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.
I agree with the OP as well.
Here's my solutions:
1. Make contraceptives over the counter items just like multivitamins and make them free, so no female has an excuse of not using them if they don't want kids.
2. Keep abortion legal. It's better to abort a unwanted kid than have an unwanted kid
3. Give the male a right to a financial abortion just like the female has the right to a physical abortion
Good to read this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimuelojones
That is incorrect. No one requires the male to classify as the "Father" untill the birth of the child. There is no responsibility required of the male...unless he chooses that responsiblility, at conception.
His responsibilities begin at the birth of the child as it has for eons. What rights does he need before that?
~He can be classified as the father, while the child is in the womb and forced to pay child support as soon as he pops out.
~Let's say John and Sue are married. Throughout their marriage, they have two children. John decides to get a vasectomy. A few years later, Sue has an affair and is impregnated by her lover, Chris. She tells her husband the news and he says, "It can't be mine because I had a vasectomy a few years ago." She admits to an affair and John files for divorce. Like in most cases, Sue will have custody of the children and John will pay child support. Unfortunately, John is paying child support for the illegitimate child, too.
He needs rights prior to the child's birth in order for the female to know that he is or isn't willing to participate in this child's life. If I were told that the father of my child didn't want to be apart of the child's life during the pregnancy, I would consider an abortion or adoption.
You are thinking at the point of birth, the anti-choice comes from the moment a woman is pregnant and should have the choice to decide whether she wants to keep the fetus or not. People against abortions are anti-choice for that reason.
Nope. When you're against one thing, you're against that thing. As I said, this is like calling someone who doesn't eat red meat a vegetarian. There are choices besides abortion.
I don't know why but I'm just against one person killing another person just because they're small, helpless and inconvenient. Once pregnant, the options are keep the baby or adoption. The baby has a life of its own that should not be owned by the mother. Pregnancy is a temporary condition. One only need wait and the intruder will vacate the premesis on their own.
The solution to mens reproductive rights is for men to have themselves steralized. They can bank sperm that would only be used for the purpose of producing a child. Problem solved.
Although I am against abortion, I think if we must have abortion then, at the very least, the father should have the choice not to financially support the child before it is born. I think that would be fair.
I'm a female in favor of men's reproductive rights.
Women have all the rights to the pregnancy and baby and no responsibility for getting pregnant. When a woman chooses to have sex, she has several things that she can use before sex, during sex, after sex, and once she is pregnant in order to avoid becoming a parent. When a man chooses to have sex, his options are limited. Within the next 20 years, I would like to see men receive reproductive rights.
In many cases, when the two have sex, they are having sex for pleasure not to reproduce. *These are the situations I'm talking about.*
A typical response to this is, “If you’re not prepared to be a father, then don’t have sex!â€, which I find rather strange because it's rare to hear, “If you’re not prepared to be a mother, then don’t have sex!â€. But then again, if she isn't financially prepared, the good 'ol government will help her out by forcing the father to pay child support or give her money.
He should've worn a condom
She could've made him wear a condom. *Again, I'm referring to situations where both parties had no intentions of reproducing.
"When a female determines she is pregnant, she has the freedom to decide if she has the maturity level to undertake the responsibilities of motherhood, if she is financially able to support a child, if she is at a place in her career to take the time to have a child, or if she has other concerns precluding her from carrying the child to term. After weighing her options, the female may choose abortion. Once she aborts the fetus, the female's interests in and obligations to the child are terminated. In stark contrast, the unwed father has no options. His responsibilities to the child begin at conception and can only be terminated with the female's decision to abort the fetus or with the mother's decision to give the child up for adoption. Thus, he must rely on the decisions of the female to determine his future. The putative father does not have the luxury, after the fact of conception, to decide that he is not ready for fatherhood. Unlike the female, he has no escape route." -Melanie McCulley, Attorney in South Carolina
Wrong; he does have an option. The ol' snippety-snip.
This has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum. You will be labeled a woman hater and a sexist.
I don't believe abortion should be illegal. I also don't believe men should have the right to a "financial abortion" if only because of the problems it could cause. I DO believe something should be done to make it more fair, I just don't know what.
What really gets to me is that it is argued that, if artificial wombs ever allow viability outside the womb at any point in pregnancy, women should still have the right to a traditional abortion and even then the man should have zero say. Conclusion = this isn't really about bodily autonomy to some
If we truly got to a point where an embryo could safely be taken out of a woman's body, and the father decided he wanted to raise that child, a man should have that right.
In current reality, biology is a factor in pregnancy, it's not equal and will never be equal. Women have the right to an abortion under the right to privacy. Their bodies are protected, they may have this procedure if they wish (even that is not 100%, there are many limitations on their right to privacy, such as time frames, and these lmitations are only growing). Men also have the right to privacy and may have any legal medical procedure they wish. If men could get pregnant they would have the same right to an abortion.
There are people who claim men should have the right to a "financial abortion" because they are being discriminated against since women can chose to terminate a pregnancy, and they can't. The claim this would make it "equal." Again abortion is legal under the right to privacy, a medical procedure women have a right to as owners of their own bodies. In no way is severing legal ties, and financial responsibilities to a child equal to making the decision to not bear a child at all, abortion is 100% final, and while generally safe it is still a medical procedure that can in very rare cases be painful, dangerous, lead to infertility, and even death. For many women it has severe emotional consequences.
A "financial abortion" carries no such risks. The child will still be out there, just with someone else taking care of it. There is nothing to prevent the man from changing his mind and finding the child in an effort to start a relationship, or simply observe from a distance. Sure, one could call the cops, and send the man to jail, or some other punishment for violating the contract, but there are ways around this. After the child turns 18 there would be no way of preventing contact. The man would get out of all the obligations of raising a child, someone else would take care of everything for them, but that child would still be there, he can find the child at any time. This does not create any kind of equality, not physically, or emotionally. It simply gives men an out if they don't feel like paying for their child. Pregnancy and childbirth are not equal and never will be. Pregnancy, and childbirth also carries many consequences, and risks that men never have to bear. It's not fair, but it's reality.
