Should men have a say in abortion?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

You know I could go on and on about how such a failed relationship is usually the result of a failure to communicate in the first place, but do you seriously think sidetracking to beating and abuse is going to contribute anything meaningful?

Amnestic:

RicoGrey:

You already have that freedom, simply don't stick your dick in a woman you don't want to get pregnant. Failing that, then use a condom and roll dice that are heavily loaded in your favor.

"Women already have the freedom not to bring a child to term: Just don't have sex!"

Same stupid argument. It cuts both ways.

I do use a condom, but I've met guys who found their condoms sabotaged by their partners (who didn't remain partners much longer, needless to say). And after the tear occurs during sex, it's pretty hard to say whether it was a natural ('accidental') tear or deliberate sabotage. Hell, vasectomies can even naturally reverse themselves (though it's incredibly rare, it is possible).

Yes, we always roll the dice when we have sex. I'm not sure why you think that makes it okay for men to have no say whatsoever in what happens to their lives should a pregnancy occur.

Seekster:
That baby is YOUR doing as much as it is hers so you better be there to support her whatever may come.

Bugger off. If I get tricked into creating life I don't want any part of that woman or her bastard spawn, and I'm not sure why you think I should have to support her.

If you got tricked into getting her pregnant, you are probably too young to be having sex.

Seekster:

If you got tricked into getting her pregnant, you are probably too young to be having sex.

Do...people not read my posts anymore?

Am I talking at empty air?

I've given the examples - from friends of mine and people I've met - of how women can trick men into getting them pregnant. *knock* HELLO. IS ANYONE IN THERE? I INCLUDED AN EXAMPLE IN MY POST THAT YOU QUOTED. ARE YOU BLIND? I'M YELLING BECAUSE IF YOU ARE BLIND MY CAPS LETTERS ARE MORE LIKELY TO REACH YOU.

And I'm only two years younger than you Seekster, so don't be an ass and try to play the 'age' card.

Amnestic:

RicoGrey:

You already have that freedom, simply don't stick your dick in a woman you don't want to get pregnant. Failing that, then use a condom and roll dice that are heavily loaded in your favor.

"Women already have the freedom not to bring a child to term: Just don't have sex!"

Same stupid argument. It cuts both ways.

I do use a condom, but I've met guys who found their condoms sabotaged by their partners (who didn't remain partners much longer, needless to say). And after the tear occurs during sex, it's pretty hard to say whether it was a natural ('accidental') tear or deliberate sabotage. Hell, vasectomies can even naturally reverse themselves (though it's incredibly rare, it is possible).

Yes, we always roll the dice when we have sex. I'm not sure why you think that makes it okay for men to have no say whatsoever in what happens to their lives should a pregnancy occur.

POINT 1:I never said men have no say. I do however feel men have no legal say in an abortion.

POINT 2: I actually agree with both "stupid" arguments. Mine and yours.

POINT 3: If a woman sabotages the birth control, I would consider that rape. Not really sure how one could prove it though, which brings me to my...

FINAL POINT: My previous post wasn't really an attack on you, but more of a "this is the reality of the situation" post. There would be no fair way for a man to have say in an abortion, and I have no clue how we could even go about making it fair.

Amnestic:

Seekster:

If you got tricked into getting her pregnant, you are probably too young to be having sex.

Do...people not read my posts anymore?

Am I talking at empty air?

I've given the examples - from friends of mine and people I've met - of how women can trick men into getting them pregnant. *knock* HELLO. IS ANYONE IN THERE? I INCLUDED AN EXAMPLE IN MY POST THAT YOU QUOTED. ARE YOU BLIND? I'M YELLING BECAUSE IF YOU ARE BLIND MY CAPS LETTERS ARE MORE LIKELY TO REACH YOU.

And I'm only two years younger than you Seekster, so don't be an ass and try to play the 'age' card.

I hate the age card so no I wasnt playing it, I was simply implying that if a person is so easily tricked then they are like a child. I mean the mechanics make it pretty hard to accidentally get someone pregnant. I mean I suppose you could trip...but seriously if you get a woman pregnant you should take responsibility. It doesnt matter if you dont think its fair.

Both people have a financial interest in the outcome and so yes a man should have some say when it comes to an abortion. Kids are freaking expensive, the birth, the 18+ years they live with you, so it makes sense to give both people the choice. If the man wants to walk out then he just saved himself a ton of money, same goes for the woman.

