibroids, or even apparent secondary amenorrhea. I've had patients who went more than a year without menestrual periods, only to have mysteriously restart their monthly cycle. Women with uterine adhesions or fibroids are often unable to conceive, but it's not an absolute certainty. I have an aunt-in-law who was unable to conceive for 10 years because of a uterine condition. Because of her condition her husband divorced her (though they already had a son), she remarried, she and her second husband adopted a child because he wanted one of his own, then she finally got pregnant. The second husband then skipped town because he didn't want another child. What if her surprise was as great as his? In this case does it matter whether he wanted a child or not? The primary lesson to be learned from the case is that medical diagnosis of infertility is fraught with uncertainties. It's not a reason for a woman to open her bed to every man she meets, nor is it a reason for a man to jump into her bed.

OTOH if the woman lied to him about the condition just to get him into bed then frankly I consider her to be unfit to be a mother. The child should be taken from her and put up for adoption.

[chequita guevara]

It's very simple, before you have sex, sign a contract that absovles the man of financial responsibility should the woman get pregnant despite his best efforts to avoid pregnancy. Otherwise it will only ecourage greater sexual irresponsibility by men who don't have to worry about taking care of the cost of their children by simply declaring at birth, "No."

[Az]

It's very simple, before you have sex, sign a contract that absovles the man of financial responsibility should the woman get pregnant despite his best efforts to avoid pregnancy. Otherwise it will only ecourage greater sexual irresponsibility by men who don't have to worry about taking care of the cost of their children by simply declaring at birth, "No."

I don't think that people should be contacted at birth about their parenthood, in any case. I don't think we're even discussing that.

[chequita guevara]

What are you talking about?

[Az]

You're suggesting that this will become an option for men to change their minds at birth, leaving the mothers with a child on their hands. However, pregnancy is by far and large detected far far earlier.

[chequita guevara]

Way to totally miss the point.

[Az]

do enlighten. Otherwise, it's just a boring "man should be responsible about sex, woment don't" troll.

[chequita guevara]

If men have the right to arbitrarily sever their financial rights to children they don't want at or before birth, it will encourage irresponsible behavior on the part of men, since they know that no matter what, they can't be stuck with the bill/responsibility. No need to wear a condom. No need to ensure she's on the pill. Just walk away.

[Fake Boris]

Wow, some people here are really irresponsible. Who cares if the dumb b1tch didn't take the pill and forgot to tell you? There's a ****ing CHILD born in THIS world who needs parents and care, that you made, so you better get up your ass and assume instead of filing legal complaints.