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.
Took 2 to make the baby. Both should be equally responsible for raising and supporting. It is or at least should be 50/50 irregardless of your 1800s views.
1800s views would mean I think women have no rights....which means you aren't good at history.
Again with this downplaying pregnancy like it is no big deal....maybe you need to take a health class and learn what it means for a woman to experience pregnancy. Heck, google live birth and watch a baby being born and try to put yourself in her position and then try to tell me that creating a baby is equal to pregnancy and birth.
He doesn't sound like he likes or respects women very much. Maybe he should just 'choose' to be gay? Or be celibate.
Took 2 to make the baby. Both should be equally responsible for raising and supporting. It is or at least should be 50/50 irregardless of your 1800s views.
So what about those times when the guy slips it (without a condom on) to the woman while she's half asleep and he's cuddled up behind her? He's in before she is even aware of it and can say Wait! Use a condom! The fact is, the man is the penetrator and has the sperm - he needs to think with his big head and not his little head and be more careful about where he puts that sperm if he doesn't want to be responsible for impregnating a woman.
You're very naive if you don't think that happens.
What you seem to be basically saying is that men should have the right to not give a stuff if they impregnate a woman and that they can walk away with zero responsibility for their own biological children. It puts 100% responsibility for sex on women. What incentive is that for men to even bother to have safe sex or be careful?
No not at all.
I'm just suggesting that we return balance to the equation.
If a woman chooses termination to end an unwanted pregnancy, the man no has grounds to prevent it.
If a woman chooses to give birth and keep the child, the man has no grounds to prevent it either and will have financial obligations for the support of that child.
To use your description, women already have the right to not give a stuff if they get impregnated, because they can walk away with zero responsibility for their own biological children.
The act of conception takes two parties, both parties accept the same amount of risk in engaging, however both parties don't voluntarily suffer the same outcomes, because one has their risk set at the time of the sex act, and the other has a choice on learning of pregnancy of whether to carry to term or terminate it early.
All I'm saying is that to be fair we should provide a legal mechanism, that permits men to legally "terminate" their connection to the child in such cases as the female chooses to give birth and keep the child, and the man did not want to do that. It's a proactive step that would need to be taken.
It could be as simple as make a legal filing, both parties appear before a judge, judge informs them of how this would work, and their rights, both confirm that they disagree he does not want to be a father, mother wants to give birth, medical confirmation of pregnancy is confirmed. They sign papers and he's free and clear provided he abides by the agreement, which is now he is legally nothing more than a sperm donor with the same responsibilities and the same rights as any other sperm donor.
What incentive is there now for safe sex and contraception? If someone's a douchebag, then they're a douchebag, they're not going to make a legal filing anyway, they probably don't care that someone is pregnant either, and they're just going to ignore the whole problem. The overall effect is likely going to be worse, than a complete absence because they can drift back and forth into the mother and childs life and still be a douchebag, because god help us a child needs two parents right...
The current system I do think unfairly penalizes men by eliminating choice, and there are two solutions.
For pregnancies where both parents are known (and of course penalties for disavowing knowledge of the father), both parents have to agree to a voluntary termination, or at birth the mother if she did not want to to be a mother would then leave the child in the fathers care, that clearly sucks, because pregnancy is not a safe pursuit.
That the mother has total control of the pregnancy, and in cases where the father does not want to be a father, he legally relinquishes all rights, and thus removes all responsibilities and basically has the same rights and responsibilities as any other sperm donor.
So we either remove women's get out of jail free card, or give men a get out of jail free card, if we want to be fair.
Now it's perfectly OK to not want to be fair, but in that instance equality for women isn't really doing what it claims to be doing. You can't really say, we think men are more irresponsible and will have sex with anything on legs, so to make them responsible we're going to force them to take on all financial liabilities for any offspring they have. That's like giving a box of matches to a pyromaniac with a stern warning that anything they burn they have to pay for and thinking they're not going to set things on fire. The pyromaniacs will set things of fire regardless of the cost, the irresponsible will have unwanted pregnancies and fail to provide child support, whether you give men a get out of jail free card, or not.
All I'm saying is that to be fair we should provide a legal mechanism, that permits men to legally "terminate" their connection to the child in such cases as the female chooses to give birth and keep the child, and the man did not want to do that. It's a proactive step that would need to be taken.
I'm just suggesting that we return balance to the equation.
If a woman chooses termination to end an unwanted pregnancy, the man no has grounds to prevent it.
If a woman chooses to give birth and keep the child, the man has no grounds to prevent it either and will have financial obligations for the support of that child.
To use your description, women already have the right to not give a stuff if they get impregnated, because they can walk away with zero responsibility for their own biological children.
