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.
Pro-choicers almost always argue women not having sex is not an option.
While I can't speak to your intelligence or your comprehension of any statements made in other conversations, I can clear up any misconceptions you may have and state that, yes, not having sex IS an option, for both men and women. People make that very decision every single day across the world.
What I can't comprehend, is some man trying to conflate the decision to have sex, and ALL the consequences that may come of that, to some sick, twisted belief that he has the right to control a woman's biological autonomy. It doesn't. Here's a newsflash for you. At that moment when you're with a woman...you know...intimately--that is your time for you to be 100% in the decision making process; know that 9 months in the future, you may be required to pay up to, but most assuredly less than, 1/2 of the cash support that it takes to raise that child to the age of 18.
That's it. That is the last moment where you have a right to be in the decision. Nothing more. Nothing less. Nothing else.
While I can't speak to your intelligence or your comprehension of any statements made in other conversations, I can clear up any misconceptions you may have and state that, yes, not having sex IS an option, for both men and women. People make that very decision every single day across the world.
What I can't comprehend, is some man trying to conflate the decision to have sex, and ALL the consequences that may come of that, to some sick, twisted belief that he has the right to control a woman's biological autonomy. It doesn't. Here's a newsflash for you. At that moment when you're with a woman...you know...intimately--that is your time for you to be 100% in the decision making process; know that 9 months in the future, you may be required to pay up to, but most assuredly less than, 1/2 of the cash support that it takes to raise that child to the age of 18.
That's it. That is the last moment where you have a right to be in the decision. Nothing more. Nothing less. Nothing else.
You assume I'm a man because women just couldn't defend men I suppose even though at least one did in this thread and I haven't read all responses (nevertheless, I am a man).
More double standards here:
Sometimes fathers get custody and mothers don't pay even the relatively small amount of support they owe, an example of which was given in this thread.
Moreover, you say that men need to bear all consequences of sex, but women should not?
I have a question. Why in the world should men be pro-choice when some pro-choicers have such a low view of men?
Remember...women can control their bodily autonomy by not having sex too. Note: I do not think abortion should be illegal. But why should I care?
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 12-18-2014 at 03:48 AM..
Please, the odds of you dying in child birth are extremely low. (Approx 18.8 in 100,000) (although as a side note they are at a quarter century high and no one knows why). Trying to bring it into the argument is deceptive. On the other hand, the toll taken is very much more relevant.
In the end though child support is immensely expensive. As a side note I am currently owed around 25K or so in child support. Anyways...The womans sacrifice is greater? Bwahahaha. Sorry but no. Yeah those 9 months suck....but that passes. 18 years of 25% of your income is a lot worse.
Sorry if I'm responding to your post, my intent is not to single you out as I've read this from MANY posters, I just use it as an example, nothing personal.
I don't understand why, from both sides of the debate, people tend to compare only the 9 months of pregnancy to child support for 18 years.
If child support is needed, doesn't it mean that the mother is a single parent? A LOT of issues other than money interfere and are to be considered in that case : career limitation, everyday juggling with schedules for 18 years, 100% of housework and other chores, no emotional support or sharing with someone who is directly concerned with whatever decision you might have to make, zero "physical" support which means tremendous lack of sleep and having to keep on going 100% even if you're sick for example, sacrifice of personal life for quite many years, etc, etc.
It is a decision that has MANY MANY more consequences than money brought by child support.
So I think that comparison is totally not adapted.
Were I to be a single parent tomorrow, of course I'd think of budget but it doesn't seem the most difficult actually when you think about it (even if it still is an issue, I'm not at all advocating no child support) and all the above mentionned parameters would weigh much more in any decision I might make. Maybe they are difficult to calculate in pure terms of costs but it'd be interesting to do.
So no I won't cry if a man who I had unprotected sex with as in we did that together, participates financially to the raising of what some here call the "consequences".
However, if I decided towards termination of pregnancy, unless one finds a way to incubate the fetus out of my body and my partner wants to do all of the above by himself, I'm the only one who can decide. I would LOVE a shared decision and would certainly weigh in my partner's wish but ultimately, I am the one to decide.
Not 100% fair? Right but then it's life. Were I to have to get in a physical fistfight with a man who attacked me, I'd probably lose. Is that fair? no it's not. As for abortion, any other way than what is done in the occidental way would be less fair.
Are these GOPers simply masochists who are deliberately trying to lose elections or just dumb? Is this a Missouri thing? Didn't the same line of BS hand an election to Claire McCaskill in MO? Too bizarre.
What liberals always seem to forget is that Todd Akin was ostracized from the GOP. He was urged by everyone from the RNC chair to Mitt Romney to drop out, but he refused. This latest idiot will meet the same fate.
What liberals always seem to forget is that Todd Akin was ostracized from the GOP. He was urged by everyone from the RNC chair to Mitt Romney to drop out, but he refused. This latest idiot will meet the same fate.
Of course, if men could get pregnant, abortion would be legal, safe, and probably covered 100% by insurance.
What the hell are you talking about? Abortion is legal, (relatively) safe, and covered by insurance when medically necessary. What could you hope to gain by suggesting otherwise?
And if they have a say, then they should agree to have their wages garnished for the next 18 years for child support. But even that isn't any assurance. I knew a guy who worked jobs where he got paid under the table so there were never any wages to garnish precisely for that reason.
In most cases the father does pay child support. When I divorced in 1998 I paid $1409 a month for 2 children. At the time that left me $989.00 a month to live on. I would say that most dads pay up, and pay well. If you have even a semi-descent job you will pay through the nose. I have no regrets paying child support, I regret that there is no system in place that makes sure the money is actually spent on your children.
Back on topic.
A woman owns her own body and should have the choice between carrying the child to term or aborting the child. Her life, and most certainly none of my business. That said, a father is expected to pay child support if she carries the child to term. He should have at least some voice in it. If he wants the baby aborted and the mother doesn't then she should own full responsibility and the father walks away free and clear. As it stands the father has no rights in regard to the child's fate, but has one hell of a bill if the mother elects to keep the child. Word to the wise to all those men out there, wear a rain coat and don't trust in your partner's birth control. Be a little proactive and save yourself a whole lot of grief.
"A Republican lawmaker in Missouri is introducing a bill that will require women to receive consent from the man who impregnated them before getting an abortion, Mother Jones‘s Molly Redden reports.
State Representative Rick Brattin filed the bill, which states that “[n]o abortion shall be performed or induced unless and until the father of the unborn child provides written, notarized consent to the abortion.”
This is how Republicans view women--as wayward children who cannot be allowed to make decisions regarding their own bodies or lives. No, they must get permission from their menfolk, who will then decide what's best for them.
Can the GOP possibly be any more degrading towards women? I probably shouldn't ask--I'm sure they'll find a way.
Of course this bill will go nowhere, but it does address a fundamental unfairness against fathers, who have no choice but to accept what the woman decides. If he wants the baby and she doesn't, too bad. If he doesn't and she does, too bad --and he has to support mom and baby for eighteen years. In a more just situation, the responsibility would rest solely with the person with the final say.
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.
