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.
"abortion rights" for a man? that simply means the man doesn't want to have a baby, be a father with all that entails. we both agreed men can not get pregnant so it boils down to, the man not wanting to be a father nor support their child when a woman gives birth against their wishes.
Correct, which is precisely the same process that women follow, about not wanting to get pregnant, be pregnant or support their child, and chosing elective abortion. The can't be forced to give birth against their wishes, nor should they be. So why is it acceptable for a man to be forced into a position that women are not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hothulamaui
you cannot legislate morality or intimate sexual relationships. men and women bs all the time. men have a choice, they can use birth control (which most of the time they don't and leave it up to the woman) men need to be more discerning in who they sleep with. end of story, same thing for a woman.
I'm not asking to legislate morality, please try to stay on topic. Because I think you're getting very confused. Men have a choice, women have a choice, let's not even get into the argument about birth control because if someone becomes pregnant through negligence or failure it doesn't really matter whether it was negligent or a failure, either both were negligent or both experienced a failure.
Reproductive sex (that can result in a pregnancy) requires one woman, and one or more men, at worst case from unwanted pregnancies the level of discernment can only show that women are at most as discerning as men, and if we dug into it, then we may find they're less discerning, say for instance a woman gets pregnant in a 3M 1F group event, the men are only selecting one partner the woman 3 at the same time, no this isn't a common occurrence, but it is impossible for all men to produce more pregnancies than all women. Let me present an example. Suppose you have 100 men and 100 women, they're confined to a building for 10 months. At the end of 10 months there are 100 births, what is the level of discernment of the different sexes? Well it depends, one man could be the father of 100 children this means that 99 of the men determined not to have sex with any of those women. However we know all of those women had sex with at least one man. So in that case at best the women are as discerning as men (they all paired up 1:1) but at worst women chose 1% of the men, but 99% of the men chose 0% of the women, as a ratio the former is equal levels of discernment, in the latter 99% of men have infinitely greater discernment than the women, and one has 1/100th of the discernment.
A man may be less discerning than women, but men as a collective from pregnancy data (wanted or not) cannot be shown to be, as that collective, less discerning. Men do not get pregnant, thus we only have data on women who we know had one or more partner and speculation on men, because we have no means other than personal histories related by a group, that may see sexual prowess as a sign status, what their number of sexual partners are. It's well known that self reported numbers sexual partners are increased by men, and/or decreased by women, the numbers don't add up and there have been many studies researching the cause of this discrepancy. It's a significant issue in public health scenario's involving transmission of diseases, because the numbers do not tie up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hothulamaui
once the child is born, ne it against your will or not you should support your child. it's really very simple. you don't need a panel of experts to examine the he said, she said of a one night stand or a relationship that goes south after a how ever long.
But for that child to be born there was a choice made by someone who was not the father such that the father should be financially responsible.
Look it's simple.
Women have a choice to become mothers independently.
Men should have that same choice, and not be required to support a woman's decision to have a child that the father does not want.
Is it moral, no, but neither is the choice for the prospective mother to no longer be a prospective mother, it's just less immoral than forcing someone to give birth to a child they do not want. Also I'd add that she would be making that choice in full knowledge of her responsibilities. People have sex for many reasons, only one of those reasons is pregnancy, in every other case neither party goes in with the intention of pregnancy. One is in control of their future if the unintended occurs, the other is not.
But for that child to be born there was a choice made by someone who was not the father such that the father should be financially responsible.
Look it's simple.
Women have a choice to become mothers independently.
Men should have that same choice, and not be required to support a woman's decision to have a child that the father does not want.
You put forth interesting scenarios, but can you clarify the above. Are you saying that a man who 'fathers' a child is NOT a father? I do believe that makes him the biological father. As such, he would have responsibility (like it or not) to help support the child.
It matters not that someone else (the mother) made the choice to have that baby and that the father had no say in that choice.
That's the risk and responsibility the man assumes when he decides to sow his oats willy-nilly. Want to play? you may well have to pay.
OK, you're a guy with a gal. Mistakenly you impregnate her. She decides she's going to abort the child. You say no. But you have no right to that child no matter how you want it. She has the abortion. Case closed.
Well, new scenario.
You're a guy and a gal. Mistakenly you impregnate her. She wants to keep the child, you don't. She's going to have it no matter what you want and you are forced to an obligation of 18 years to support this child at the minimum - monetarily.