The act of conception takes two parties, both parties accept the same amount of risk in engaging, however both parties don't voluntarily suffer the same outcomes, because one has their risk set at the time of the sex act, and the other has a choice on learning of pregnancy of whether to carry to term or terminate it early.
All I'm saying is that to be fair we should provide a legal mechanism, that permits men to legally "terminate" their connection to the child in such cases as the female chooses to give birth and keep the child, and the man did not want to do that. It's a proactive step that would need to be taken.
It could be as simple as make a legal filing, both parties appear before a judge, judge informs them of how this would work, and their rights, both confirm that they disagree he does not want to be a father, mother wants to give birth, medical confirmation of pregnancy is confirmed. They sign papers and he's free and clear provided he abides by the agreement, which is now he is legally nothing more than a sperm donor with the same responsibilities and the same rights as any other sperm donor.
What incentive is there now for safe sex and contraception? If someone's a douchebag, then they're a douchebag, they're not going to make a legal filing anyway, they probably don't care that someone is pregnant either, and they're just going to ignore the whole problem. The overall effect is likely going to be worse, than a complete absence because they can drift back and forth into the mother and childs life and still be a douchebag, because god help us a child needs two parents right...
The current system I do think unfairly penalizes men by eliminating choice, and there are two solutions.
For pregnancies where both parents are known (and of course penalties for disavowing knowledge of the father), both parents have to agree to a voluntary termination, or at birth the mother if she did not want to to be a mother would then leave the child in the fathers care, that clearly sucks, because pregnancy is not a safe pursuit.
That the mother has total control of the pregnancy, and in cases where the father does not want to be a father, he legally relinquishes all rights, and thus removes all responsibilities and basically has the same rights and responsibilities as any other sperm donor.
So we either remove women's get out of jail free card, or give men a get out of jail free card, if we want to be fair.
Now it's perfectly OK to not want to be fair, but in that instance equality for women isn't really doing what it claims to be doing. You can't really say, we think men are more irresponsible and will have sex with anything on legs, so to make them responsible we're going to force them to take on all financial liabilities for any offspring they have. That's like giving a box of matches to a pyromaniac with a stern warning that anything they burn they have to pay for and thinking they're not going to set things on fire. The pyromaniacs will set things of fire regardless of the cost, the irresponsible will have unwanted pregnancies and fail to provide child support, whether you give men a get out of jail free card, or not.
Basically sex is unfair. Women always have the greater risk. It's not at all an equal amount of risk for men. Contraception like the Pill and IUDs are not 100% reliable and can cause side effects, health risks, and can't always be tolerated. Diaphragms aren't 100% reliable either. As the penetrators, men have far more control over whether they put on a $1 condom or not. It's not particularly 'fair' or 'equal' for a man to not have to take any care at all because he had a morning glory he wanted to slip in while the woman was only half awake and he couldn't be bothered to reach for a condom - and the women ends up having to have an abortion or make a choice about whether to carry the pregnancy, give birth and raise a child on her own or give the child up for adoption. Sheesh - what was that you said about women being able to walk away with zero responsibility or having a "get out of jail free card"?
Men are actually very lucky that abortion is legal. If it weren't, and women were forced to carry a pregnancy and have a child they hadn't planned or or didn't want, then men would also be forced to man up and accept the responsibility for financially supporting the child whether they wanted the child or not.
Frankly, I agree that any man who would walk away from their own biological child once it has been born, whether they had planned or wanted to be a father or not, would be a crappy father and it's better not to have him in a child's life at all. But don't try to call it 'fair' or balanced.
If men are as lacking in responsibility and self-control and can't even take care of their own sperm as you make them out to be, perhaps we should investigate methods of making them infertile until they are grown up enough to take on the responsibility of being a father.
As it is, the 'morning after pill' needs to be easily and cheaply available if for some reason someone didn't use contraception (eg the old morning glory story) or suspected that it failed.
Yet when a woman wants to have an abortion anti-choice conservatives call her scum, so much for your double standard idea.
This is like saying someone who is against eating red meat is a vegetarian.
The term is anti-abortion. When you're anti only one choice, you call it out. The anti abortion crowd is not anti adoption, keeping the baby or using birth control which are the other choices. They are anti only one of the choices and that one is abortion so it's anti-abortion.
Basically sex is unfair. Women always have the greater risk. It's not at all an equal amount of risk for men. Contraception like the Pill and IUDs are not 100% reliable and can cause side effects, health risks, and can't always be tolerated. Diaphragms aren't 100% reliable either. As the penetrators, men have far more control over whether they put on a $1 condom or not. It's not particularly 'fair' or 'equal' for a man to not have to take any care at all because he had a morning glory he wanted to slip in while the woman was only half awake and he couldn't be bothered to reach for a condom - and the women ends up having to have an abortion or make a choice about whether to carry the pregnancy, give birth and raise a child on her own or give the child up for adoption. Sheesh - what was that you said about women being able to walk away with zero responsibility or having a "get out of jail free card"?
