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.
I brought up the point that men aren't able to opt-out of parenthood as women are pre-birth. I'm NOT talking about forced abortions, I am talking about legal and financial opt out where the man can unilaterally sign his rights over to the child during the same time period women are allowed to have abortions. This would make the pre-parental rights equal in this country. I was surprised at how many pro-choicers were against this, since it doesn't take any rights away from women at all. Women would still have the same unilateral right to abort, we're simply adding rights for men.
Are you for this, and if not, why?
For the record, I'm neither pro-life nor pro-choice, for those who want to bring that part of the debate into this thread.
Why should a man be excluded when an unexpected pregnancy occurs?? When they use protection and it fails, why should she be left holding the bag?? If he uses protection all he can hope is that there is no failure. If he wants to protect himself from parenthood he needs to bring his own condom and hope. She has no more control over it failing than he does. So explain to me why he should be allowed a free pass??
Good evening,
After conception, a woman is not holding the bag unless she CHOOSES to be. Note the existence choice here. She can have abortion as an option if she's pro-choice. If she's pro-life, she has adoption, and dropping the baby off at a "save haven" hospital. For adoption, all she has to say is she doesn't know who the father is and they will accept the baby. With save haven laws, it's no questions asked.
Note the woman has three unilateral choices to opt out after conception. The man has zero unilateral choices to opt out. Note the absence of choice here.
Once again the hypocritical "he should have work a condom" argument makes an appearance. You're helping pro-lifers who will say the same thing. They'll say "the woman should have used a female condom, birth control, or make the man put on one".
Hi Freedom, it's good to see you again as well. My dh thinks I'm crazy with that idea, but at this point it seems to be the safest and simplest of options imo. As I understand it the procedure is considered a micro-surgery, which sounds far better than available options to women. Nothing micro or simple on that end. Also, I figure the kind of men that have sex without protection, or a care in the world IRT consequences, are prime candidates for repeating the behavior. So, the tax payer can help him with the first, but it ends there. It might also be a deterrent for other males so they use protection. Clearly, some women are not to be relied upon for that responsibility, unfortunately.
I'm all for that idea, just be ready for some to say that women should be put on some type of long term birth control or similar type of reversible sterilization if they opt for an abortion to equalize this requirement between the genders.
When my 16 year old uncle came back home crying to my Grandma (after he got my aunt pregnant) she told him "you made your bed,go lie in it". You play you pay!
After conception, a woman is not holding the bag unless she CHOOSES to be. Note the existence choice here. She can have abortion as an option if she's pro-choice. If she's pro-life, she has adoption, and dropping the baby off at a "save haven" hospital. For adoption, all she has to say is she doesn't know who the father is and they will accept the baby. With save haven laws, it's no questions asked.
Note the woman has three unilateral choices to opt out after conception. The man has zero unilateral choices to opt out. Note the absence of choice here.
Once again the hypocritical "he should have work a condom" argument makes an appearance. You're helping pro-lifers who will say the same thing. They'll say "the woman should have used a female condom, birth control, or make the man put on one".
And a woman could get her tubes tied. What's your point?
My point?
I was answering your specific question about the man being relieved of financial responsibility if a man wants her to abort and she does not. You stated her body, her choice, her responsibility financially. That is simply not true. It is the natural state of a woman to have and release eggs. It is not the natural state to have sperm inside of her. The owner of the sperm cannot abdicate responsibility just because he doesn't want the child after the fact.
I brought up the point that men aren't able to opt-out of parenthood as women are pre-birth. I'm NOT talking about forced abortions, I am talking about legal and financial opt out where the man can unilaterally sign his rights over to the child during the same time period women are allowed to have abortions. This would make the pre-parental rights equal in this country. I was surprised at how many pro-choicers were against this, since it doesn't take any rights away from women at all. Women would still have the same unilateral right to abort, we're simply adding rights for men.
Are you for this, and if not, why?
For the record, I'm neither pro-life nor pro-choice, for those who want to bring that part of the debate into this thread.
I think probably because there is a victim -- a child -- who will suffer unless both parents give financial support to raising him. It may be that the mother is not capable and the father is.
I know it seems unfair, and it is "unfair" technically speaking, I guess. All the more reason that men and women who want to have sexual pleasure outside of commitment should be more careful.
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.