What if you could abort the child legally? She still gets to have the child, only you are now legally disconnected from the obligation. This would come at a price of no rights of visitation also.
So what's wrong with it?
MISTAKENLY you impregnate her?
You mean . . . the guy fell on top of her and his penis accidentally lined up perfectly with her vagina, and then a mighty gust of wind propelled his penis to penetrate her vagina, and he was too physically weak to pull himself out (but strong enough to move in and out a little)?
The poor poor dear.
TRANSLATION: My body is unaffected except for the memory of orgasmic bliss, but her body absorbs the consequences of my "mistake", uh I mean ejaculation, and since I can't get in a time machine and take my sperm back, which victimizes me, I should decide what medical procedures are/are not performed on her body regardless of her health or emotions, or her right to make decisions about her own body and life.
The fact that being female means taking 100% of the health risks of reproducing human beings is her problem and not mine, uh even though I am human and got here via a female taking on that risk. I am safe from experiencing the physical risk and reality of biological reproduction, yet want to control it solely to my own benefit.
Just do what my son's bio dad did....act thrilled for most of pregnancy then vanish for 25 years. Deny the child, lie to everyone & never send a dime. Problem solved.
He's a real estate agent in FL...if you see him tell 'em we said hi!
You put forth interesting scenarios, but can you clarify the above. Are you saying that a man who 'fathers' a child is NOT a father? I do believe that makes him the biological father. As such, he would have responsibility (like it or not) to help support the child.
However the "biological" mother has a choice to become an actual mother or not, the "biological" father has no choice, he will become in law the father. I'm arguing the father should be given an option to cede responsibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound
It matters not that someone else (the mother) made the choice to have that baby and that the father had no say in that choice.
It totally matters, suppose you go to a car dealership with a friend, your friend looks around, a few days later they inform you that they bought a car, one that they can't really afford, 9 months later you get a bill from a finance company demanding money for the car payment, that you never agreed to and are financially liable for because you were at the same dealership at the same time as your friend.
That's the situation that men are placed in as far as their options as a father, either don't go to a car dealership with a friend, or take the risk of paying for the car that the other person bought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound
That's the risk and responsibility the man assumes when he decides to sow his oats willy-nilly. Want to play? you may well have to pay.
Well then woman should assume the same responsibility, or the men's responsibility should be adjusted to permit them the same choice. Men having sex with women "willy-nilly" demands that women are doing the same, it's hard to have sex with someone or some group that does not exist. If men are going around having multiple one night stands a week, then clearly women are going around having multiple one night stands a week. Or the men doing this are not having sex with women, and the whole pre-requisite of the argument is void (two same sex partners cannot reproduce).
Let's not beat around the bush about abortion, in 99% of cases people have elective abortion for unwanted pregnancy because of convenience, now I know that may sound cruel, but it's because at that time in that place, maybe with that person the actual pregnancy is inconvenient, it affects career options, life options, limits choices, etc. which ultimately resolves to the abstraction of inconvenient. The birth of a child at that time is inconvenient, and that to me is sufficient reason to permit it to happen. So we permit women to dodge an obligation men are required to deal with, because it's a convenience. How is that equality? No charges leveled at men who end up in the situation can with any rational logic not be leveled at women, birth control is a mutual responsibility, selection of partners is a mutual responsibility. Men are not being any more frivolous in their sexual habits than women in regards to unwanted pregnancy. Methods exist for contraception, both parties have the ability to use them, both parties are present, both parties by law have to be mentally competent to provide consent (using a roofie on someone is rape, not consensual sex). However at the time of conception one sex has options, the other has zero options, and are entirely dependent on the option selected by the other party.
Here's the thing, if women are equal, they need to accept both their responsibilities and obligations, those responsibilities and obligations are no more and no less than men. This means in all areas women share the same responsibilities and obligations as men, or it's not equality, and will never be accepted as true equality while those responsibilities and obligations exist, because it gives people the opportunity to point and say, look you expect more of sex A than sex B, you expect sex A to be more responsible when performing Z action than sex B, and that can only lead to at best people intellectually accepting that A and B are equal, but not intuitively accept that A and B are equal, because they're not equal.