Allowing such an arrangement could devastate society. As a society most believe that each parent must share in the responsibility for their born children, this is an international standard. The taxpayers would end up supporting many of these children. The children will likely find out at some point that their father denied them, this will create a lot of pain. The reality is that in many cases it is the men pushing for an abortion, and many men would happily make this choice to bear no financial responsibility. If there weren't we wouldn't need child support laws. There are many men who would view this as a license to have much sex as they like with no consequences. The number of women they could get impregnate is virtually limitless. That's not a country I would like to live in.
Our biology is a large part of our reality. In most cases this gives men an advantage, they are generally stronger, and larger, this makes them better able to do some jobs. It gives those without moral the ability to hurt women, women are almost always more vulnerable to crime. Men never have to have periods or get pregnant. In most cases men have the biological advantage. In this case they don't, the biology of pregnancy and the nature of abortion give women the right to have one, and men can't. It isn't fair, but it's life. Nothing about pregnancy and childbirth is fair, or equal. Usually this is in the men's favor, in abortion it isn't. There is no way to make it equal, men and women each have their own set of right's and responsibilities that they have to bear.
Nope. When you're against one thing, you're against that thing. As I said, this is like calling someone who doesn't eat red meat a vegetarian. There are choices besides abortion.
I don't know why but I'm just against one person killing another person just because they're small, helpless and inconvenient. Once pregnant, the options are keep the baby or adoption. The baby has a life of its own that should not be owned by the mother. Pregnancy is a temporary condition. One only need wait and the intruder will vacate the premesis on their own.
So you assume that a woman magically has a full grown baby in her the moment she is pregnant.
So what choices does a woman have if she gets pregnant and doesn't want to be pregnant? Your choice seems to be "tough luck." Therefore a woman assumes all of the risk of pregnancy and the man assumes none of it.
It is my understanding pregnancy tends to occur after a man and women engage in unprotected sex. If a man chooses to not risk becoming a sperm donor, he can abstain, get fixed or use a condom. In other words a man is in complete control of his own reproduction.
If we truly got to a point where an embryo could safely be taken out of a woman's body, and the father decided he wanted to raise that child, a man should have that right.
In current reality, biology is a factor in pregnancy, it's not equal and will never be equal. Women have the right to an abortion under the right to privacy. Their bodies are protected, they may have this procedure if they wish (even that is not 100%, there are many limitations on their right to privacy, such as time frames, and these lmitations are only growing). Men also have the right to privacy and may have any legal medical procedure they wish. If men could get pregnant they would have the same right to an abortion.
There are people who claim men should have the right to a "financial abortion" because they are being discriminated against since women can chose to terminate a pregnancy, and they can't. The claim this would make it "equal." Again abortion is legal under the right to privacy, a medical procedure women have a right to as owners of their own bodies. In no way is severing legal ties, and financial responsibilities to a child equal to making the decision to not bear a child at all, abortion is 100% final, and while generally safe it is still a medical procedure that can in very rare cases be painful, dangerous, lead to infertility, and even death. For many women it has severe emotional consequences.
A "financial abortion" carries no such risks. The child will still be out there, just with someone else taking care of it. There is nothing to prevent the man from changing his mind and finding the child in an effort to start a relationship, or simply observe from a distance. Sure, one could call the cops, and send the man to jail, or some other punishment for violating the contract, but there are ways around this. After the child turns 18 there would be no way of preventing contact. The man would get out of all the obligations of raising a child, someone else would take care of everything for them, but that child would still be there, he can find the child at any time. This does not create any kind of equality, not physically, or emotionally. It simply gives men an out if they don't feel like paying for their child. Pregnancy and childbirth are not equal and never will be. Pregnancy, and childbirth also carries many consequences, and risks that men never have to bear. It's not fair, but it's reality.
Allowing such an arrangement could devastate society. As a society most believe that each parent must share in the responsibility for their born children, this is an international standard. The taxpayers would end up supporting many of these children. The children will likely find out at some point that their father denied them, this will create a lot of pain. The reality is that in many cases it is the men pushing for an abortion, and many men would happily make this choice to bear no financial responsibility. If there weren't we wouldn't need child support laws. There are many men who would view this as a license to have much sex as they like with no consequences. The number of women they could get impregnate is virtually limitless. That's not a country I would like to live in.
Our biology is a large part of our reality. In most cases this gives men an advantage, they are generally stronger, and larger, this makes them better able to do some jobs. It gives those without moral the ability to hurt women, women are almost always more vulnerable to crime. Men never have to have periods or get pregnant. In most cases men have the biological advantage. In this case they don't, the biology of pregnancy and the nature of abortion give women the right to have one, and men can't. It isn't fair, but it's life. Nothing about pregnancy and childbirth is fair, or equal. Usually this is in the men's favor, in abortion it isn't. There is no way to make it equal, men and women each have their own set of right's and responsibilities that they have to bear.
In my post I clearly stated that I am against the right to financial abortion.
I agree with you that it can't be made "fair." I think it should be made more fair in some way, but I don't really know how.
It is my understanding pregnancy tends to occur after a man and women engage in unprotected sex. If a man chooses to not risk becoming a sperm donor, he can abstain, get fixed or use a condom. In other words a man is in complete control of his own reproduction.
Women have similar options as well though. Other than abstinence neither a woman's options nor a man's are 100% effective. If they were I doubt so many people would be pro-choice.
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.
Good to read this.
