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.
Men do not have to suffer the ordeal of pregnancy.
What should we do to men to equalize the suffering? Hmmm?
If we are going to make everything even-Steven, then we must do something to make men suffer the same as women do, right? Perhaps implant some sort of torture device in men for the duration of the woman's pregnancy. Something that can duplicate the discomfort and pain involved during every stage of pregnancy. Of course, that would include the pain of giving birth......then we turn the dial up to MAXIMUM PAIN! Sounds good to me! {Oh and, if the woman dies during childbirth, the man is going to have to die too.} After all, we have to keep this FAIR.
Women have to suffer the risks and pain of pregnancy so they get to make the abortion decision.....that is fair.
After the child is born, both parents are equally responsible for the welfare of the child......that is fair. The non-custodial parent, man or woman, pays the custodial parent, man or woman, child support.
The first is that at the point of contention there is no child, or responsibility for a child. This solely applies to a circumstance where there is an unwanted pregnancy of one or both parties. So your initial comment is inaccurate at best, and inflammatory at worst. Inflammatory for the same reason that abortion is claimed to be child murder, well prior to brain development it's no more a child than any tumor is.
The sole reason for my belief that men should have this option is to level the playing field. If the playing field were leveled in another way, it's still level. Personally I'd disagree with it being leveled so that elective abortion is prohibited, but it is still level. The issue is that termination has permitted an inequality to develop, in conjunction with child protection laws. On one hand women have the right to choose not to bear responsibility for children they mother, unless they want to, and on the other men have no such right.
I have a friend, she is a corporate lawyer, married has three kids. When she was going through law school, she had a stupid relationship (not a one night stand) with a guy, and they were not careful enough (which she freely admits to) and she became pregnant. She had an abortion, and she still regrets it (which is how I know because she had a minor meltdown one evening at a drunken barbecue and discussed it with me and my partner at that time, then discussed it again later after she'd sobered up and had the "oh I didn't, did I?" moment). Perhaps she regrets even more because she has a happy life with an awesome job, good husband and three great kids, that would not have even existed had she not had that abortion, and often guilt and good fortune create nasty conflicts.
She's quite upfront that her reasons for the abortion where she did not want to complicate, delay or end her law degree and she wasn't ready for kids, and even though she was having a wild relationship with that guy, she wasn't sure about her or his levels of commitment or it's longevity. All perfectly valid reasons in my opinion, and the outcome was better than she hoped for. That said, if she was a man, she would not have had those same choices, that led to her current situation, while the outcome could have been the same, it would have been without any amount of self determination.
To clarify--she regrets her abortion--not this relationship of hers, correct?
I don't see anything in the OP suggesting that taxpayers pay for anything. The OP just points out the inequity of the fact that a female can choose a legal abortion without the consent/against the wishes of the impregnating male. And on the other side of the coin, can disregard this legal option against the wishes of the impregnating male, and the OP suggests there should be an equal option for the male that would allow him to have the equivalent of a legal "abortion" of parental rights/responsibilities. How does that mean the taxpayer supports the child? LOTS of single moms raise kids without government assistance each and every day.
This concept is sound, and given the desire for "equal rights", should be incorporated into U.S. society. It has NOTHING to do with the biological fact that women have wombs or not. It has nothing to do with who made a good choice or not. It has everything to do with leveling the playing field for the two individuals involved in this situation, and takes life altering power away from one person over another. And it comes at a great price..giving up parental rights is not, and should not be, an easy decision either. That would just be simply another factor the female needs to consider when she's making the decision of what to do with her body, be it who to sleep with, or what to do in the aftermath.
It's really interesting how people claim they want "equality", but want to pick and choose which parts are "equal", and which parts they maintain control of others over.
Thank you for the humor..."child support the benefit of the child"? That's rich right there! It is a punishment for the male, plain and simple. Otherwise, there would be a calculation of what a child costs on a monthly basis, and that would be applied and split 50% regardless of income. And there would be a requirement to account for that money, and how it was spent on the child, to the non-custodial parent.
I do appreciate the laugh though...good way to start the day...
As a stepmother who has a spouse who pays child support, I find this to be absolutely ludicrous. It's not a punishment, it goes towards caring for the child. People who resent child support and having to pay it are people who generally don't want to be responsible for their choices.
As a stepmother who has a spouse who pays child support, I find this to be absolutely ludicrous. It's not a punishment, it goes towards caring for the child. People who resent child support and having to pay it are people who generally don't want to be responsible for their choices.
Since you quoted me, let me expand the part that is "punishment", in my definition. Having been on both ends of the equation, my viewpoint probably is influenced and biased by my experience though..
Anyway, it costs some amount to provide for the necessities of a child: housing, clothes, medical, food, education. This can vary by geographic location, but it should be relatively easy to determine for your area: difference of cost between 1 and 2 bedroom apartment..that is the "cost" of a child's housing (plus some minor amount of utilities to heat and provide light to that room, hot water for bathing) as an example. Same for the other items. Mind you, this should be limited to "basics"...ie, the minimum necessary, not Nike shoes, "dinner" at McDonalds, cell phones/data plans, TV's for Xbox, etc., as none of them are requirements. Once we've determined the basic necessities, a monthly cost can be calculated, let's call that $X.
So, we've got our basic figure, and mom should pay half of $X, and dad should pay the other half, regardless of income. I'm perfectly fine with that, and I do not view that as "punishment". But anything above that 1/2 $X? That's punishment for the person being forced to pay beyond the minimum need. I'm NOT advocating that person not provide extra..but it should be at their discretion, and they should be albe to control what it is spent on, and how it is spent, as it is their money, and the child should know that that person provided it. That way they know that the other spouse is not using it on themselves, which is NOT what child support is for. The current income based model more often than not, far exceeds the basic necessities, and is wasted on an ex spouse using it for personal luxury.
Like I started out with..I've lived both sides of the issue, and have seen this happen with my own two eyes.
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.
{Oh and, if the woman dies during childbirth, the man is going to have to die too.} After all, we have to keep this FAIR.
