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.
Condoms occasionally fail to prevent STD's as well. But one last thing I would say is that one perspective could be
'What is the lesser of 3 evils: 1) a defective male/female condom due to improper storage, 2) contraceptives via pills/patches, or 3) unprotected sex.'
In that scenario, the first two evils is where the confusion lies.
But I understand that there is no foolproof way of pregnancy prevention, which is why I think all parties should have some recourse should those preventative measures fail. There are some instances in which no one is at fault just as there are instances when both parties are at fault. But currently only one party has recourse no matter who is responsible.
I just think that should be more evenly distributed. But I can agree to disagree.
I agree that it can be more evenly distributed, but in the 2nd scenario it involves the woman having to ingest (or absorb) hormones which in turn can lead to greater problems down the line. (Women who use birth control with estrogen have a greater chance of serious problems than nonusers. The most serious may be fatal. These include heart attack, stroke, having a blood clot in the legs, lungs, heart, or brain.)
Two of my friends have 'surprise' children because they used antibiotics while on BCP which reduced the efficacy. BCP and patches are not 100% either, and do not protect against any STDs.
I believe we are on the same side with regard to the 3rd scenario.
Option 1 gives either party more control. If a man is concerned about impregnating a woman, he buys his condoms thus keeping the chain of custody in his control. Store --> Man --> Member. He does not have to fear that the female has tampered with his prophylactic. If the woman is supplying a female condom, and he has concerns about her tampering with it, he can either say no (difficult in the heat of the moment) or he can suggest he use his personally supplied condom.
Each gender in the situation needs to be responsible for itself and should be able to have a decent line of communication. If they can't discuss basic issues -- your condom or mine -- they shouldn't be doing the horizontal bop.
I still am having trouble understanding, and have given up trying to understand why as soon as the decision is made to bring a child into the world, the responsibility befalls both parties. And all of a sudden, the man's financial possessions become shared property of the woman and the child.
However, when the decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy is being made, then everyone goes back to their corners and ultimately the woman becomes the sole decision maker (which she actually should be, biologically) because her property (her body) doesnt become shared property of the husband.
Is not that kind of hypocritical?
Both scenarios effect the child negatively.
If a woman decides to abort a child she doesnt want, the child is negatively effected/killed.
By the same token, if a man decides to abort his financial responsibility to a child he doesnt want, the child is also hurt by this action as well.
Why do we permit the former but not the latter?
Why should the man's property (his money/and subsequent personal well being) be less valuable to him than a woman's property (her body) is to her?
I still am having trouble understanding, and have given up trying to understand why as soon as the decision is made to bring a child into the world, the responsibility befalls both parties. And all of a sudden, the man's financial possessions become shared property of the woman and the child.
However, when the decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy is being made, then everyone goes back to their corners and ultimately the woman becomes the sole decision maker (which she actually should be, biologically) because her property (her body) doesnt become shared property of the husband.
Is not that kind of hypocritical?
Both scenarios effect the child negatively.
If a woman decides to abort a child she doesnt want, the child is negatively effected/killed.
By the same token, if a man decides to abort his financial responsibility to a child he doesnt want, the child is also hurt by this action as well.
Why do we permit the former but not the latter?
Why should the man's property (his money/and subsequent personal well being) be less valuable to him than a woman's property (her body) is to her?
Glad you asked. You answered this question earlier when you said:
Consent to childbirth is inherent with unprotected sex as well.
Glad you asked. You answered this question earlier when you said:
Consent to childbirth is inherent with unprotected sex as well.
Precisely...so we all accept that abortion should not permissible by a prospective mother because she consented to the impending childbirth, and nor should the abortion of financial obligation be permissible by a prospective father because he too consented to the impending childbirth.
All through the inherent nature of unprotected sex.
Yeah you forgot the quote that my post was replying to.
Apparently you did, too, or you would have included it. It's a lot easier for you to obfuscate things through ommission.