Blablahb:

RicoGrey:
You already have that freedom, simply don't stick your dick in a woman you don't want to get pregnant.

Except nor you nor your own church are the owner of every other person or their sexuality, so it's not your place to say something like that.

I don't go to church, I am not a christian, and I am an atheist. In fact I have never attended church in any regular fashion ever. Another thing, I am pro choice, so if you are trying to get some sort of anti abortionist label on me, forget it

Also you should have used my full quote instead of taking me out of context, it is not like the rest was very long. No matter what you say, the two options I gave are your ONLY options. Either don't stick your dick in her, or use birth control that is not 100% effect(but pretty damn close if used properly).

Rational and responsible people are not likely to have unwanted pregnancies.

Seekster:

I hate the age card so no I wasnt playing it, I was simply implying that if a person is so easily tricked then they are like a child. I mean the mechanics make it pretty hard to accidentally get someone pregnant. I mean I suppose you could trip...but seriously if you get a woman pregnant you should take responsibility. It doesnt matter if you dont think its fair.

Your facetious 'trip' comment implies you didn't bother reading my posts. You don't think a woman who lies about being on the pill and sabotages a man's condoms is 'tricking' him into getting her pregnant? That she is not misleading him on the chances?

Odin's Beard, I'm starting to sound like a broken record.

If a woman misleads me and gets pregnant with the intent to keep it, she will see neither hide nor hair from me again, and certainly no penny of my money. If she wants to have a child with me, it'd better damn well be a joint choice.

One guy even had a girl tear off his condom after they were done and run into the bathroom with it. Short of physically restraining her (likely getting a domestic abuse charge on his record. Fun!) what could he have done to stop her?

Fathers really have absolutely no reproductive rights other then "you fucked her now you are stuck with her for the rest of your life." It's bullshit. Unless it was rape, it was a poor decision by TWO adults therefore all decisions about the pending outcome should have a say by both parties involved.

Girl gets knocked up, man doesn't want it but woman does. Man pays child support or goes to prison.

Girl gets knocked up, woman doesn't want it but man does. Fuck you it's my child i'll do what I want with it.

Sounds like a double standard to me

Since he is the biological parent he should have the right to keep the unwanted child so long as the birth does not in any way endanger the mother medically.

I'm pro choice 100%, everyone should have a choice about if they want to keep it or not. If one out of the two people say they want to keep it, they should be able to without fucking the other person over forever. If the father is willing to take the child and allow the mother to sign away her rights and financial burden completely and at no point during the pregnancy does the doctor deem that giving birth or carrying the baby will endanger the mothers life then the father should have every right to take his child. As long as the mother is in no danger her body will be fine, the baby should be awarded to the father.

Amnestic:
Bugger off. If I get tricked into creating life I don't want any part of that woman or her bastard spawn, and I'm not sure why you think I should have to support her.

I agree with you 100% if you can prove that she tampered with her meds or that she tricked you into knocking her up it should hold up in court.

Here's an interesting read

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2011/02/27/man-receives-oral-sex-ordered-to-pay-child-support/

The Gentleman:
No. So long as the male isn't pregnant and would have to carry it to term, he has no say over an abortion.

Or, to put it another way, should a man have to get permission from the woman (or man) who gave him Syphilis to get treatment for that? Fundamentally, that is the same question.

No it isn't. Getting a treatment for a disease is not the same thing as aborting a fetus.

The way I see it, you ought to have control over your own body. However, the fetus isn't the mother's body.

Vegosiux:

RicoGrey:

No, I am with evilthecat, what ARE you talking about? Where did you get that it was viewed as acceptable for the woman to leave the child? Also, that is rare, aside from adoption, which is not the same as you are describing. I know of only three encounters where the guy raised the children and the mother was only involved as legally required, but I have heard literally hundreds where the mother is/was raising the children, and the father was only involved as far as he was legally forced to.

And were the women in question subject to anywhere near the same amount of flak as a man is when he walks away?

Even though you didn't answer my question, I will go ahead and answer yours. I have no idea if they received flak or not, I did not meet ANY of the three women. I only met the fathers and the children. 2 of the 3 fathers were good, and the 3rd seemed like he was doing the best he could.

And now I ask my question again, where did you get that it was viewed as OK for a woman to walk away and not a man? I am unaware of any laws that support that.

