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.
And these very same people who will weep crocodile tears for the fetus will vote against programs that will help to raise that child, feed that child, provide healthcare for that child, once they get through the birth canal. Because at that point that fetus is no longer useful to their cause. We see it again and again and again. They never care about supporting the child once it's born. Because it's not about the child and never was.
Yes which in some ways is hilarious because all their candidates are falling all over themselves proposing or promising to propose all these types of programs they despise.
They are starting to realize the danger the Dobbs decision poses to them and think women will be bought off with some goodies.
I have stories on 2/3 above, but let's not go there.
It's a very simple, hypothetical question: why should the man be responsible for the medical decisions of the woman, especially if they're unmarried.
If they're married, I agree, because in marriage you share everything. If you buy a home, even if you made all the money for that home, the woman is entitled to half (unless there is a pre-nup!). So it would work the same way with a child.
So I want to keep this for unmarried couples. You seemed to agree earlier.
In reality, I'm only interested in this thread because it's a classic "Mars vs Venus", "Men vs Women" thread. This is about women giving up a right they already have (to expect child support from the father), and even in the interest of fairness, women will not give up this right. Even in a hypothetical.
I have no delusions that "financial abortion" will ever be practical. But I don't see how you can expect a man to shoulder the consequences of the woman's choice - in fairness. We can end this topic flippantly - life is not fair. And that's true.
Its not the medical decision he is responsible for, its the child that results from sexual intercourse without protection. Men are not required to pay for expenses of pregnancy or the cost of delivery, yet.
Actually, as I said, it is not women who are pursuing support for the child in situations where there was no committed relationship (generally). It is the state who will pursue the biological father if the mother needs financial assistance.
But hypothetically, if abortion is a federal right, legal and available to the point of viability, unmarried men with no committed long term relationship (and I say this because many couples live as married couples without the benefit of legal status) should not have to, IMO, be forced to financially support the child as long as he NEVER has contact with that child.
I think the rationale for paternal support is because society does not want to foot the bill if the woman is unable to financially support the child and care for it at the same time. Society no longer wants to see starving, homeless children, nor does society want to force families to split up and mothers to relinquish their children to the state. We have seen the ugliness already. It really has nothing to do with fairness and Mars vs Venus.
It really is hypothetical because in reality this situation rarely occurs, but financial abortion does. Abortion is no longer federally protected to the point of viability, not even half of men pay their court ordered CS, single parent homes with no father in the picture are an epidemic. Why would a woman want to pursue the 450$/month from a man she hardly knows and wants nothing to do with her or his child knowing she will never see any money anyway.
And these very same people who will weep crocodile tears for the fetus will vote against programs that will help to raise that child, feed that child, provide healthcare for that child, once they get through the birth canal. Because at that point that fetus is no longer useful to their cause. We see it again and again and again. They never care about supporting the child once it's born. Because it's not about the child and never was.
This is why I'm pro abortion. I would rather useless people kill their unborn in the womb than give birth to them and have them become a blight on society. I support abortion being a state issue but I hope my state keeps it legal in the earlier stages.
Two things entitlement based societies need are strictly controlled borders and legal abortions.
Why do you want fatherless children? Why are you enabling men to boo hoo about something they caused but can't undo? I love children, they deserve support of both parents. How come you don't?
Why do you want fatherless children? Why are you enabling men to boo hoo about something they caused but can't undo? I love children, they deserve support of both parents. How come you don't?
They deserve the support and significant presence of both parents. Fathers have responsibilities but they should also have rights, and they shouldn't be expected to petition the courts to get them. They should get them by default. A woman's rights are presumed while a man must fight for his through an expensive process that not all can afford. Some states have caught on to this reality but too many still haven't.
They deserve the support and significant presence of both parents. Fathers have responsibilities but they should also have rights, and they shouldn't be expected to petition the courts to get them. They should get them by default. A woman's rights are presumed while a man must fight for his through an expensive process that not all can afford. Some states have caught on to this reality but too many still haven't.
How are women's right presumed. And how do fathers not have rights? Non custodial mothers are under the same legal expectations.
No one said that. This thread is, however, about men and men's legal right to financial abortion. It really makes no sense to talk about women role in men's desire to opt out of parental responsibilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grlzrl
Sometimes, I just think posts can't getting any more absurd...and then I see this one...
Why is it absurd. People have their eggs and sperm frozen all the time for future reproduction.
No one said that. This thread is, however, about men and men's legal right to financial abortion. It really makes no sense to talk about women role in men's desire to opt out of parental responsibilities.
Why is it absurd. People have their eggs and sperm frozen all the time for future reproduction.
Thinking all men should get a vasectomy is certainly absurd and goes against what’s been touted “my body my choice”.
It’s interesting that instead of promoting birth control by both parties that the idea of men getting vasectomies gets brought up instead.
Who’s going to fund the vasectomies and the procedures to use the sperm to have a baby when the time comes? Who’s going to pay for the sperm to be kept in a bank?
You can call it an excuse, doesn't matter it's still reality.
Lol. Reality is full of excuses.
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.
