male abortion just a suggestion. (1 Viewer)

[mikhail]

If a man and a women have sex using a condom the men doesent want children however the women still becomes pregnant and decides to have the baby,is it reasonable to have a law when the man because of the circumstances to refuse to have anything to do with or to pay any maintances for the child.



A stupid suggestion you may say but wouldnt it encourage alot more young men to use condoms and women to be more careful who they sleep with cutting down teen pregnances and stis?

I feel society as a whole would benefit.

 

[1069]

If a man and a women have sex using a condom the men doesent want children however the women still becomes pregnant and decides to have the baby,is it reasonable to have a law when the man because of the circumstances to refuse to have anything to do with or to pay any maintances for the child.



A stupid suggestion you may say but wouldnt it encourage alot more young men to use condoms and women to be more careful who they sleep with cutting down teen pregnances and stis?

I don't understand your suggestion.
Are you suggesting that men should have the right to renounce all financial responsibility to their offspring if they so choose?
If so, that idea is already being explored, in some depth, on the thread entitled Womans Right vrs Mans Right.
It's hardly a new idea; it is one of a packet of issues being heavily promoted by a number of organizations, currently prominent in the media, which refer to themselves as "Men's Rights" groups.
If that is in fact what you are referring to, I fail to see why it would encourage more men to use condoms; if anything, I'd think it would have the opposite effect.

If, on the other hand, you are suggesting that men should be made to contribute to the financial support of their offspring, we already have laws to that effect, although they are oftentimes difficult to enforce.
If that is what you're referring to, I hardly see why enforcing child support laws more stringently would cause women to "be more careful who they sleep with".

So, I guess either way I'm not really seeing your point.

I feel society as a whole would benefit.

Indeed? In what way?

 

[SpooK]

So, I guess either way I'm not really seeing your point.

Hey 1069! I never thought it would happen, but we agree on something.

 

[mikhail]

just saying if a man uses condoms he should have the right to refuse to pay.

encouraging more people to use sexual protection why dont you understand?

 

[1069]

just saying if a man uses condoms he should have the right to refuse to pay.

encouraging more people to use sexual protection why dont you understand?

My, that would open up a whole plethora of new career opportunities in government, wouldn't it?
Official Bedroom-window Peeker. Official Condom-checker. Federal Bureau of Voyeurism.
Of course, we'd need a force of a hundred thousand or more, if we're going to catch and witness every act of sexual intercourse in the whole country, and verify whether or not condoms were used; it'll be a 24/7 job.
Perhaps you're right; implementing such a measure probably would provide societal benefits. It would end unemployment, at any rate.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

My, that would open up a whole plethora of new career opportunities in government, wouldn't it?
Official Bedroom-window Peeker. Official Condom-checker. Federal Bureau of Voyeurism.
Of course, we'd need a force of a hundred thousand or more, if we're going to catch and witness every act of sexual intercourse in the whole country, and verify whether or not condoms were used; it'll be a 24/7 job.
Perhaps you're right; implementing such a measure probably would provide societal benefits. It would end unemployment, at any rate.

No need for all of that; we already have condoms that can play music, how about condoms that include a digital recorder? Heat activated, image and audio for up to, oh, ten minutes (and there could be specialized condoms for the studly gentlemen out there, with an extra battery pack for extended use). Maybe a DNA analyzer so it can identify the two partners -- samples certainly wouldn't be a problem.

Of course, storage after use and data retrieval might be, shall we say, sticky . . .

 

[FallingPianos]

If a man and a women have sex using a condom the men doesent want children however the women still becomes pregnant and decides to have the baby,is it reasonable to have a law when the man because of the circumstances to refuse to have anything to do with or to pay any maintances for the child.



A stupid suggestion you may say but wouldnt it encourage alot more young men to use condoms and women to be more careful who they sleep with cutting down teen pregnances and stis?

I feel society as a whole would benefit.

what about cases where the woman was using birthcontrol and it failed?

 

[talloulou]

just saying if a man uses condoms he should have the right to refuse to pay.

encouraging more people to use sexual protection why dont you understand?

