Men: Your thoughts on women and birth control (serious, people, years)
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.
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.
Pregnancy is not "emotional nonsense" -- it's very physical and has very real, practical implications and consequences. You choose to discount the physiological realities and burdens of pregnancy child birth -- why? Blowing a load seems to be what's dispositive for you, but carrying the child and giving birth to it -- that doesn't count. The only reason I can think of why you are doing this is gender. Is a woman really nothing more than an incubator for "genetic material"? "Incubator" may indeed be an inflammatory word, but I think it accurately describes the assumptions on which your argument is based.
Once again -- you have the right to change your mind as long as you are involved in the physiological process. Once you stop being involved in the physiological process, you can no longer change your mind. Obviously, the longer you are involved, the more time you have to change your mind. It's quite simple, really.
You are also wrong when you state that the woman has the right to "change her mind" at any time. That right is only unfettered in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. After that, increasingly tough restrictions are applied against women seeking an abortion. Nor can she change her mind afterwards -- women have a legal obligation to support their children, just like men, and cannot walk away from it except by the other's consent.
Quote:
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.
Having to raise a child on one's own only to have the deadbeat parent barge in on your relationship two decades later is not a "silly diversion" -- it's a reality that you advocate. A parent-child relationship is a parent-child relationship regardless of the child's age. A person who does not reproduce will not have the benefit of that relationship at any age. Women's right to abort isn't a right to opt out of the expense and the burdens of caring for small children while retaining the opportunity to have an "adult" parent-child relationship. But that's the very thing that you want to create for men -- the right to spend no money and to change no diapers, while retaining the opportunity to enjoy the more pleasant and less burdensome aspects of fatherhood.
As for the child wanting to contact the father -- what father? Now you are contradicting yourself. Isn't the option you want to create for men the option not to be a father at all? Methinks you want to have your cake and eat it too. When a woman exercises her right to "change her mind" there will never be a child to want to contact her. Inasmuch as you base your arguments on fairness, it wouldn't be fair to give men any more than a complete and irreversible loss of fatherhood once they make the choice. Don't you think?
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?
I had a friend who aborted a child by a guy she was dating and he was really torn up over it but she insisted it was the right thing to do for her. Well fast forward 10 yrs later and he was killed and I asked her does she ever regret her decision and she said no because she knew it was the right decision plus had she not, now she'd have a young child that would be without a father.
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.
No, not her uterus but the baby. She can do whatever she wants to her uterus, pierce her clitoris, etc. Doesn't matter. It's the baby that it is his as well. The baby has part of him too, he created the baby as well. When the baby is born, men are held responsible to provide for the baby for 18 years, among many other things. But when it comes to keeping the baby instead of killing/aborting it, men have no part in the baby anymore? If were are going to go with that then guys can just go "I have to hand her my paycheck for 18 years? Ok, fine, I am not willing to be the father anymore" and walk away just like a woman forgets the child in her is part of the guy as well and shouldn't just decide in killing/aborting it just because she wants to and totally ignore the father.
Yes. His desire to be a father does not give him rights to anyone's uterus. Sorry.
Nope, its not the uterus he wants to be a father to, its his very own child. A woman can decide to keep the baby and force the father to hand his paycheck for 18 years or have his wages garnished and/or sent to jail. A woman can decide to kill/abort the baby. In both cases, men have no right to make decisions?
Many deadbeat dads work under the table and hide their assets. If they end up in jail, it's because they deserve it.
Sure they do. Many fathers hand their paycheck to the mother and the mother can spend the money in anything but the child. No law out there protects the fathers from that. No law out there supports fathers that want to keep the baby instead of having the mother decide on her own to kill/abort it.
Sure they do. Many fathers hand their paycheck to the mother and the mother can spend the money in anything but the child. No law out there protects the fathers from that. No law out there supports fathers that want to keep the baby instead of having the mother decide on her own to kill/abort it.
I agree with you. There should be a law that protects the father's rights as well. After all the baby is partly his.
I'd prefer it if the children of people who separate or divorce were killed out of hand. You either stay TOGETHER for the kids, or they are out of the gene pool.
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.
