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.
As I stated in the thread ("my body/my abortion" or whatever), I find it hard to believe that a man and woman would find such disparity in their expectations of a given sexual encounter, such that one expected to have a child from the encounter, and the other did not. I'm sure there are exceptions, but they are likely exception, not the rule.
Given that, I find each equally culpable. However, the guy can only take back his decision until the moment he fires. The woman can take back her decision until well after conception. Each are equally responsible, but the guy's decision making window ends before the woman's.
Fortunately, most guys are willing to shoot target practice with no ill effects, hoping for the very rare woman who would accept their incoming donation, or would even give them the time of day for that matter. Leaves LOTS of time to think.
It's obvious that you're not interested in a healthy discussion and have nothing of substance to add to the debate. I have already pointed out why your argument is elementary and easily countered.
Sorry.
However, if a man "gives" his sperm away without commitment, he has relinquished his rights.
However, if a man "gives" his sperm away without commitment, he has relinquished his rights.
Using your logic, if he has "given away" his sperm, shouldn't that mean it's now 100% the woman's responsibility since she owns it now and his rights are relinquished?
As a person who supports a woman's choice, I believe a man should have the same choice. Since forcing an abortion is out the window as well as stopping one, all other responsibilities should be a choice for men. Not really much to argue my point other than it just seems fair this way.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chattypatty
No legal system is going to stand by and allow a resulting child to suffer from a man's choice to walk away and not provide support.
I already said as much in my previous post, but no one seems to be interested in the child in any of these comments. Kinda strange.
Hi Patty,
I did see your previous post, but I didn't feel I had anything of substance to add until I did further thinking. My opinion is that if we take discrimination out of the equation, women will make the appropriate choices to decide if she can financially support the child or have an abortion if the man opts out.
We can't always excuse discrimination against men with the "women will be poor and destitute" worst case scenario every time the option of single motherhood comes up. Remember, the poor single woman made the CHOICE to have the baby and be a poor single mother instead of using protection, using birth control, having an abortion, or giving the child up for adoption. However, I do have solutions to assist her regardless.
My solution is to help these mothers with easy access to handups, not handouts, like an open pool of easy to access temporary public, nonprofit, and maybe private sector jobs instead of welfare, job training for permanent, in-demand careers while working in the temp job, and subsidized child care while going through the training (she must contribute a portion). Once these mothers enter good paying, in demand jobs, then she will be a successful single mother, and I'm just fine with that since we reconciled discrimination against men, and helped her get on her feet.
When a man can get pregnant and either have a baby or go through an abortion, then they can have equal rights. The mere fact that they cannot do this means it will never be equal. The guilt, the responsibility, the choice, and the consequences rest solely on females. Once the sperm meets egg the man is safe from health risks. He has no sacrifice to be made. A woman can die even now, from not just delivering a baby, but for some even being pregnant can kill them. So no, mrn can never be equal nor have equal rights until the baby comes out. You have choices, before conception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom123
I'm starting this thread based on a back and forth discussion we had in the "It's My Body" abortion thread.
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 did see your previous post, but I didn't feel I had anything of substance to add until I did further thinking. My opinion is that if we take discrimination out of the equation, women will make the appropriate choices to decide if she can financially support the child or have an abortion if the man opts out.
We can't always excuse discrimination against men with the "women will be poor and destitute" worst case scenario every time the option of single motherhood comes up. Remember, the poor single woman made the CHOICE to have the baby and be a poor single mother instead of using protection, using birth control, having an abortion, or giving the child up for adoption. However, I do have solutions to assist her regardless.
My solution is to help these mothers with easy access to handups, not handouts, like an open pool of easy to access temporary public, nonprofit, and maybe private sector jobs instead of welfare, job training for permanent, in-demand careers while working in the temp job, and subsidized child care while going through the training (she must contribute a portion). Once these mothers enter good paying, in demand jobs, then she will be a successful single mother, and I'm just fine with that since we reconciled discrimination against men, and helped her get on her feet.
You know, I'm not even unsympathetic to your proposition that men be given the option to have a choice themselves. I see why men feel they are at a disadvantage in an unplanned pregnancy situation, because the woman calls the shots (it would appear).
However, sometimes, there are situations that arise in nature for which there simply is no "remedy" that would make everything fair and square.
A woman who did not intend to get pregnant has a choice, yes, but what a choice! Continue a pregnancy she may not really want under the circumstances, or have an abortion which may be extremely hurtful to her, or relinquish the baby for adoption, often a soul-destroying experience with lifelong consequences. Her "choice" doesn't really feel like much of a choice, I guarantee you, unless she has rather strong desires for a baby (in which case, it might be okay) or unless she has zero ethical issues with abortion to give her conscience a jolt. Historically, as now, women have born the brunt of the pain of unplanned pregnancy, regardless of their choice.
Sometimes you just have to accept that you are going to get burned if you don't stay far, far away from the hot object, regardless of whether you are male or female. I think, ultimately, men who object to a woman's choice to have a baby leave her anyway. I am not sure how many women really pursue a man in court for child support, since to do so would involve making herself vulnerable to his right to demand visitation (something she probably won't want if he is hostile to her). I guess what I'm saying, is, this agreement you propose -- isn't it already in effect, "defacto"?
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.
No, that doesn't ADD rights for men, it takes away responsibility and takes away the rights of the child.
A man has no right to tell a woman whether or not to abort. If she does and he didn't want her to, tough. If she doesn't and he wanted her to, he shoulda thought twice before having unprotected sex.
I'm not against my own gender but it really is that simple.
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.