RicoGrey:

And now I ask my question again, where did you get that it was viewed as OK for a woman to walk away and not a man? I am unaware of any laws that support that.

*tries desperately to remember having mentioned any "laws" at any point in this discussion* Wait, did the goalposts just move? Or is the question for someone else, who was actually talking about laws?

But where'd I get that idea? Oh, here and there. In similar discussions through my life. And it's amusing how people often assumed I'm one of those "pro-life" zealots cause I took an unusual position, which couldn't be further from truth of course.

awesomeClaw:

Personally, I think we should have a sort of opt-out system. The man getīs the choice of wheter he wants to be part of the childs...well, childhood. If the man chooses to opt-out, then the child is completely wiped from the records, and nowhere is it listed that he has a child. If the mother tells the child who the father is, she will be forced to pay damages to the man.

He also doesnīt need to pay child support.

I completely agree with this. I couldn't really put it better myself.
The man shouldn't be able to force an abortion on anyone - that would be ridiculous. But if the woman alone chooses to keep the child, then she chooses to raise it - alone.

zehydra:

The Gentleman:
No. So long as the male isn't pregnant and would have to carry it to term, he has no say over an abortion.

Or, to put it another way, should a man have to get permission from the woman (or man) who gave him Syphilis to get treatment for that? Fundamentally, that is the same question.

No it isn't. Getting a treatment for a disease is not the same thing as aborting a fetus.

The way I see it, you ought to have control over your own body. However, the fetus isn't the mother's body.

But it is in the mother's body and is more than capable of serious harm to that body, and she will always be within her right to remove a part within the human body. In terms of medical ethics, an abortion is no different than removing a cancer tumor.

Fundamentally, it is still a procedure to treat the unwanted condition of pregnancy. Until you can explain how it is different in a way that does not violate the woman's right to self-autonomy, all arguments fall flat.

Vegosiux:

RicoGrey:

And now I ask my question again, where did you get that it was viewed as OK for a woman to walk away and not a man? I am unaware of any laws that support that.

*tries desperately to remember having mentioned any "laws" at any point in this discussion* Wait, did the goalposts just move? Or is the question for someone else, who was actually talking about laws?

But where'd I get that idea? Oh, here and there. In similar discussions through my life. And it's amusing how people often assumed I'm one of those "pro-life" zealots cause I took an unusual position, which couldn't be further from truth of course.

The reason I mentioned laws was because, well I am unaware of any laws that support the idea of a woman being able to walk away, and a man can not. So, I guess the point I was making is that it is not any more legally OK for a woman to walk away than a man. Not sure why you brought up goal posts, cause I sure didn't move any.

Anyway, this is what evilcat and I are talking about. You are not doing a great job at explaining yourself or your position. I am literally confused. People assume you are a pro life zealot? Why is that, cause I simply don't understand.

EDIT: Thanks for answering my question though. I feel a lot of the reason as to why people react less negatively to a woman walking away, is because..

1. We are shocked and happy to hear the guy is actually taking responsibility.

2. We are so used to the guys walking away, we find a woman walking away to be just down right confusing.

Amnestic:

Seekster:

I hate the age card so no I wasnt playing it, I was simply implying that if a person is so easily tricked then they are like a child. I mean the mechanics make it pretty hard to accidentally get someone pregnant. I mean I suppose you could trip...but seriously if you get a woman pregnant you should take responsibility. It doesnt matter if you dont think its fair.

Your facetious 'trip' comment implies you didn't bother reading my posts. You don't think a woman who lies about being on the pill and sabotages a man's condoms is 'tricking' him into getting her pregnant? That she is not misleading him on the chances?

Odin's Beard, I'm starting to sound like a broken record.

If a woman misleads me and gets pregnant with the intent to keep it, she will see neither hide nor hair from me again, and certainly no penny of my money. If she wants to have a child with me, it'd better damn well be a joint choice.

One guy even had a girl tear off his condom after they were done and run into the bathroom with it. Short of physically restraining her (likely getting a domestic abuse charge on his record. Fun!) what could he have done to stop her?

Ok here is a question, why would a woman trick a man into getting her pregnant? I mean seriously how often does stuff like you described happen. I would think that sort of thing would be an exception hardly the rule.

