Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LOL! Before I had even had sex - I would think I was pregnant every time I was late! I was so afraid that I was carrying the next Messiah - and I wasn't even religious!!!
Heh! Then there were the "not quite" years. "OMG, he came close!"
Maybe people don't agree with this "advantage" because women can avoid all of these things you list by taking a morning after pill or obtaining an abortion.
That's true - but it's not really as easy as all that. Some women are against abortion - and some women don't realize they are against abortion until they are actually pregnant. No matter which way you spin it - I don't think it's as simple as people make it out to be. I'm just glad that I never found myself in a position to have to make that sort of decision.
You are creating your logic to fit situations you agree or disagree with. This is intellectually inconsistent.
Here's my logic:
-Both parents should have options post-conception, but the woman should have the most options since she actually carries the baby. The man should only be able to legally opt-out, no forced abortions.
-Both spouses should have options post-divorce, but in the case of a working and non-working spouse, the working spouse should keep most of the assets if they actually paid for it. The non-working spouse should at least have legal options to help them get back on their feet, like a few years to obtain a degree or job training.
Notice in both examples I provide options for the person with the "weaker" position, but not enough options to infringe on the one with the "stronger" position.
That's apples and oranges. Like dewdrops stated, you make a commitment to each other in a marriage.
Also, like I stated in my previous post, the non-working spouse supports the working spouse in other ways. It's not like s/he was a leech during the marriage.
when you say 'opt out' do you mean ignore his child and not help raising him/her?
The opt-out I speak of entails signing over his parental rights, basically like giving the child up for adoption but to the mother. No contact or else he'd have to pay a large fee, maybe back child support up to the point when he first signed his rights away.
So - if a man gets a woman pregnant - and he doesn't want the baby - he can "opt out" if she doesn't want an abortion and have no financial responsibility no matter what? That doesn't seem to make much sense to me...
Why not? Women can avoid financial responsibility by taking a morning after pill, having an abortion, abandoning the child at a "safe haven" like a hospital, or giving the child up for adoption.
I'm simply looking for a solution that levels the playing field in a legal sense. So far it's mother's options 4, father's options 0 post conception.
Why not? Women can avoid financial responsibility by taking a morning after pill, having an abortion, abandoning the child at a "safe haven" like a hospital, or giving the child up for adoption.
I'm simply looking for a solution that levels the playing field in a legal sense. So far it's mother's options 4, father's options 0 post conception.
Like I said before - I don't think there is a way to even the playing field. The way that men can control the situation is by either not having sex in the first place or by wearing a condom. Some things in life just aren't fair and there is no way to make them fair. Although it takes a man and a woman to make a baby - only the woman can actually get pregnant and have the baby. That's just biology. And like Darren point out - once a man gets a woman pregnant - he can simply leave. Men do it all the time. And people throw around the word abortion like it's so simple. I've known people that have gotten abortions. They weren't simple. And I don't even just mean emotionally. It wreaks havoc on your body.
You can choose to look at it in a way that makes it seems like women have all the options and that that's a good thing - but as a woman who has never gotten pregnant accidentally - this was one of my BIGGEST fears when I was younger. It's not like the decision to have a baby or get an abortion is like which color to paint your toenails. It can change your entire life.
But once again - not having options post conception doesn't negate the fact that they had options PRIOR to conception. When you only look at the post conception situation - you are basically making it seem like the accidental pregnancy was something that "happened" to the man but was controlled by the woman - and that is not the case.
Why not? Women can avoid financial responsibility by taking a morning after pill, having an abortion, abandoning the child at a "safe haven" like a hospital, or giving the child up for adoption.
I'm simply looking for a solution that levels the playing field in a legal sense. So far it's mother's options 4, father's options 0 post conception.
Just the fact that the father doesn't even have to go through an abortion, or agonize over whether to give the baby up for adoption, let alone pregnancy and childbirth, makes the "playing field" pretty good for him doesn't it?
So - a man couldn't "opt out" of his financial responsibilities unless the woman gave her okay? Is that what you mean?
That's correct. If men already could "opt-out", then I'd simply tell men to do whenever this topic comes up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewdrop93
That's true - but it's not really as easy as all that. Some women are against abortion - and some women don't realize they are against abortion until they are actually pregnant. No matter which way you spin it - I don't think it's as simple as people make it out to be. I'm just glad that I never found myself in a position to have to make that sort of decision.
If a woman is pro-life and doesn't want male opt-out, then she is more intellectually consistent on this topic than a pro-choice woman who is opposed to male opt-out. Although, she still has the "abandon at a safe haven" and adoption options men don't have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cindy_Jole
That's apples and oranges. Like dewdrops stated, you make a commitment to each other in a marriage.
Also, like I stated in my previous post, the non-working spouse supports the working spouse in other ways. It's not like s/he was a leech during the marriage.
It's not "apples and oranges" simply because you say so. You make a mutual commitment to marriage and a mutual commitment to have sex.
There is no law that requires the non-working spouse to support the working spouse in other ways. They could be a complete leech, leave the house filthy, refuse to go back to work after children, and the working spouse would still have to pay alimony regardless. The working spouse is screwed because he/she has no viable options at this point.
This is no different than a woman who agrees to sex with a man who isn't ready for a baby, yet she goes through with the pregnancy anyway. The man is screwed because he has no viable options at this point.
The apples and apples are: Both parties agreed to something, yet person holding the cards is the only one with viable options.
Why not? Women can avoid financial responsibility by taking a morning after pill, having an abortion, abandoning the child at a "safe haven" like a hospital, or giving the child up for adoption.
I'm simply looking for a solution that levels the playing field in a legal sense. So far it's mother's options 4, father's options 0 post conception.
Well said. I am surprised that in a modern/advanced country like the USA nothing has been made for fathers to have more rights with these kinds of issues.
Apples and oranges because having sex is not a legal commitment. I think it is very rare that married people who really know each other and are really committed to each other find themselves in the scenario that you described.
Your OP was about out of wedlock births - not divorce settlements. They are two different subjects.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
