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.
Everyone knows the risks. Nobody goes into a consensual sexual encounter ignorant of the fact that unless one of the partners has been sterilized, pregnancy can result.
Men know this from the get-go. They know the game. They can choose not to play. That's their choice. If you go ahead with a casual sexual encounter, you must accept the consequences. Period.
What if it's not a casual sexual encounter. What if they've talked about pregnancy and abortion and once pregnant she changes her mind and wants the child. Or she fibbed to begin with and tried to become pregnant.
Two consenting adults have sex. This isn't rape. They are agreeing to this. They know what could happen. They do it.
She gets pregnant. This is the outcome of both of their actions. She can wipe her hands of it. She can have an abortion and both she and he are free of the responsibility of her actions. But he cannot wipe his hands of it. He is subject to HER choices about the consequence of THEIR actions. Again, they had sex, he didn't rape her.
Should a man be able to have a financial abortion? Be able to say before sex that, should you get pregnant, I will not support the child. I will pretty much remove myself from the child's life. With that in mind, you have a choice, this is not rape, we're consenting adults who are aware that pregnancy is a possible outcome of having sex, do you want to have sex? Sign some kind of document verifying this, weird as that would be.
Or, after a pregnancy has occurred, within the first trimester/month/whatever arbitrary date you want to set, say, the same thing, that he is washing his hands of the pregnancy, of the responsibility, and with that in mind, she has a choice. Have the child and support them on your own, or have an abortion.
Her body, her choice, why not her responsibility. This is sex we're talking about, not rape. Both parties could have done a dozen things to prevent a PREGNANCY, but only the woman can do anything to a BIRTH.
I agree, doing that would be a horrible, horrible thing. I'd go with the whole, signing a document before sex. I mean that's kinda ridiculous in practice, but it would solve a lot of problems, and my guess is guys who don't want to be responsible for any potential kids would be getting denied a lot of sex.
Women get to keep control of their bodies, and their choices, and men don't have to take responsibility for those choices. Because we're not talking about to people having sex, we're talking about the pregnancy.
No, he shouldn't.
First of all, men already have a choice about whether or not they become fathers. If a man uses condoms consistently and correctly, his chances of becoming a father against his will are vanishingly small. If is man is too stupid or irresponsible to use condoms, that's his problem.
Second, the "financial abortion" scenario you suggest would simply create massive fraud and an avalanche of litigation. Men who never bothered to ask women to sign a document like the one you describe would claim that they had, but that she must have hidden or destroyed it. Or, conversely, women who had signed such documents (can you imagine any woman who would?) would contest them in court, claiming they signed them under duress, etc. It would just create a mess.
Third, even if the system worked, it would just be a get-out-of-jail free card for men who didn't want to use condoms. They'd knock up women left and right, walk away, and stick the women--and in many cases, taxpayers--with the bills for their kids. No thanks.
Two consenting adults have sex. This isn't rape. They are agreeing to this. They know what could happen. They do it.
She gets pregnant. This is the outcome of both of their actions. She can wipe her hands of it. She can have an abortion and both she and he are free of the responsibility of her actions. But he cannot wipe his hands of it. He is subject to HER choices about the consequence of THEIR actions. Again, they had sex, he didn't rape her.
Should a man be able to have a financial abortion? Be able to say before sex that, should you get pregnant, I will not support the child. I will pretty much remove myself from the child's life. With that in mind, you have a choice, this is not rape, we're consenting adults who are aware that pregnancy is a possible outcome of having sex, do you want to have sex? Sign some kind of document verifying this, weird as that would be.
Or, after a pregnancy has occurred, within the first trimester/month/whatever arbitrary date you want to set, say, the same thing, that he is washing his hands of the pregnancy, of the responsibility, and with that in mind, she has a choice. Have the child and support them on your own, or have an abortion.
Her body, her choice, why not her responsibility. This is sex we're talking about, not rape. Both parties could have done a dozen things to prevent a PREGNANCY, but only the woman can do anything to a BIRTH.
I agree, doing that would be a horrible, horrible thing. I'd go with the whole, signing a document before sex. I mean that's kinda ridiculous in practice, but it would solve a lot of problems, and my guess is guys who don't want to be responsible for any potential kids would be getting denied a lot of sex.
Women get to keep control of their bodies, and their choices, and men don't have to take responsibility for those choices. Because we're not talking about to people having sex, we're talking about the pregnancy.
No, because the one who pays in that case will often be the rest of society not simply the woman. In many case it is not the woman going after child support, but rather the government looking for it to offset welfare payments.
First of all, men already have a choice about whether or not they become fathers. If a man uses condoms consistently and correctly, his chances of becoming a father against his will are vanishingly small. If is man is too stupid or irresponsible to use condoms, that's his problem.
Second, the "financial abortion" scenario you suggest would simply create massive fraud and an avalanche of litigation. Men who never bothered to ask women to sign a document like the one you describe would claim that they had, but that she must have hidden or destroyed it. Or, conversely, women who had signed such documents (can you imagine any woman who would?) would contest them in court, claiming they signed them under duress, etc. It would just create a mess.
Third, even if the system worked, it would just be a get-out-of-jail free card for men who didn't want to use condoms. They'd knock up women left and right, walk away, and stick the women--and in many cases, taxpayers--with the bills for their kids. No thanks.
So the woman has no choice in if he uses a condom? Who knew?
Everyone knows the risks. Nobody goes into a consensual sexual encounter ignorant of the fact that unless one of the partners has been sterilized, pregnancy can result.
Men know this from the get-go. They know the game. They can choose not to play. That's their choice. If you go ahead with a casual sexual encounter, you must accept the consequences. Period.
Interesting position, to "accept the consequences." Does that logic not apply to the single mother who decides to have a child against the wishes of the father? Should she not "accept the consequences" to raise that child with reduced or eliminated financial support from the father?
Reality is not fair. If a guy wants reproductive control and the ability to protect himself financially, but still have sex with women - yeah, a vasectomy is the only way to roll.
That is just how things work.
Life isn't fair, people have unwanted babies all the time, so why should a man have to pay for a baby, but a woman gets to choose whether she wants the baby or not?
Men have an out from sex, not from a pregnancy like women do.
And a vasectomy nips it in the bud.
So to speak.
What you propose is to give the man an out from ever taking responsibility. All the fun and not having to worry about the consequences. Life rarely works that way. (The woman still has the responsibility of deciding what happens to the child. Sounds like that's fine with you. As long as the man has his contract. So it's a legal way to say, "Sorry hon. You deal with it.")
Sounds good.....but how are you going to hold someone financially responsible if they are on welfare..... have no resources?
Are you going to put a lien on the car they don't have? On the house they don't have? Garnish wages from the job they don't have?
I dunno. Ask all the men who are paying child support that they can't afford.
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.