You would never be able to "prove" that the man used a condom. It would be his word against hers and in the end the child would be the one punished. I do agree that it is completely unfair to have women get to pick and chose when it comes to "opting out" of parenthood. Allowing men to likewise "opt out" would make matters worse than they already are. That's why personally I don't think anyone should be allowed to "opt out." Especially with over the counter MAP availability. Basically I believe if you created a child then you should step up and be responsible for that creation because that is what is best for the child involved. Allowing men to opt out leaves the child fatherless and financially insecure. Allowing the mother to opt out leaves the child dead. The honorable thing would be caring for your child regardless of whether you are the mother or the father.

In my opinion women really shouldn't be complaining about dead beat dads and what not. They brought this on themselves. You can't say it is a womens "choice" to decide whether or not she wishes or desires to be a mother but a man has fatherhood thrusted upon him regardless of his readiness. It's total hypocrisy. Yet many prochoice women will be disgusted by a man who refuses to accept responibility for his child. Everyone needs to go back to being responsible. You reap what you sow.

 

[mikhail]

it could be enforced i mean its not the main point its really a deterent.

Ive have made some female friends mad when ive told them they should act like birth control is their total reasponsibility that that i actually think that women are stuck taking the reasponsibility even in smaller ways the guy can still drink for the next 9 months doesent have to by any new clothes not to mention labour breast feeding etc.

It also seems to me im not talking bout everyone but most pro-lifers have lived a life nothing like that of the people they are condeming.

 

[1069]

t also seems to me im not talking bout everyone but most pro-lifers have lived a life nothing like that of the people they are condeming.

Well, now.... that's sort of a myth.
I don't know if you're aware that more than 1 out of 5 (closer to one quarter) of women in the US have terminated a pregnancy at one time or another.
Guttmacher estimates that 45% of US women will have an abortion at some point during their reproductive years.
So, see... it's not really an "us versus them" thing; they are us, and we're them.
We all know, intimately, people who have had abortions.
They're not "like" anything. They're like themselves. No different from anyone else.

 

[SpooK]

it could be enforced i mean its not the main point its really a deterent.

I think it is a deterrent because I dont see how you can enforce it. You say it can be done, how?

Ive have made some female friends mad when ive told them they should act like birth control is their total reasponsibility that that i actually think that women are stuck taking the reasponsibility even in smaller ways the guy can still drink for the next 9 months doesent have to by any new clothes not to mention labour breast feeding etc.

No disrespect here but I have a hard time understanding this. If you used punctuation it would make your points more understandable. Again, truly, I mean no disrespect.

 

[mademocrat]

No, the thing is, although a man did were a condom it still isn't certain that he won't have a baby, condoms don't always work and if you don't want a kid the best thing to do is not have sex, now for most men that is a sacrifice that most people aren't willing to take.

Making a woman have an abortion because the man don't want it is wrong, taking the life of an unborn child is wrong and if you don't want a baby then don't have sex, thats my view on this.

 

[Jerry]

If a man and a women have sex using a condom the men doesent want children however the women still becomes pregnant and decides to have the baby,is it reasonable to have a law when the man because of the circumstances to refuse to have anything to do with or to pay any maintances for the child.

A stupid suggestion you may say but wouldnt it encourage alot more young men to use condoms and women to be more careful who they sleep with cutting down teen pregnances and stis?

I feel society as a whole would benefit.

The benefit to society would be to only have sex with your spouse, because then all this bs is avoided.

Men refusing to fulfill their obligations to their child does not serve the child's best interest, so men should not be absolved of our responsibilities to their children.

 

[1069]

The benefit to society would be to only have sex with your spouse, because then all this bs is avoided.

Oh yeah? Why is that?
You must be deranged if you think married people don't terminate accidental or unwanted pregnancies.
What does "only having sex with your spouse" have to do with anything?

 

[1069]

Making a woman have an abortion because the man don't want it is wrong

Agreed.

taking the life of an unborn child is wrong

Disagreed, as there's no such thing as an "unborn child", and even if there were it would have no "life" to take, not having been born yet.

if you don't want a baby then don't have sex, thats my view on this.

