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.
Well those poor sperms are being forced in to the womb by the male's evil muscle spasms then, through no fault of their own and those poor eggs should chastise the owner of the body they reside in for accepting the sperm dispenser in to her womb instead of her mouth.
Let's remember our poor reproductive organs are blameless in all this!
Again, what happens to the sperm is the responsibility of the owner of the sperm. If he wants to deposit it in a different location, he should make the appropriate arrangements. If the owner of the mouth in question doesn't want sperm deposited there, he is free to find another mouth, or a sock.
Only if mothers have the same option to walk away and leave the child with the father. Good for the goose good for the gander type deal.
Essentially no. It takes two people to make a child, you don't get a free pass by just having a penis. If it's that unwanted, perhaps abortion is an option.
Mothers do have that option. There's a name for women who abandon or abort their children as well.
Mothers do have that option. There's a name for women who abandon or abort their children as well.
There is no name for women who abandon or abort their child that I know of.
We need to give men a choice, but this has to be done responsibly. The men needs to somehow elect this choice while the woman is still in the early stages of pregnancy so if she's not comfortable with raising a child on her own, she can always opt for an abortion.
Again, what happens to the sperm is the responsibility of the owner of the sperm. If he wants to deposit it in a different location, he should make the appropriate arrangements. If the owner of the mouth in question doesn't want sperm deposited there, he is free to find another mouth, or a sock.
Um, I think somewhere along the line the partners got switched and this turned in to a whole different movie?
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 25 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,220 posts, read 17,102,322 times
Reputation: 15539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantabridgienne
Because biology dictates it. Can you explain the compromise if a woman decides to have an abortion and the man does not want her to?\, or vice versa?
Then in your view biology has dictated it and the woman chooses, fine then the man can choose to not be involved and she can run solo. There is no clear cut answer but what is currently missing is the mans option to not be involved financially or otherwise. The woman's decision places the burden on both and in so many cases the woman only want the money (for the child) but doesn't want the man involved. Court procedures can be lengthy & costly and are not always an option.
Woman has a choice because we give her that right legally. Before Roe v Wade in the USA, a woman did not have that possibility in many states prior to that.
So, to be moral and just people, we need to give man a choice, somehow. Being forced to pay child support for 18 years is quite a price to pay for an accidental pregnancy. It's his life too, he can't get back those 18 years. Stop punishing men because you're unhappy with some man not wanting to stay with you after they have sex with you.
Prior to Roe v. Wade, a woman who wanted an abortion had to have the money &/or connections to go away somewhere for a few months & then return, miraculously child-free.
If we're going to consider being moral and just people, there's more @ stake than whether Johnny & Mary get along. In the larger view, the state has an interest in increasing the number of citizens in the polity. (That's why Roe gradually increases the state's permissible regulation of abortion as the pregnancy progresses.) The rights being balanced are the woman's right to privacy (an abortion, if she wants it), & the state's interest in adding to the population.
Are men being punished by being financially responsible for their children? Is society @ large supposed to care for all the children abandoned by their parents? The majority view in the US seems to be: If you're old enough for sex, you're old enough to understand the responsibilities entailed in having children. If you want the state to pick up after you, you have to change that consensus.
Only if mothers have the same option to walk away and leave the child with the father. Good for the goose good for the gander type deal.
Essentially no. It takes two people to make a child, you don't get a free pass by just having a penis. If it's that unwanted, perhaps abortion is an option.
They do, it's called ADOPTION!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mascoma
Women have the right to get an abortion. Men don't. Even UNDERAGE men who have been raped by women have to pay child support. Raped women can get an abortion.
Any man worried about being saddled with child support after a night of unprotected sex should mind their sperm better. I bet 90 percent of men never use birth control. Men should be a bit more particular with who they sleep with make sure your partner wants same thing your concerns will be few
Your victim mentality is showing.
So its not the womens fault for slipping and falling on a penis that belongs to a deadbeat???
Prior to Roe v. Wade, a woman who wanted an abortion had to have the money &/or connections to go away somewhere for a few months & then return, miraculously child-free.
If we're going to consider being moral and just people, there's more @ stake than whether Johnny & Mary get along. In the larger view, the state has an interest in increasing the number of citizens in the polity. (That's why Roe gradually increases the state's permissible regulation of abortion as the pregnancy progresses.) The rights being balanced are the woman's right to privacy (an abortion, if she wants it), & the state's interest in adding to the population.
Are men being punished by being financially responsible for their children? Is society @ large supposed to care for all the children abandoned by their parents? The majority view in the US seems to be: If you're old enough for sex, you're old enough to understand the responsibilities entailed in having children. If you want the state to pick up after you, you have to change that consensus.
The right for privacy is a rather weird justification for abortion. I always see abortion as a right we extend women so they have full control over their bodies. But men need to have full control as well.
People have sex, and not always do they want a child to result. In the case of women, they can get an abortion. But men don't have such an option and they need to have one, as it's quite an undue burden on them to be forced to pay child support for so long.
You can say: "tough, they shouldn't have had sex then, if they're old enough to have sex they're old enough to bear the consequences." But then, why not say that women and take away their legal right to an abortion?
We give women the right to abortion so they have full domain over their life as much as possible. Men should as well, I think a timely statement of intent not to pay is the moral solution. A woman can always abort if she doesn't like her partner's choice.
Are men being punished by being financially responsible for their children? Is society @ large supposed to care for all the children abandoned by their parents? The majority view in the US seems to be: If you're old enough for sex, you're old enough to understand the responsibilities entailed in having children. If you want the state to pick up after you, you have to change that consensus.
Isn't society also being punished by these selfish women when society has to pick up the tab for feeding and giving other forms of aid to these babies with only one parent?
Only if mothers have the same option to walk away and leave the child with the father. Good for the goose good for the gander type deal.
Essentially no. It takes two people to make a child, you don't get a free pass by just having a penis. If it's that unwanted, perhaps abortion is an option.
It takes 2 people to make a child? That's so odd, I keep getting told that as a man my opinion on abortion has no bearing
Women, of course, have no issue speaking into anything in my life
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.
Once pure as snow?