Now I'm just saying that by permitting men to file a statement that they are ceding all rights and responsibilities for that child (regardless of genetics) within a pretty narrow window is the right thing to do. It proves benefits for women, who will have the opportunity to know for sure whether or not the person is prepared to take responsibility before they make a serious decision to continue an unwanted pregnancy to term. That doesn't mean people who don't choose to file that statement are going to be responsible, however it eliminates everyone who did file a statement from the irresponsible father pile, because both parties know up front. If she continues pregnancy knowing that the genetic male parent has filed that statement then she knows her responsibilities, and knows that the if they didn't whoever is left is either completely stupid or going to make a best effort to live up to the responsibilities they consented to.
It totally matters, suppose you go to a car dealership with a friend, your friend looks around, a few days later they inform you that they bought a car, one that they can't really afford, 9 months later you get a bill from a finance company demanding money for the car payment, that you never agreed to and are financially liable for because you were at the same dealership at the same time as your friend.
That's the situation that men are placed in as far as their options as a father, either don't go to a car dealership with a friend, or take the risk of paying for the car that the other person bought.
That's a false equivalent.
There is no precedent in society that merely going to a car dealership with a friend makes you financially liable if they can't afford a car they buy. You were a bystander.
There is historical precedent in society that joining your body in sex with a female creates liability for the results. You already knew the expectation, so there is no surprise. The child has both your genes because you were an active participant; not merely a bystander.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Let's not beat around the bush about abortion, in 99% of cases people have elective abortion for unwanted pregnancy because of convenience, now I know that may sound cruel, but it's because at that time in that place, maybe with that person the actual pregnancy is inconvenient, it affects career options, life options, limits choices, etc. which ultimately resolves to the abstraction of inconvenient. The birth of a child at that time is inconvenient, and that to me is sufficient reason to permit it to happen. So we permit women to dodge an obligation men are required to deal with, because it's a convenience. How is that equality? No charges leveled at men who end up in the situation can with any rational logic not be leveled at women, birth control is a mutual responsibility, selection of partners is a mutual responsibility. Men are not being any more frivolous in their sexual habits than women in regards to unwanted pregnancy. Methods exist for contraception, both parties have the ability to use them, both parties are present, both parties by law have to be mentally competent to provide consent (using a roofie on someone is rape, not consensual sex). However at the time of conception one sex has options, the other has zero options, and are entirely dependent on the option selected by the other party.
Men have always dodged most of the effects of human reproduction, while women have always had the lion's share. Women take on the physical risk and pain of pregnancy and birth. Ever read a list of possible complications? Women take on most of the care of the baby and subsequent child rearing. Nowadays, the majority of women have taken on a provider role by working outside the home too.
This is why women are permitted to dodge the obligation!
Expecting a man to pay child support is only a fraction of what she will go through, and if she is a single mother, she will most certainly be financially supporting the child right along with you. Your life is still easier than hers!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Here's the thing, if women are equal, they need to accept both their responsibilities and obligations, those responsibilities and obligations are no more and no less than men. This means in all areas women share the same responsibilities and obligations as men, or it's not equality, and will never be accepted as true equality while those responsibilities and obligations exist, because it gives people the opportunity to point and say, look you expect more of sex A than sex B, you expect sex A to be more responsible when performing Z action than sex B, and that can only lead to at best people intellectually accepting that A and B are equal, but not intuitively accept that A and B are equal, because they're not equal.
Okay. Just as soon as men begin assuming the risk of pregnancy and birth, and spending as much time taking care of babies and children as women do, we can talk.
Actually if you want women to share identically the exact same responsibilities as men, women will need to start hiring surrogates to birth their babies and spend less time caring for them. Most women are already working, so I guess we've got that covered to your satisfaction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Now I'm just saying that by permitting men to file a statement that they are ceding all rights and responsibilities for that child (regardless of genetics) within a pretty narrow window is the right thing to do. It proves benefits for women, who will have the opportunity to know for sure whether or not the person is prepared to take responsibility before they make a serious decision to continue an unwanted pregnancy to term. That doesn't mean people who don't choose to file that statement are going to be responsible, however it eliminates everyone who did file a statement from the irresponsible father pile, because both parties know up front. If she continues pregnancy knowing that the genetic male parent has filed that statement then she knows her responsibilities, and knows that the if they didn't whoever is left is either completely stupid or going to make a best effort to live up to the responsibilities they consented to.
