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.
Honestly, I do believe a father should be allowed to "abort" his parental responsibilities if he so chooses,on nthe agreement that he never gets them back, doesn't have visitation rights, survivorship rights, or any of that.
However, the pure point is: The man can't carry the baby. The woman must go through the 9 months of pure hell.
For that reason alone, her word holds more weight than the male's.
You know I hear this a lot and I wonder if the people saying these things are men or women who've never had children.
I know that ALL women are different, but pregnancy is not the nightmare *****fest that some people are claiming. Yes, towards the end it can be uncomfortable. And yes complications can arise. But my husband and I have 4 children; if pregnancy was "pure hell", I surely wouldn't have signed up 3 more times after the first!
Perhaps ala prenuptial agreements, there should be pre-coital agreements? Prior to intercourse, the man and woman must sign on the dotted line that if a pregnancy should result from their coupling, the woman is free to do whatever and the man is off the hook.
Because the law has decided that the child should not be punished for the parents' mistake. There are two solutions for any man who wants to make sure he doesn't get roped into fathering a child he doesn't want to support. Get a vasectomy, or keep the ding-a-ling in the pants.
If he doesn't want to pay, he can spend 50% of the time raising the child instead. He's got plenty of choices.
and if women don't want to deal with deadbeat fathers they can keep their legs close...you see how that works?....
on a previous thread about this I suggested that we could just use protection more (condoms are cheap and free in some places so I don't want to hear any of that crap about not affording them) and choosing our partners more wisely as to avoid any confusion if a situation was to arise...
everyone wins....we take care of the problem before there even is one...
somehow the liberals/feminists/women or whatever didn't like that...they seem to want their "abortions" no matter what....
they were not going to let something like a condom stand in the way of that..
anyways half-way through that thread it appeared many of them were just angry and bitter about...well, men....they seem to just be angry in men in general...
You as a father want to see your child born and somehow that was viewed as "wanting to enslave women and force your misogynistic rule because you hate women" or some sh*t like that...that was confusing...
many considered pregnancy itself to be some kind of horrific physical curse and infection and want no part of it, so abortions was very important to that group of pro-choicers.
I get the vague feeling that this is about a bit more then just "abortions"
I'm glad she made it through. As I said, ALL women are different, but being pregnant is not this general condition of "pure hell".
Pure hell may be an exaggeration, but there is a huge list of mild to rather bad side effects to pregnancy that the man does not have to go through.
It's not a happy fun time with a baby that is all giggles afterwards.
Because she is the one that does have to go through all the pain, hormone changes, discomfort, etc., she does have more weight in any decision regarding the pregnancy.
That's rather cut and dry.
Saying that it's 50/50 is a delusional idea geared to make men feel more special in the decision process.
Because until the man can carry the fetus, it's not 50/50.
and if women don't want to deal with deadbeat fathers they can keep their legs close...you see how that works?....
on a previous thread about this I suggested that we could just use protection more (condoms are cheap and free in some places so I don't want to hear any of that crap about not affording them) and choosing our partners more wisely as to avoid any confusion if a situation was to arise...
everyone wins....we take care of the problem before there even is one...
somehow the liberals/feminists/women or whatever didn't like that...they seem to want their "abortions" no matter what....
they were not going to let something like a condom stand in the way of that..
anyways half-way through that thread it appeared many of them were just angry and bitter about...well, men....they seem to just be angry in men in general...
You as a father want to see your child born and somehow that was viewed as "wanting to enslave women and force your misogynistic rule because you hate women" or some sh*t like that...that was confusing...
many considered pregnancy itself to be some kind of horrific physical curse and infection and want no part of it, so abortions was very important to that group of pro-choicers.
I get the vague feeling that this is about a bit more then just "abortions"
You missed all the posts by members of the "He-man Women Haters Club" on the threads?
Really?
Change the slogan to "My body, my choice, his wallet."
The system is crap if you're a guy. A busted condom will change everything for you.
Which is precisely why you shouldn't put your sperm in a place you don't trust 100%. The problem is that men want to have sex and then have the option to stay, have an abortion, give up a baby for adoption, or be a parent. It doesn't work that way. Most of the time, the ultimate choice of what will happen rests with the woman. Until the time that men can carry a baby for 10 months, that's how it's going to be. DEAL WITH IT.
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.