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.
There are issues where women seem to want all sides.
They want to abort or not abort.
They want men to have no choice or to pay if the woman chooses to keep the child.
Didn't the man's genetics get involved here and aren't they in the child the woman is choosing life or death over?
If the man has no say, he should maybe not have to pay support unless he wants the child? Would that be fair or is this only a woman's right to everything?
I kind of agree with that, under certain conditions. If two people have an unintended pregnancy from a mutually agreed encounter (not rape or incest), and the man does not want a child and the woman does not want to have an abortion, I don't see why he should have to pay child support. I'm assuming that they had unprotected sex with full knowledge of that. And I'm not talking about a married couple, in which there are mutual obligations.
Well does he? Anybody can answer this question btw.Me personally since I am pro-choice,I think men just need to sit down, and shut the hell up. That's probably one of the reasons why I should vote for Obama.
A say? Freedom of speech is there for everyone.
A legal right to stop one? Not so much.
I do think that since this is the case, if a man wants nothing to do with a child, and its the womans "choice", that he shouldn't be forced to pay for that child he wants nothing to do with it. If a woman has the right to abort, with no one elses say, then its only fair to let a man walk away at the beginning with no ties.
Should a man have a say so, when it comes Abortions?
Of course. It's his baby too.
Women don't get pregnant. Couples get pregnant.
Just because some men are trash cads who leave, doesn't mean the honest, responsible men (i.e. those who marry the mother and stay with her before, during, and long after the baby's birth to help raise the child, i.e. most men) should be punished too.
Men have a choice on who to impregnate and if they impregnate. After that it's pretty much over since he can never "own" her body or the fetus and no law can be created to allow him to. That's a simple fact of life.
Men have a choice on who to impregnate and if they impregnate. After that it's pretty much over since he can never "own" her body or the fetus and no law can be created to allow him to. That's a simple fact of life.
It's true, plus many men may never even know. Even a married woman who becomes unintentionally pregnant and absolutely does not want another child can go and have an abortion without even letting her husband know she was ever pregnant.
Men have a choice on who to impregnate and if they impregnate. After that it's pretty much over since he can never "own" her body or the fetus and no law can be created to allow him to. That's a simple fact of life.
What the heck are you talking about? Any time, and I do mean ANY TIME a man is having sex with a woman of child-bearing age, there is always a chance that a pregnancy will be the outcome. All birth control measures except maybe the one that is a long-term shot, have failure rates.
I always think anytime two people have sex they should think "would I want this man to be the father of my child?" and vice-versa. It happens.
It's still the woman's body so it should only be her choice that matters. With that said, if she decides to have the baby against the wishes of the father, then the father has ASBOLUTELY no obligation to provide support whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Packard fan
Agreed and I'm def a dude.
Tho DON'T expect a man to pay child support if a woman gets pregnant unless they're married.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching
I look at it this way, it takes 2 to have that child made. if people only want the woman to be able to make the choice, then if the man does not want to pay child support, they should not be made to. also if the man doesnt pay child support, they get no access to the child at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
I kind of agree with that, under certain conditions. If two people have an unintended pregnancy from a mutually agreed encounter (not rape or incest), and the man does not want a child and the woman does not want to have an abortion, I don't see why he should have to pay child support. I'm assuming that they had unprotected sex with full knowledge of that. And I'm not talking about a married couple, in which there are mutual obligations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
A say? Freedom of speech is there for everyone.
A legal right to stop one? Not so much.
I do think that since this is the case, if a man wants nothing to do with a child, and its the womans "choice", that he shouldn't be forced to pay for that child he wants nothing to do with it. If a woman has the right to abort, with no one elses say, then its only fair to let a man walk away at the beginning with no ties.
If the mother cannot support the child on her own, why should the man who fathered the child get off scott free, while putting the burden on the taxpayer?
Im talking about choice. Whether intercourse results in a pregnancy is entirely up to the women.
Its her body
right?
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.