Wait. Do these men file legal statements ceding all rights and responsibilities to the child BEFORE or AFTER having sex with the woman?
If you really want to be fair, men would file these legal statement BEFOREHAND and they would be a matter of PUBLIC RECORD and EASY TO LOOK UP. Then a woman considering who she wants to date, will have a fair chance to avoid those men like the plague.
Of course, the men who file those statements will be having a lot less sex, since most women will avoid them.
Correct, which is precisely the same process that women follow, about not wanting to get pregnant, be pregnant or support their child, and chosing elective abortion. The can't be forced to give birth against their wishes, nor should they be. So why is it acceptable for a man to be forced into a position that women are not.
I'm not asking to legislate morality, please try to stay on topic. Because I think you're getting very confused. Men have a choice, women have a choice, let's not even get into the argument about birth control because if someone becomes pregnant through negligence or failure it doesn't really matter whether it was negligent or a failure, either both were negligent or both experienced a failure.
Reproductive sex (that can result in a pregnancy) requires one woman, and one or more men, at worst case from unwanted pregnancies the level of discernment can only show that women are at most as discerning as men, and if we dug into it, then we may find they're less discerning, say for instance a woman gets pregnant in a 3M 1F group event, the men are only selecting one partner the woman 3 at the same time, no this isn't a common occurrence, but it is impossible for all men to produce more pregnancies than all women. Let me present an example. Suppose you have 100 men and 100 women, they're confined to a building for 10 months. At the end of 10 months there are 100 births, what is the level of discernment of the different sexes? Well it depends, one man could be the father of 100 children this means that 99 of the men determined not to have sex with any of those women. However we know all of those women had sex with at least one man. So in that case at best the women are as discerning as men (they all paired up 1:1) but at worst women chose 1% of the men, but 99% of the men chose 0% of the women, as a ratio the former is equal levels of discernment, in the latter 99% of men have infinitely greater discernment than the women, and one has 1/100th of the discernment.
A man may be less discerning than women, but men as a collective from pregnancy data (wanted or not) cannot be shown to be, as that collective, less discerning. Men do not get pregnant, thus we only have data on women who we know had one or more partner and speculation on men, because we have no means other than personal histories related by a group, that may see sexual prowess as a sign status, what their number of sexual partners are. It's well known that self reported numbers sexual partners are increased by men, and/or decreased by women, the numbers don't add up and there have been many studies researching the cause of this discrepancy. It's a significant issue in public health scenario's involving transmission of diseases, because the numbers do not tie up.
But for that child to be born there was a choice made by someone who was not the father such that the father should be financially responsible.
Look it's simple.
Women have a choice to become mothers independently.
Men should have that same choice, and not be required to support a woman's decision to have a child that the father does not want.
Is it moral, no, but neither is the choice for the prospective mother to no longer be a prospective mother, it's just less immoral than forcing someone to give birth to a child they do not want. Also I'd add that she would be making that choice in full knowledge of her responsibilities. People have sex for many reasons, only one of those reasons is pregnancy, in every other case neither party goes in with the intention of pregnancy. One is in control of their future if the unintended occurs, the other is not.
so a post a go I need to put my book down written, btw by an author I have never read. now I am confused because I disagree with you ad then told to stay on topic. we have differing opinions is all. a car purchase is not pregnancy...wanna stay on topic?
the only problem you have is not abortion rights it's not wanting to be a father after the fact. you don't have any problem if you wanted the pregnancy with the "amount of time" women have. btw the amount of time is called gestation.
yes, you are in control the same as a woman. make sure you are diligent with your own birth control.
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...
That makes no sense given the guy isn't spending 50% of his TIME raising it.
Child support is a "punishment" for the father? That may be how YOU view it, but it's not designed to be that. Sorry. It IS for the benefit of the child whether you like how it has been administered or not.
Yes in some cases that appears to be true when the mother keeps on asking for an increase until the man can't afford the payments. One man in Toronto only has $520 to live on. After paying for taxes, child support and alimony.
Women can use it as a weapon and so can men if they are getting child support payments.
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.
we have differing opinions is all. a car purchase is not pregnancy...wanna stay on topic? 
That may be how YOU view it, but it's not designed to be that. Sorry. It IS for the benefit of the child whether you like how it has been administered or not.
