That's what it is that blows my mind about women who can't accept that they are solely responsible for their own bodies, and for what happens to their bodies (absent a case of rape or forced incest). They want the freedom and the choice, but they don't want to make sure that they are protected against unwanted pregnancy, not to mention the other risks they are taking with unprotected sex. This is junior high school grade knowledge here.
Regardless of how you personally feel about it, it happens all the time. Women are not solely responsible for a sex act because it takes two people. Simple really. Without the contribution of the male, no pregnancy would occur so you are just plain wrong. :shrug: I'm starting to wonder if you ever had sex education because this is basic biology. It takes two, and both are responsible for their actions. Condoms are available for men, and they need to start using them. They can also get diseases and make babies. The ONLY difference is that the woman incubates the child as it develops. That's IT.
I didn't say two people aren't responsible for a sex act. I said she should be responsible for protecting herself. You and I are not going to see eye to eye on this issue. I think the woman is responsible for what happens to her body. You don't. And ne'r the twain shall meet.
I never said she wasn't responsible. That is where you are wrong. I said he is just as responsible for his body and bodily fluids as she is. BIG difference.
Goodness lizzie, this is below you, you even bolded the part where I stated that women are not SOLELY responsible for a pregnancy, and now you try to play it off as if I said they are NOT responsible. That is dishonest, and I'm surprised.
I am not being dishonest at all. The thread is about pregnancy and aborting, and fathers' rights. The bodily fluids thing is just a side issue, as unprotected sex can have other negative outcomes besides pregnancy. My point (and I will say it again) is that since the woman is the one whose body is changed, and she has the sole decision-making power, the primary responsibility lies with her.
CA...it's not about my concern for child welfare. There is a biological disparity that can't be overridden.
All of the "dysfunctional family stories", sad as some might be...it is impossible employ a public policy to coerce a woman into reacting to a conception based on someone else beliefs on when and when they should not reproduce.
You have yet to outline just a simple version of what such a public policy's language would look like and how it would be enforced.
I've seen nothing but this way of controlling through coercion via a public policy as you call it. Since it's still not possible to create...
No, if a man does NOT want to have a child, then his sole responsibility is also to himself. No one here is more responsible. Both create the child and both are equally responsible for protecting themselves if they don't want children. That's all there is to it.
The dishonest part is insinuating that I stated the woman is "not" responsible, when I would never ever said anything so stupid.
What part of "primary" do you not get? And when is a woman not solely responsible for her own body? A man is responsible for his own body, just as she is for hers. If I have sex with someone, he is not responsible for me in the least. It is a voluntary act on my part.
Who is responsible for a child?
I guess it depends on who you ask. In my case, it was me.
Regardless of how you personally feel about it, it happens all the time. Women are not solely responsible for a sex act because it takes two people. Simple really. Without the contribution of the male, no pregnancy would occur so you are just plain wrong. :shrug: I'm starting to wonder if you ever had sex education because this is basic biology. It takes two, and both are responsible for their actions. Condoms are available for men, and they need to start using them. They can also get diseases and make babies. The ONLY difference is that the woman incubates the child as it develops. That's IT.
Wrong.
If a woman becomes she can opt for an abortion within the parameters of Roe vs Wade which means before viability except in extreme cases.
The extreme cases are when a woman's life ,or irreparable damage to a major bodily function would occur if the pregnancy continued or when the fetus would be stillborn or when the fetus is so malformed it would only live a few minutes or hours.
Those are extreme cases.
The only problem is that under most State laws the responsibility is forcibly a shared one where the man has no "choice"...
Please, more "it's not fair" whining?
If you want "it's not fair" try being pregnant for nine months. While I was headed for pre-eclampsia (read potential organ damage and death) and needing surgery with general anesthesia to deliver my baby....I never thought that "dang, its not fair that only the mom has to go through this".
Sorry, but the numerous physical changes and potential damages that can come from pregnancy kinda over-rides any man's "it's not fair that she can opt out, but I cannot"
I am curious, men are obliged to pay child support once the baby is born - but are they required to pay pregnancy support? Never heard of it if there is such a thing.
But seriously, "opting out" of supporting your child - if any pro-life individual says this...I will say that it strengthens my view that many "pro-life" people are pro-fetus and not pro-life.
No woman can legally have a born child killed.
You appear to be thoroughly confused to what this thread is about. It's questioning if men who knock someone up can evade supporting their own child should the mother have the baby. So yes, despite your confusion, there really is a child being abandoned by a deadbeat dad under this pathetic scenario.
Exactly, under current state law. That is a reflection of current public policy; but it has not always been public policy just as it has not in all instances always been state law. Laws can be changed.
Wrong. Doe v Bolton, released the same day as Roe v Wade, effectively did away with any such restrictions, allowing for unrestrained abortion for any reason. ...
I'll believe that when men gain the same choices afforded women to divest themselves of responsibility before a child is born..
No decision is necessary to determine the responsibility of parent...man or woman ONCE A CONCEPTION has developed past viability stage. Responsibilities are intrinsic to the social standards universally applied to both a man and woman who are identified as the biological co-creators of a viable fetus / born child.
What part of "primary" do you not get? And when is a woman not solely responsible for her own body? A man is responsible for his own body, just as she is for hers. If I have sex with someone, he is not responsible for me in the least. It is a voluntary act on my part.
So if a man doesn't even have sex with a woman, but his DNA somehow is used to conceive a child with her, he's responsible for that child?
:shrug: I've stated multiple times that my preference is for neither individual to be able to opt out of their parental responsibilities at any stage of the childs' development. But if you are going to offer that option then you should do it equally.
Hmmmm...explain that a bit more. Are you suggesting that a large number of conceptions come into being...by some covert, illegal means to impregnate women? I mean that this happens so frequent it would be considered to be the rule...not the exception?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?