Men Want Say in Unplanned Pregnancy!

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I'm arguing for reproductive rights for men that still wouldn't come anywhere close to what women possess.

I don't give a **** if the man is 16 and broke, or 38 and rich. He should be given a choice as to whether his mistake will lead to him being a father in a legal sense.

The man has a choice, which he can excercise, or fail to excercise, at the point of intercourse.

Men do not get pregnant. THAT SIMPLE. Hence they simply can;t have the same choices as those members of the sex that do get pregnant. WHY? because it is their bodies that have to host the fetus, they who deal with the risks of pregnancy, and the biological costs of it.

All humans beings should have control over their bodies, and over those of no one else. Women's bodies do more things, hence they will have more choices.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by GePap


A man can always argue to the courts that he was defrauded by the woman. The courts might listen, but as Che said, you know the risks going into sex.

But that isn't the trend. The trend is even giving to sperm banks is risky.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And that's pure BS.

Nobody ever imprisoned a woman for giving a child up for adoption, even when she lies about paternity.

There's a difference between adoption and walking away. Woman are jailed for abandoning their children all the time. Men, never. Only if there's a judgement against them to pay some child support and they fail to do so.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
What part of 'human rights' do you find so challenging as a concept?

Walking away from your obligations isn't a human right in any society.

[notyoueither]

If all human beings should have control over their own bodies, why not give men a choice over their servitude for the following 18 years (more in some cases)?

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


What part of 'human rights' do you find so challenging as a concept?

BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE!

There is no fundamental right of the man being trampled. NONE. He is free to abstain. He is free to wear a condom. He is NOT FREE to absolve himself of the responsibility of his actions, anymore than he is free to assault someone and expect to be let go without consequence.

The man has a social responsiblity to any offspring he has, unless another couple has decided to take full responsiblity for that child.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Cuz that's the way it was 20 years ago . . . oh wait!

Many other things have changed to make it work. Litigation is a bit more popular now. Other factors enter in as well, such as AIDS which kinda makes sex outside of relationships less desireable too. It could change activity quite a bit more nowadays.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE!

Bull****.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
If all human beings should have control over their own bodies, why not give men a choice over their servitude for the following 18 years (more in some cases)?

So you oppose being obligated to pay taxes?

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
If all human beings should have control over their own bodies, why not give men a choice over their servitude for the following 18 years (more in some cases)?

Because the man willingly gave his sperm.

The resulting child is not part of his body.

a percentage of income is certainly NOT part of his body either.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap
The man has a social responsiblity to any offspring he has, unless another couple has decided to take full responsiblity for that child.

Which he will often not get a say in.

If adoption is on the mind of mom, she most likely isn't going to give the right father's name on the birth cert.

But if she chooses to keep it, he's done. No choice for the next 18 years.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
Many other things have changed to make it work.

Which is why conservatives still spend so much time railing about unwed mothers and the role of fathers?

Litigation is a bit more popular now.

Other factors enter in as well, such as AIDS which kinda makes sex outside of relationships less desireable too. It could change activity quite a bit more nowadays.

Which is why walk-away fathers aren't that big of a problem among the poor . . . oh wait!



The real question is, why do conservatives love fetuses more than real babies?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

So you oppose being obligated to pay taxes?

I'd rather we all pay taxes to support chidren than force unwilling fathers into involuntary servitude.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Which he will often not get a say in.

Only an issue if he wants the child, and therefore not relevant to this debate.

If adoption is on the mind of mom, she most likely isn't going to give the right father's name on the birth cert.

Again, so what? You are arguing for men who don;t want the child.

And look who is talking about assumptions anyways.

But if she chooses to keep it, he's done. No choice for the next 18 years.

Well, again, next time he should be more choosy with his sperm. He had his choice. Now he has his responsibility.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Which he will often not get a say in.

If adoption is on the mind of mom, she most likely isn't going to give the right father's name on the birth cert.

Maybe in your country. In ours, if a man claims to be the father, he gets a chance to try and prove it and if he can, he can take the kid if the mother wishes to end her parental rights.

But if she chooses to keep it, he's done. No choice for the next 18 years.

Biology is tough, society made a choice (and a good one), don't be stupid when you have sex.