Seekster:

Amnestic:

Seekster:

I hate the age card so no I wasnt playing it, I was simply implying that if a person is so easily tricked then they are like a child. I mean the mechanics make it pretty hard to accidentally get someone pregnant. I mean I suppose you could trip...but seriously if you get a woman pregnant you should take responsibility. It doesnt matter if you dont think its fair.

Your facetious 'trip' comment implies you didn't bother reading my posts. You don't think a woman who lies about being on the pill and sabotages a man's condoms is 'tricking' him into getting her pregnant? That she is not misleading him on the chances?

Odin's Beard, I'm starting to sound like a broken record.

If a woman misleads me and gets pregnant with the intent to keep it, she will see neither hide nor hair from me again, and certainly no penny of my money. If she wants to have a child with me, it'd better damn well be a joint choice.

One guy even had a girl tear off his condom after they were done and run into the bathroom with it. Short of physically restraining her (likely getting a domestic abuse charge on his record. Fun!) what could he have done to stop her?

Ok here is a question, why would a woman trick a man into getting her pregnant? I mean seriously how often does stuff like you described happen. I would think that sort of thing would be an exception hardly the rule.

You must live in a bubble man. It happens more often then one might think. I have always adhered to bringing my own favors (contraception) to the party and it has done me well. I had a roommate once who was with a girl for a few years, engaged closer to the end of the relationship. She wanted a baby and he didn't she said she was on the pill but like a good boy he insisted on using condoms, well, I asked if I could borrow one and when I checked it out before doing the deed with my lady at the time ( like you always should) it had been punctured several times with a small needle. I have read of cases where low income single parent women do it to increase welfare from the state.

Or even this

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2011/02/27/man-receives-oral-sex-ordered-to-pay-child-support/

http://www.supportguidelines.com/articles/art199903.html

Seekster:

Amnestic:

Seekster:

I hate the age card so no I wasnt playing it, I was simply implying that if a person is so easily tricked then they are like a child. I mean the mechanics make it pretty hard to accidentally get someone pregnant. I mean I suppose you could trip...but seriously if you get a woman pregnant you should take responsibility. It doesnt matter if you dont think its fair.

Your facetious 'trip' comment implies you didn't bother reading my posts. You don't think a woman who lies about being on the pill and sabotages a man's condoms is 'tricking' him into getting her pregnant? That she is not misleading him on the chances?

Odin's Beard, I'm starting to sound like a broken record.

If a woman misleads me and gets pregnant with the intent to keep it, she will see neither hide nor hair from me again, and certainly no penny of my money. If she wants to have a child with me, it'd better damn well be a joint choice.

One guy even had a girl tear off his condom after they were done and run into the bathroom with it. Short of physically restraining her (likely getting a domestic abuse charge on his record. Fun!) what could he have done to stop her?

Ok here is a question, why would a woman trick a man into getting her pregnant? I mean seriously how often does stuff like you described happen. I would think that sort of thing would be an exception hardly the rule.

I am 99% sure my sister tricked her current boyfriend into getting her pregnant. I feel she had several reasons for it, her biological clock was running out(she is 36), the guy is was well off, not sure what he does for a living, but I know he does quite well, and I feel she genuinely loved him and wanted children/marriage with him.

The thing is, 5 years ago my sister said this sort of thing wasn't just wrong but down right evil, and she meant that. Her situation changed and what she was willing to do changed as well.

I can't prove she tricked him into getting her pregnant, but I and everyone else in the family feel that is the case.

I still agree though that it is more likely an exception than the rule.

Seekster:

Ok here is a question, why would a woman trick a man into getting her pregnant? I mean seriously how often does stuff like you described happen. I would think that sort of thing would be an exception hardly the rule.

Biological clock running out and she desperately wants kids? Money? Stability? Deep rooted desire for love - forced or no? Because she wants to punish the man for an offense (real or imagined)? Because she's plum crazy?

It's almost certainly the exception, but my anecdotes are just from people I've met in my short 21 years on this planet (and bear in mind that clearly the majority of those years wouldn't have touched on such subjects), and the two posters above have stories of their own.

This stuff happens, and men should be able to protect themselves against it.

The Gentleman:

zehydra:

The Gentleman:
No. So long as the male isn't pregnant and would have to carry it to term, he has no say over an abortion.

Or, to put it another way, should a man have to get permission from the woman (or man) who gave him Syphilis to get treatment for that? Fundamentally, that is the same question.

