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.
If it were reversible, I'd consider it. I'm not inclined to say I never want kids. Maybe I can bottle some of the juice and throw it in the freezer for later...
For no-scalpel vasectomies, it should be reversible. The reason I prefer conventional because I hear they're less likely to recanalize, despite the pain people yammer about.
Then they get what they deserve. I am not going to weep for irresponsible behavior. Would you weep for the drunk that crashed his car into a light post? For goodness sakes, we are acting like men are some sort of victim of evil women and their vicious babies. It is really simple....keep the weenie out of there if you cannot fathom the consequences.
There is only 1 person you can ever really trust and count on. Any man who's already reproduced, no longer wants kids and enters the dating scene should be permantly fixed.
Let's say both do not want children at this time, and both have taken precautions to prevent pregnancy, but she gets pregnant anyway.
Here's where the problem really arises. She has all the legal rights and choices over continuing the pregnancy, and he has none. This is unfair, since both their genetic material is involved yet she gains complete control.
In other cultures, the law is different, but to the other extreme. The man is the "owner" of the child once born - of course, in most of those cultures, abortion is illegal and women are property.
My feeling is that since both contribute genetic material, both should have a say in the outcome - if she refuses an abortion or Plan B pill (or whatever) that he would prefer, then she should bear the responsibility for the child. Especially since both did not want a child to begin with, just because she changed her mind afterwards, he should not be forced to do something he did and does not want, and reasonably tried to prevent.
The mother doesn't merely contribute her genetic material -- she also contributes her uterus for 9 months and her entire organism, which goes through one hell of a roller coaster, and is rarely the same afterwards. The fact that you fail to acknowledge this obvious fact is yet another example how in the eyes of some, a contribution made by a woman and only by a woman simply isn't taken into account because it's by a woman.
Lots of things in life aren't fair. It's not fair that the man's physiological contribution to creating a child is complete within a few minutes, while the woman's -- within a few minutes, plus 9 months. It's not fair that only the woman has to put up with pregnancy and the attendant risks of death or crippling injuries, while men do not. It's not fair that the woman, unless she is married, is solely responsible for all medical expenses related to the pregnancy and child birth. It's not fair that only the woman has to face the very real risk of diabetes, organ failure and devastating infections. It's not fair that only the woman has to endure a physiological condition that is likely to make her extremely uncomfortable for months. It's not fair that childbirth is painful and dangerous only for the woman. It's not fair that most employers are allowed to fire women for being pregnant, and all employers are within their rights not to hire pregnant candidates. The one small advantage of pregnancy is the woman's ability to "change her mind" -- which is merely extended by virtue of the woman's contribution to making a child taking such a long time. Both men and women can "change their minds" until the moment their respective roles in reproduction are nearly complete. It just so happens that the woman's role takes much longer to complete, which gives her more time to "change her mind". As I've pointed out, this advantage is more than outweighed by numerous risks and inconveniences that you fail to acknowledge. "Genetic material", my foot.
Also, you propose no solution for the possibility that a man may "change his mind" once the kid turns 18 and the spectre of child support is no longer there. What is to prevent him from making contact? After all, when a woman aborts, it's irreversible. If she wants to "change her mind" 18 years later, it's not like the aborted fetus will suddenly spring to life as a fully formed, toilet-trained and self-supported human being. But under what you are proposing, men will be able to do just that, to "unabort". That's not fair, no? What you are proposing doesn't work as opting out of fatherhood -- only out of child support. There is a big difference there.
Some men have sex with girls they just meet ....casual sex and how can you trust a woman you have just met.
Whether you're having sex with someone you just met or someone you've known for years, the bottom line is that you need to accept the consequences of your actions. If it's someone you hooked up with in a bar, then obviously you don't know her well enough to trust her yet. So by choosing to sleep with her anyway, you're taking an enormous risk. If you don't want to take the chance of having a kid with her, then don't sleep with her. But if you're willing to gamble, don't complain when you end up losing big.
Redisca did a fantastic job explaining why these people whining about an unwanted pregnancy is unfair to the man. After reading her post, no man should be complaining about fairness.
The mother doesn't merely contribute her genetic material -- she also contributes her uterus for 9 months and her entire organism, which goes through one hell of a roller coaster, and is rarely the same afterwards. The fact that you fail to acknowledge this obvious fact is yet another example how in the eyes of some, a contribution made by a woman and only by a woman simply isn't taken into account because it's by a woman.
Lots of things in life aren't fair. It's not fair that the man's physiological contribution to creating a child is complete within a few minutes, while the woman's -- within a few minutes, plus 9 months. It's not fair that only the woman has to put up with pregnancy and the attendant risks of death or crippling injuries, while men do not. It's not fair that the woman, unless she is married, is solely responsible for all medical expenses related to the pregnancy and child birth. It's not fair that only the woman has to face the very real risk of diabetes, organ failure and devastating infections. It's not fair that only the woman has to endure a physiological condition that is likely to make her extremely uncomfortable for months. It's not fair that childbirth is painful and dangerous only for the woman. It's not fair that most employers are allowed to fire women for being pregnant, and all employers are within their rights not to hire pregnant candidates. The one small advantage of pregnancy is the woman's ability to "change her mind" -- which is merely extended by virtue of the woman's contribution to making a child taking such a long time. Both men and women can "change their minds" until the moment their respective roles in reproduction are nearly complete. It just so happens that the woman's role takes much longer to complete, which gives her more time to "change her mind". As I've pointed out, this advantage is more than outweighed by numerous risks and inconveniences that you fail to acknowledge. "Genetic material", my foot.
Also, you propose no solution for the possibility that a man may "change his mind" once the kid turns 18 and the spectre of child support is no longer there. What is to prevent him from making contact? After all, when a woman aborts, it's irreversible. If she wants to "change her mind" 18 years later, it's not like the aborted fetus will suddenly spring to life as a fully formed, toilet-trained and self-supported human being. But under what you are proposing, men will be able to do just that, to "unabort". That's not fair, no? What you are proposing doesn't work as opting out of fatherhood -- only out of child support. There is a big difference there.
It is HER choice to bear the child in my example, and the man has no legal rights, only obligations. She chooses to accept the risks, and has changed her mind from what he was led to believe prior to when their birth control failed. Why should she have the right to change her mind (or perhaps she lied to begin with?) and not him? She has the option of changing her mind about not wanting a child at that time or later (depending on the local legalaties), whereas he does not have any say until the child is born, and that is limited. Your assertion that "a contribution made by a woman and only by a woman simply isn't taken into account because it's by a woman" isn't relevant to the discussion, isn't correct, and is an attempt to obfuscate the issues with emotional nonsense. Shame on you.
Worrying about what may happen in 18 years is also a silly diversion and has no relevance to the discussion. I'm not talking about child support here, anyway - I'm talking about the right to choose to reproduce, where one party has the right and the other does not. And at 18, the parenting influence is long over. It then becomes an adult relationship. You also neglect to consider that the child may want to contact the father, rather than vice versa.
keep the weenie out of there if you cannot fathom the consequences.
That's right, and for women who later say they are not ready to be mothers and want to keep enjoying life being single, they should keep their legs closed as well.
How about if the guy wants to be a father but she wants ti kill/abort the baby? Tough luck for the guy?
That's right, and for women who later say they are not ready to be mothers and want to keep enjoying life being single, they should keep their legs closed as well.
How about if the guy wants to be a father but she wants ti kill/abort the baby? Tough luck for the guy?
Yes. I don't know what you want me to say, do you want me to say that because a man has sex with a woman, that he owns her uterus?
Obviously you posted a tragic example...but communication would fix that.
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.