Men are actually very lucky that abortion is legal. If it weren't, and women were forced to carry a pregnancy and have a child they hadn't planned or or didn't want, then men would also be forced to man up and accept the responsibility for financially supporting the child whether they wanted the child or not.
Frankly, I agree that any man who would walk away from their own biological child once it has been born, whether they had planned or wanted to be a father or not, would be a crappy father and it's better not to have him in a child's life at all. But don't try to call it 'fair' or balanced.
If men are as lacking in responsibility and self-control and can't even take care of their own sperm as you make them out to be, perhaps we should investigate methods of making them infertile until they are grown up enough to take on the responsibility of being a father.
As it is, the 'morning after pill' needs to be easily and cheaply available if for some reason someone didn't use contraception (eg the old morning glory story) or suspected that it failed.
Women have never been able to walk away with a get out of jail free card. Women are the ones who are stuck if they get pregnant. It's men who walk away. That's why there is government help for women. They can't just walk away.
Basically sex is unfair. Women always have the greater risk. It's not at all an equal amount of risk for men. Contraception like the Pill and IUDs are not 100% reliable and can cause side effects and can't always be tolerated. As the penetrators, men have far more control over whether they put on a $1 condom or not. It's not particularly 'fair' or 'equal' for a man to not have to take any care at all because he had a morning glory he wanted to slip in while the woman was only half awake and he couldn't be bothered to reach for a condom - and the women ends up having to have an abortion or make a choice about whether to raise a child on her own or give the child up for adoption. Sheesh - what was that you said about women being able to walk away with zero responsibility?
Being responsible is more than just wearing a condom or using some form of contraception. It's the whole thing. If you cannot trust your partner to be using contraception in all cases when you are not attempting to become pregnant, then perhaps you should not allow yourself to be in a situation where someone can have sexual contact with you, while you are not fully aware. If that affects your sex life, then it should, because responsibility affects how you live your life. If this makes someone think you're some ball-buster because post-coitus you kick them out, then you go girl, that's called empowerment.
If you place yourself in that situation you are not being responsible, so please don't try to put this all on the guys plate.
The same applies to men, just because men don't have a parasite in them for up to 9 months doesn't mean they would have no difficult decisions to make, or that those decisions easily dismissible.
If a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy it's because of three possible reasons (or a combination of the three), she has a medical condition that makes the pregnancy dangerous, she has a career that currently is not in a position to allow her to manage her and her childs needs, or, she has a lifestyle that she does not wish to alter, two of those three apply to adoption also. I'm non-judgmental, I don't care the reason, it's her choice. However if that choice is made, then the choice of whatever those reasons were overrides parenthood. Let's not get tied up in the whole but there's still emotion attached, because while there is, there was not enough at the time of the decision to make her choose otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
Frankly, I agree that any man who would walk away from their own biological child, whether they had planned or wanted to be a father or not, would be a crappy father and it's better not to have him in a child's life at all. But don't try to call it 'fair' or balanced.
Why...?
If you choose to buy a house that's too expensive and you can't afford the payments, should your partner pay even though they don't live there, refused to move in and warned you that it was too expensive before you bought it?
Would you consider it fair that they help you out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
If men are as lacking in responsibility and self-control and can't even take care of their own sperm as you make them out to be, perhaps we should investigate methods of making them infertile until they are grown up enough to take on the responsibility of being a father.
I made no claims about whether men were or were not more or less able to be self-controlled than women. I simply mentioned that demanding financial responsibility to attempt to enforce general responsibility is completely irrational. If someone is not responsible enough to keep their pants on when there is a high risk of unwanted pregnancy, then they're probably not responsible enough to either be willing or able to afford child support payments. It's about as logical as demanding someone learn to scuba dive when they can't yet swim.
However the one thing that I'm deriving from this discourse is that there is a belief that men should be punished for an accident of biology, and that in the sexual arena, men and women do not want to be equals on either side.
Responsibility of both parties unless it is a forced rape/incest. The woman, in today's society, has a lot of power over whether to have or not to have the child. Years ago my best friend got one of his lady friends pregnant. She never told him (they were not live-in) but went forward to have the child aborted and never told him about the whole thing until it was all over. He was willing (and in the position) to pay to have the child and even care for it in the event that she didn't want it. Hell, he would have probably even married her had he known. She never gave him the chance.
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.
Women have never been able to walk away with a get out of jail free card. Women are the ones who are stuck if they get pregnant. It's men who walk away. That's why there is government help for women. They can't just walk away.