No it isn't. Getting a treatment for a disease is not the same thing as aborting a fetus.

The way I see it, you ought to have control over your own body. However, the fetus isn't the mother's body.

But it is in the mother's body and is more than capable of serious harm to that body, and she will always be within her right to remove a part within the human body. In terms of medical ethics, an abortion is no different than removing a cancer tumor.

Fundamentally, it is still a procedure to treat the unwanted condition of pregnancy. Until you can explain how it is different in a way that does not violate the woman's right to self-autonomy, all arguments fall flat.

The difference between a cancer tumor and fetus, is that a fetus is a seperate organism. It is not the same as removing any other unwanted part of the body.

Ultimately, I didn't really answer the question, whether or not men should have a say, I'm just dismissing the notion that the fetus is part of the woman's body, an argument many people on here like to make.

zehydra:

The Gentleman:

zehydra:

No it isn't. Getting a treatment for a disease is not the same thing as aborting a fetus.

The way I see it, you ought to have control over your own body. However, the fetus isn't the mother's body.

But it is in the mother's body and is more than capable of serious harm to that body, and she will always be within her right to remove a part within the human body. In terms of medical ethics, an abortion is no different than removing a cancer tumor.

Fundamentally, it is still a procedure to treat the unwanted condition of pregnancy. Until you can explain how it is different in a way that does not violate the woman's right to self-autonomy, all arguments fall flat.

The difference between a cancer tumor and fetus, is that a fetus is a seperate organism. It is not the same as removing any other unwanted part of the body.

Ultimately, I didn't really answer the question, whether or not men should have a say, I'm just dismissing the notion that the fetus is part of the woman's body, an argument many people on here like to make.

So a woman has no right to remove a tape worm? That's a separate organism.

Self-autonomy has nothing to do with whether what is being removed is a piece of muscle or a parasite. It is about the fundamental human right to decide what happens to your body.

Digitaldreamer7:
-snip-

RicoGrey:
-snip-

Amnestic:

Seekster:

Ok here is a question, why would a woman trick a man into getting her pregnant? I mean seriously how often does stuff like you described happen. I would think that sort of thing would be an exception hardly the rule.

Biological clock running out and she desperately wants kids? Money? Stability? Deep rooted desire for love - forced or no? Because she wants to punish the man for an offense (real or imagined)? Because she's plum crazy?

It's almost certainly the exception, but my anecdotes are just from people I've met in my short 21 years on this planet (and bear in mind that clearly the majority of those years wouldn't have touched on such subjects), and the two posters above have stories of their own.

This stuff happens, and men should be able to protect themselves against it.

That is sick guys, just sick. I have a hard time believing that those are nothing more than extreme examples but if you have any statistics I would like to see them.

That being said, I believe I said it in my last post but if it wasnt clear, in those extreme examples I don't think anyone would question your manhood if a woman is going to such lengths. I apologize Amne for making light of it earlier with you. Though in normal circumstances I standby what I said about a guy who refuses to take responsibility for getting a woman pregnant. In the rare cases like what you mentioned sure I would make an exception.

The Gentleman:

zehydra:

The Gentleman:

But it is in the mother's body and is more than capable of serious harm to that body, and she will always be within her right to remove a part within the human body. In terms of medical ethics, an abortion is no different than removing a cancer tumor.

Fundamentally, it is still a procedure to treat the unwanted condition of pregnancy. Until you can explain how it is different in a way that does not violate the woman's right to self-autonomy, all arguments fall flat.

The difference between a cancer tumor and fetus, is that a fetus is a seperate organism. It is not the same as removing any other unwanted part of the body.

Ultimately, I didn't really answer the question, whether or not men should have a say, I'm just dismissing the notion that the fetus is part of the woman's body, an argument many people on here like to make.

So a woman has no right to remove a tape worm? That's a separate organism.

Self-autonomy has nothing to do with whether what is being removed is a piece of muscle or a parasite. It is about the fundamental human right to decide what happens to your body.

You did not just compare an unborn baby to a tape worm.

A say in abortion? (Even if the woman "tricked" him)? Absolutely not.
A say in whether or not he pays child support if he's "tricked"? Absolutely.

I don't know, I'm sure it happens, and there have been a few anecdotal examples in this thread from people I tend to believe, but I really don't think it's as common as people seem to imply in these threads.