Quote:
Go look up the word context and this will all make sense to you. Not ot mention, the part you quoted is still accurate. I never once said that a man didn't have to take responsibility. Now try to post something useful and relevant. And if you can pull it off, accurate.
And your point being? When you come in on the attack, as opposed to trying to discuss things like a rational adult, you have lost credibility. You don't like my opinion, fine. I don't care for yours, either, but at least I am respectful of you.
Quote:
Those absentee and deadbeat fathers are most likely still paying child support, or are at least court ordered to.
If they were paying they wouldn't be deadbeats.
Quote:
I love how if a woman decides she doesn't want to raise a child and gives it up for adoption its all ok, but if a man doesn't want to raise a child hes a "deadbeat dad". Nice little double standard you want us to live by.
When a man can get pregnant, deal with morning sickness, fatigue, HBP, varicose veins, the possibility of dying in childbirth, getting sliced open for an emergency C-section, pop out a 9 pounder from their urethra -- we'll talk about double standards.
And when you use the term 'double standard' that's sort of like men and the 'slutwhore' standard. You want girls who are good to go in order to rack up the notches on your headboard, but expect the women you marry to be virginal.
Quote:
Now regardless of anything you can possibly come up with, both the man and the woman share equal responsibility when it comes to having safe sex. But thats where the equality ends, because afterwards the woman is allowed to do whatever she pleases with no say from the man, and he has to just wait and see what she wants to do.
Yes, they share equal responsibility, but if a man is concerned about being railroaded by a woman, he ought to handle birth control himself. When the man decides to ejaculate into a woman of child bearing years, he is playing roulette with his future. Would you stick your head in a lion's mouth as casually as some men bed hop? When you don't know the risk, you take necessary precautions. If the partner cann't be trusted, why chance it? If a man doesn't want to be saddled with child support -- use a condom or abstain.
Quote:
And you call that fair.
Life isn't fair.
When a man can get pregnant, deal with morning sickness, HBP, varicose veins, the possibility of dying in childbirth, getting sliced open for an emergency C-section, pop out a 9 pounder from their urethra -- we'll talk. When the baby is crying, you smell of cheesy spit up, you've changed yet another poopy diaper and your breasts are leaking -- we'll talk.
What about the woman who doesn't really want to be a mother just yet, but doesn't believe in abortion, and doesn't want to give the child up for adoption? She will have the baby, whether she wanted to or not. She is forced to deal, to pay.....
She is only forced to deal or pay because she Chose to, she was not forced in anyway.
You don't want to pay child support when you go spilling sperm all over God's green Earth, nor do you want to pay for a vasectomy.
You can't eat your cake and have it, too.
Keep it in your pants, go home and 'enjoy' an adult mag. Then you don't have to worry, do you?
Just so you know, I would love a chance to be a father. If I got a girl pregnant I would ask her to keep it, If she decided not to, i would except it. I love kids, I think they are great. But because women have the option to opt out of parenthood, men should to.
FYI: I wont have sex unless I know the girl is on birth control and I am wearing a condom. If we still get preggo, I will be there for her in any decision as long as I have equal rights to the child.
We've been through this already.....the blame game.....both could have made better decisions, but neither one did, so they're both in this situation. And if the woman chooses abortion, then BOTH of them 'terminate their financial obligations'.
NO, the woman decides to have the abortion, Men have no say in this matter. What if the man wanted the child? Do you even think of that?
What's with people citing the discomforts of pregnancy ITSELF as a reason that women should have more input on the decision on the future of the child?
Isnt the fact that women are the ones who deal with the pregnancy the SAME justification given for why women should decide on whether to keep the child or abort it?
Well you cant have the option to abort without also having to deal with the ails of pregnancy (her biological function). As you all say, its biology.
At the same time a man should have the option to abort his financial obligation to a child to avert the consequences of his biological function.
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.