My view is that your view is asinine. However, I won't lobby to pass any laws preventing you from expressing or exercising it.
Too bad you can't say the same.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

The benefit to society would be to only have sex with your spouse, because then all this bs is avoided.

Men refusing to fulfill their obligations to their child does not serve the child's best interest, so men should not be absolved of our responsibilities to their children.

I agree that men should not be resolved of their responsibilities to the child, but I disagree, as 1069 did, that having sex only with your spouse precludes any necessity for abortion. Marriage does not solve every family planning problem: what if a husband left his pregnant wife? What if he died? She still should be able to choose not to have the child, even if married, because situations change -- even apart from the idea that married people may not want to have children right away, or at all.

 

[SpooK]

No, the thing is, although a man did were a condom it still isn't certain that he won't have a baby, condoms don't always work and if you don't want a kid the best thing to do is not have sex, now for most men that is a sacrifice that most people aren't willing to take.

Agreed.

Making a woman have an abortion because the man don't want it is wrong, taking the life of an unborn child is wrong and if you don't want a baby then don't have sex, thats my view on this.

Agreed.

 

[SpooK]

The benefit to society would be to only have sex with your spouse, because then all this bs is avoided.

I got a better idea. The benefit to society would be to only have sex if you are prepared to accept the consequences and raise the child in the event the woman should get pregnant.

Men refusing to fulfill their obligations to their child does not serve the child's best interest, so men should not be absolved of our responsibilities to their children.

Agreed

 

[mikhail]

I got a better idea. The benefit to society would be to only have sex if you are prepared to accept the consequences and raise the child in the event the woman should get pregnant.
^^^

Yes but once again people on here not meaning to be disrespectful are sayin what should be the ideal situation when they know this wont happen.
I know the only real way of enforcing this law would be through an odd condom saving dna test,but i dont think this is really the point is its just to at least make people think twice.

I dont think abstainance works for non religious types It needs that extra belief.I believe getting married to the wrong person is worse than having a child out of wed lock then setting up families seperatly.

 

[1069]

I know the only real way of enforcing this law would be through an odd condom saving dna test,but i dont think this is really the point is its just to at least make people think twice.

I don't see why it would "make people think twice", when anyone can see it's utterly unenforcable; in fact, it truly doesn't make any sense at all.
The last thing society needs, in my opinion, is further gender-specific legislature, which is discriminatory by its very definition.

 

[SpooK]

I dont think abstainance works for non religious types It needs that extra belief

There are other things to consider besides abstinance. You could practice outercourse, oral, or even anal sex.

 

[FallingPianos]

There are other things to consider besides abstinance. You could practice outercourse, oral, or even anal sex.

if you are trying to avoid intercourse I wouldnt recommend it. but then again, I wouldnt recommend dating to anyone who didn't want to have intercourse.

 

[1069]

if you are trying to avoid intercourse I wouldnt recommend it. but then again, I wouldnt recommend dating to anyone who didn't want to have intercourse.

Oh, why not, Star?
You mean, you wouldn't be interested in dating, say, SpooK?
If he openly and honestly explained that conventional sex was out of the question, because he wasn't ready to have children yet... but that he'd be glad to have anal sex with you?
What's the matter with you? What kind of woman could pass up such an offer?? :crazy3:

 

[FallingPianos]

Oh, why not, Star?
You mean, you wouldn't be interested in dating, say, SpooK?
If he openly and honestly explained that conventional sex was out of the question, because he wasn't ready to have children yet... but that he'd be glad to have anal sex with you?
What's the matter with you? What kind of woman could pass up such an offer?? :crazy3:

oh, its not that. I simply think sex is bound to happen sooner or later whether the couple planned on having it or not. for adolescents it might not be so bad because they are likely to break up before it happens, but to with adults its a different story.

 

[taxedout]

It's not his body. It's not his responsibility.

the woman is responsible for everything that enters, grows within and exits her body.