Seekster:
You did not just compare an unborn baby to a tape worm.

I'm trying to point out a serious flaw in reasoning. He claimed what made the fetus unique was that it was a separate organism. I pointed out another separate organism that has relatively similar effects on the human body (which is actually a more applicable comparison given how the tapeworm survives by living off the nutrition of the host's food and survives by sheltering itself in the body). In other words, I'm asking him to explain exactly what makes an abortion an extraordinary procedure from other medical procedures in terms of medical science.

awesomeClaw:
Well, this should be nice and controversial.

Should men have a say in abortion? If so, how much of a say? Advice, like now?

Personally, I think we should have a sort of opt-out system. The man getīs the choice of wheter he wants to be part of the childs...well, childhood. If the man chooses to opt-out, then the child is completely wiped from the records, and nowhere is it listed that he has a child.

You had me until:

awesomeClaw:

If the mother tells the child who the father is, she will be forced to pay damages to the man.

It is not illegal for the would-be father to tell people that the would-be mother had an abortion, so this part shouldn't be illegal either.

awesomeClaw:

He also doesnīt need to pay child support. But maybe Iīm approaching this issue from the wrong angle? What do you think? Should having a child be a two-part desision, like the creation of one? Should males just suck it up and use a condom?

Opinions, people!

I like the idea of a man being able to financially opt out. Of course whether to have an abortion or not should be entirely the mothers' but if she has a way out of child support so should the father (and to be fair if the father wants to raise it alone and the mother doesn't want an abortion she should be able to cut herself financially and give it to him).

I still think a record should be kept of them being a parent.

The Gentleman:
No. So long as the male isn't pregnant and would have to carry it to term, he has no say over an abortion.

Or, to put it another way, should a man have to get permission from the woman (or man) who gave him Syphilis to get treatment for that? Fundamentally, that is the same question.

Bullshit. There is nothing in this scenario that is comparable to child support. The person who has syphilis would be expected to take care of it themselves.

RedEyesBlackGamer:

awesomeClaw:
Well, this should be nice and controversial.

Should men have a say in abortion? If so, how much of a say? Advice, like now?

Personally, I think we should have a sort of opt-out system. The man getīs the choice of wheter he wants to be part of the childs...well, childhood. If the man chooses to opt-out, then the child is completely wiped from the records, and nowhere is it listed that he has a child. If the mother tells the child who the father is, she will be forced to pay damages to the man.

He also doesnīt need to pay child support. But maybe Iīm approaching this issue from the wrong angle? What do you think? Should having a child be a two-part desision, like the creation of one? Should males just suck it up and use a condom?

Opinions, people!

So a guy gets a girl knocked up, and you want to punish the mother and child and let the guy walk away with no consequences? Tell me you are joking.

If they both want to walk away with no consequence they can adopt. If she wants to walk away with no sequences she can abort. If he wants to walk away ... I guess he could fake his death.

evilthecat:

Vegosiux:
That doesn't answer the question, which I may have worded badly. The question being, "Why is it acceptable for the woman to refuse parenthood, but not the man?"

That requires a slightly twisted way of looking at abortion.

Done.

evilthecat:

Abortion, fundamentally, is not a "method of avoiding parenthood", it's a method of terminating pregnancy.

But one of the effects of that is avoiding parenthood.

evilthecat:

I'm not saying it's a perfect system, but on a theoretical level I fail to see a better alternative. Your semen isn't going to impregnate anyone by itself, you're never at any risk you didn't consent to (and if you were, you've got bigger problems).

There have been males who have been the victim of statutory rape who have had to pay child support. But ignoring that, suppose you can't get your rapist convicted of rape, as a male you're SOL if the system can only apply to rape victims.

Digitaldreamer7:
Fathers really have absolutely no reproductive rights other then "you fucked her now you are stuck with her for the rest of your life." It's bullshit. Unless it was rape, it was a poor decision by TWO adults therefore all decisions about the pending outcome should have a say by both parties involved.

Girl gets knocked up, man doesn't want it but woman does. Man pays child support or goes to prison.

Girl gets knocked up, woman doesn't want it but man does. Fuck you it's my child i'll do what I want with it.

Sounds like a double standard to me

Since he is the biological parent he should have the right to keep the unwanted child so long as the birth does not in any way endanger the mother medically.

