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.
Men have total control of their genes and futures right up until they impregnate a woman, and everyone knows this, so there is no "unfair"
Just because we're aware of this inequity doesn't make it fair.
Quote:
And it has NOTHING to do with The Obama Administration...EVERYONE supports this standard because it's, well, STANDARD.
Actually, no, everyone doesn't support this standard. Many people are anti-abortion.
I've generally been pro-choice, but the more I think about this double-standard, the more I'm starting to come around to the pro-life view; at least with pro-life, men and women are given an equal say.
Pro-choice people , on the other hand, make NO attempt to address the LACK of choices afforded to men. They want "Progressive" rights for women, but "Traditional" responsibilities for men.
Men already have the right to discuss options with the woman. If they are dating, engaged, married, in some form of a relationship, one would assume that they discuss such serious issues.
If it was a hook up, or there was no relationship the man can still discuss options, but in most cases his opinion will be less of a factor.
The final decision is always with the woman as it is she who will have to carry and deliver a child, or have to undergo a medical procedure. A person can not force another person to have any medical procedure, or to carry a child if she chooses not to.
The final decision is always with the woman as it is she who will have to carry and deliver a child, or have to undergo a medical procedure. A person can not force another person to have any medical procedure, or to carry a child if she chooses not to.
I think the bigger problem is that her decision to have the kid then dictates the man's financial obligation.
It should be the other way around -- the man's decision to pay for the child, or not, should be made on HIS OWN, which is a decision that should also be made in conjunction with the man's legal access to the child.
Then , once the man makes these decisions on his own, THEN the mother can make a fully-informed decision about whether or not to have an abortion.
They shackle men with child support who arent even the biological father.
Remember, women only want equal rights when it benefits them.
Involuntary servitude is unconstitutional, and that is exactly what happens when a man doesnt want the child but the woman doesnt get an abortion.
I got into it with a few cackling hens in another thread, as predicted, their only response was "well he shouldve kept it in his pants", "he knew the risks" blah blah blah.
They remove all responsibility from the woman and blame the male as usual.
Yes, we should go back to the good ol' days of baby farming.
I think the bigger problem is that her decision to have the kid then dictates the man's financial obligation.
It should be the other way around -- the man's decision to pay for the child, or not, should be made on HIS OWN, which is a decision that should also be made in conjunction with the man's legal access to the child.
Then , once the man makes these decisions on his own, THEN the mother can make a fully-informed decision about whether or not to have an abortion.
How are you going to get all these life altering decisions made and legalized in basically a 8 week period?
While I believe that the ultimate decision of abortion lies with the woman, I believe that men lack abortion rights.
For instance, our current law favors women. If a man wants the child and the woman does not, then there is no legal recourse. Conversely, if the woman wants the child and the man does not, then the man is shackled to 18 years of child payments. These laws heavily favor the woman.
If the woman want to abort, but the man does not, then the man should have the legal right to claim the child. He should have the legal right to claim full responsibility for the child and offer the woman compensation for being pregnant.
If both parties agree, then the settlement ends there. If the woman disagrees, then she holds the final choice.
Conversely, if a woman wants to bear a child and the man does not, then the man should not be shackled to child support for 18+ years. If a man wants to abort the child and does not want to be apart of the child's life, then at most he should be responsible for 3 years of child support.
How much compensation are we talking here? I don't think there's any amount of money that would make me stay pregnant & give birth to a child that I don't want. Noooo thank yewwww.
I have a cartoon on my fridge that says it all: there's a man in an exam room, sitting on the exam table & the doctor is standing next to the man. The cartoon is titled "The day abortion becomes an unquestionable right" & the doctor has said to the man "Congratulations, you're pregnant".
I think the reason most females cry about "inequality" is basically out of selfishness and so the government and society can cater to their phoney emotions.
Then you have male enablers like the lawmakers and politicians who support gender-based double standards.
Women only want equal rights when it benefits them. When it comes to them actually paying 100% of the bills for a choice they made, they whine that the man should subsidize their choices.
Men already have the right to discuss options with the woman. If they are dating, engaged, married, in some form of a relationship, one would assume that they discuss such serious issues.
If it was a hook up, or there was no relationship the man can still discuss options, but in most cases his opinion will be less of a factor.
The final decision is always with the woman as it is she who will have to carry and deliver a child, or have to undergo a medical procedure. A person can not force another person to have any medical procedure, or to carry a child if she chooses not to.
Since it is the womans choice like you said, surely you agree that she should be 100% financially responsible for that choice. Why should someone else be forced to support her choice through involuntary servitude which is unconstitutional.
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.