I'm pro choice 100%, everyone should have a choice about if they want to keep it or not. If one out of the two people say they want to keep it, they should be able to without fucking the other person over forever. If the father is willing to take the child and allow the mother to sign away her rights and financial burden completely and at no point during the pregnancy does the doctor deem that giving birth or carrying the baby will endanger the mothers life then the father should have every right to take his child. As long as the mother is in no danger her body will be fine, the baby should be awarded to the father.

Amnestic:
Bugger off. If I get tricked into creating life I don't want any part of that woman or her bastard spawn, and I'm not sure why you think I should have to support her.

I agree with you 100% if you can prove that she tampered with her meds or that she tricked you into knocking her up it should hold up in court.

Here's an interesting read

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2011/02/27/man-receives-oral-sex-ordered-to-pay-child-support/

that link you provided...that is the scariest thing I've read this week

Zekksta:
A say in abortion? (Even if the woman "tricked" him)? Absolutely not.
A say in whether or not he pays child support if he's "tricked"? Absolutely.

I don't know, I'm sure it happens, and there have been a few anecdotal examples in this thread from people I tend to believe, but I really don't think it's as common as people seem to imply in these threads.

Who cares how common it is, if the law doesn't account for those circumstances, then when they do happen it will leave people fucked over (no pun intended).

Seekster:
That is sick guys, just sick. I have a hard time believing that those are nothing more than extreme examples but if you have any statistics I would like to see them.

That being said, I believe I said it in my last post but if it wasnt clear, in those extreme examples I don't think anyone would question your manhood if a woman is going to such lengths. I apologize Amne for making light of it earlier with you. Though in normal circumstances I standby what I said about a guy who refuses to take responsibility for getting a woman pregnant. In the rare cases like what you mentioned sure I would make an exception.

Just because you have a hard time believing it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The door swings equally both ways. Women are just as shitty to men as men are to women. Typically the man gets the raw end of the deal because society and law slant's in the woman's favor no matter if she's a crazy bitch who is lying to trap a guy or honestly the victim in the situation. What sucks most about it is the child is born it ends up getting the raw end of the deal. Kids would much rather have a single parent who is loving then one parent that resents them and one that trapped the other.

Father Time:

The Gentleman:
No. So long as the male isn't pregnant and would have to carry it to term, he has no say over an abortion.

Or, to put it another way, should a man have to get permission from the woman (or man) who gave him Syphilis to get treatment for that? Fundamentally, that is the same question.

Bullshit. There is nothing in this scenario that is comparable to child support. The person who has syphilis would be expected to take care of it themselves.

Please see my later post(s). The right to personal autonomy trumps economic considerations. That's one of the reasons why you're never turned down at the Emergency Room for being unable to pay. The idea that economic considerations should trump a persons decision to obtain or refuse a perfectly legal procedure is a complete departure from the standing ethics around medicine.

Father Time:

Zekksta:
A say in abortion? (Even if the woman "tricked" him)? Absolutely not.
A say in whether or not he pays child support if he's "tricked"? Absolutely.

I don't know, I'm sure it happens, and there have been a few anecdotal examples in this thread from people I tend to believe, but I really don't think it's as common as people seem to imply in these threads.

Who cares how common it is, if the law doesn't account for those circumstances, then when they do happen it will leave people fucked over (no pun intended).

Maybe so, but my *absolutely* to whether or not he gets a say in child support is a very tentative absolutely, because it's the kids best interests that have to be looked after in this case. I think that IS the law accounting for the situation to be honest.

A say? Sure. The last word? Definitely not.

The Gentleman:

Father Time:

The Gentleman:
No. So long as the male isn't pregnant and would have to carry it to term, he has no say over an abortion.

Or, to put it another way, should a man have to get permission from the woman (or man) who gave him Syphilis to get treatment for that? Fundamentally, that is the same question.

Bullshit. There is nothing in this scenario that is comparable to child support. The person who has syphilis would be expected to take care of it themselves.

Please see my later post(s). The right to personal autonomy trumps economic considerations. That's one of the reasons why you're never turned down at the Emergency Room for being unable to pay. The idea that economic considerations should trump a persons decision to obtain or refuse a perfectly legal procedure is a complete departure from the standing ethics around medicine.

I think we're talking about different things. I guess I misunderstood you.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked