Should Men Have a Say?

[Panache]

Somebody is going to end up paying for the baby. Either the parents or the taxpayers. The solution seems fairly obvious...

The lady who decided to keep it without input from a man, can care for it without financial input from a man.

 

[misterman]

Exactly my point. If the law is going to protect the child while it is still in the womb, then it has every right to tell the mother that she can't abort.

But it doesn't have anything to do with the child IN THE WOMB. It's about after it's born.

If it isn't going to acknowledge that the child is a child until after it is out of the womb, then the responsibility for the child lies with whoever chose to become a parent.

You chose to be a parent when you had sex.

If both genetic contributors want to be parents, great. If the guy chooses not to be a parent, then the girl can choose to be a parent on her own, or can choose to abort.

No. I've explained this many times.

You're basically saying that men can just decide to abandon their children, period.

The guy who has sex and then offers to help pay for an abortion has no more responsibility to the child than if he donated to a sperm bank.

So you think if she wants to be a mom, he can buy that away from her for the price of an abortion, and she has to accept the deal? Pathetic.

If the woman chooses to continue with the pregnancy without his help and against his wishes, she can continue with the child rearing without his help too.

Look, you chose already. She has a veto, you don't. Biology. Deal with it.

 

[1069]

And men are allowed to have abortions too, when they get pregnant.

Exactly.
There's nothing "one-sided" about it.
Non-custodial mothers pay child support, just as non-custodial fathers do, whether or not they "want" their children.

And any pregnant individual- male or female- who wants an abortion can have one.

Men are simply whining that biology isn't fair, and I really don't give a crap.
Sorry women can do something men can't; suck it up, buttercup.

 

[misterman]

The lady who decided to keep it without input from a man, can care for it without financial input from a man.

But she did get his input - literally.

 

[misterman]

Men can naturally refuse to pay for children that they don't want. The issue is with laws forcing them to do so at the woman's say so.

It's for the CHILD, not the woman.

 

[Panache]

But it doesn't have anything to do with the child IN THE WOMB. It's about after it's born.

After its born, its HER kid. SHE was the one who chose to have it. The dude was just the sperm donor.

You chose to be a parent when you had sex.

Nope. Just chose to have sex. The dude willing to help pay for an abortion chose not to be a parent. That choice should be respected.

No. I've explained this many times.

Not well enough apparently.

You're basically saying that men can just decide to abandon their children, period.

If at a point where abortion is an option, and the man wishes to go with that option, he should shell out half the cost for an abortion. If the woman agrees, then she can use the money to help pay for the abortion, if she doesn't she can spend it on baby formula, either way, the guy has chosen to excuse himself from the picture, and if the girl chooses to have the kid without him, then she should have the kid without him.

So you think if she wants to be a mom, he can buy that away from her for the price of an abortion, and she has to accept the deal? Pathetic.

Why? She can buy her way out for the price of an abortion. If they both choose to have a kid together, then they can raise it together. If the guy wants her to get an abortion, and she chooses to have the kid without him, why shouldn't she raise it without him too?

Look, you chose already. She has a veto, you don't. Biology. Deal with it.

No more so than she did. If she chooses to make herself a parent, then she should be a parent, she shouldn't get to choose to make the guy a parent too, when she was really just using him a sperm donor for the kid that SHE wanted.

 

[misterman]

After its born, its HER kid. SHE was the one who chose to have it. The dude was just the sperm donor.

See, this is the root of your problem - you simply can't man up and accept the responsibilities of fatherhood. If it's your kid, it's your kid.

Nope. Just chose to have sex. The dude willing to help pay for an abortion chose not to be a parent. That choice should be respected.

Tell that to a judge.

If at a point where abortion is an option, and the man wishes to go with that option, he should shell out half the cost for an abortion. If the woman agrees, then she can use the money to help pay for the abortion, if she doesn't she can spend it on baby formula, either way, the guy has chosen to excuse himself from the picture, and if the girl chooses to have the kid without him, then she should have the kid without him.

One thing is clear from all this - society and children would be much better off without you being a father. By all means, please try to avoid it.

 

[Panache]

See, this is the root of your problem - you simply can't man up and accept the responsibilities of fatherhood. If it's your kid, it's your kid.

It is if I chose to have it. If some girl chooses to have it using my sperm, then its her kid.

Tell that to a judge.

I am clever enough to don my armor before sallying forth into battle.

One thing is clear from all this - society and children would be much better off without you being a father. By all means, please try to avoid it.

Why? When I choose to have kids, they will be kids that I chose to have. Not kids that someone else chose for me.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

It is if I chose to have it. If some girl chooses to have it using my sperm, then its her kid.



I am clever enough to don my armor before sallying forth into battle.



Why? When I choose to have kids, they will be kids that I chose to have. Not kids that someone else chose for me.

Unless of course the condom breaks
Unless of course you plan on not having sex except for procreation purposes

 

[Mick]

This thread seems to come up from time to time. It seems that men have a say when we decide to have sex. We are all (mostly) big boys and understand contraceptive options. Use 'em or weep, fellas.

 

[misterman]

It is if I chose to have it. If some girl chooses to have it using my sperm, then its her kid.

If you choose to give her your sperm, it's your choice.

You have no business having sex until your grow up and take responsibility for your actions.

 

[nonpareil]

If you choose to give her your sperm, it's your choice.

You have no business having sex until your grow up and take responsibility for your actions.

That's the same arguement as the anti-abortion arguement. If the woman did not want to have children she shouldn't have had sex. Woman should not use abortion as a birth control.

 

[molten_dragon]

This thread seems to come up from time to time. It seems that men have a say when we decide to have sex. We are all (mostly) big boys and understand contraceptive options. Use 'em or weep, fellas.

I'm not sure why this seems to be such a prevalent opinion.

Men and Women both should be equally responsible for insuring that birth control measures are used if they don't want a child together. If she gets pregnant anyway, both parties are equally 'at fault' so to speak.

However, if she does get pregnant and doesn't want to be a mother, she has a 'get out of jail free' card. She can get an abortion!

If the man doesn't want to be a father, well, he's screwed, it's not up to him.

It's not fair that the woman can get out of being a mother after she's pregnant but the man can't get out of being a father.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Men can have a say. What they can't have is a veto.

 

[misterman]

That's the same arguement as the anti-abortion arguement. If the woman did not want to have children she shouldn't have had sex. Woman should not use abortion as a birth control.

So?

It's the same argument because men CAN'T have abortions. Women can, so they have different rules.

 

[misterman]

I'm not sure why this seems to be such a prevalent opinion.

Men and Women both should be equally responsible for insuring that birth control measures are used if they don't want a child together. If she gets pregnant anyway, both parties are equally 'at fault' so to speak.

However, if she does get pregnant and doesn't want to be a mother, she has a 'get out of jail free' card. She can get an abortion!

If the man doesn't want to be a father, well, he's screwed, it's not up to him.

It's not fair that the woman can get out of being a mother after she's pregnant but the man can't get out of being a father.

Well put. It's not fair. But that's life.

 

[VanceMack]

Men can have a say. What they can't have is a veto.

Sure they can...commit simple assault, pay the fine, and kill the zygote.

 

[OKgrannie]

Sure they can...commit simple assault, pay the fine, and kill the zygote.

In your attempt to commit simple assault, you're very likely to commit murder. And in many states that's going to be two murders and maybe the death penalty.

 

[nonpareil]

So?

It's the same argument because men CAN'T have abortions. Women can, so they have different rules.

But they both can refrain from having sex. So if the arguement that if one doesn't want to have children one should refrain from having sex applies to man, it should apply equally to women.

 

[OKgrannie]

But they both can refrain from having sex. So if the arguement that if one doesn't want to have children one should refrain from having sex applies to man, it should apply equally to women.

Men and women have an equal opportunity to say no to sex.
Men and women have an equal opportunity to use birth control.
Men and women have an equal opportunity to support a child once born, although it is common for women to get more of the opportunity.

Gestation, OTOH, is not equal at all. Since women do all of the gestating, they get the choice of whether or not to do it.

What's unfair about that?

Taking away women's power to have an abortion, to choose, will not make men MORE powerful, it will just make both parties powerless.

Taking away men's obligations to support their children will not make men more free, it will just entail obligating all taxpayers to support those children, except for the relatively rare cases where one parent can both physically and financially support children.

Men know ahead of time that giving their sperm to a woman means giving that woman power over them. That's their choice. Women know ahead of time that giving birth to a child means giving that man power over them, and that's their choice.

 

[thatguymd]

Of course it's gender-specific.

Care to provide an actual reason? The default for a statement is to apply to everyone not excluded in the statement. If there is a reason for it to be gender specific, please provide one.

So, if I told you that someone wants to know if they consent to sex, if that means they are consenting to the unintented consequences of sex - you'd need me to provide the gender of the person asking to know the answer? Why?

If nobody can force a woman not to have an abortion, nobody can force a woman to have one either.

Um..okay. I never mentioned forcing women to have abortions. Does this apply to something I said? If so, please explain. And also, Godzilla is coming.

If it is not true (consent to sex IS consent to pregnancy), then why should the woman have the right to abort when she has already consented to the pregnancy?

Because she's the one who is pregnant.

I'm pretty sure the statement I made says as much. That really isn't an answer at all. I mean, she has consented to the pregnancy but she can go back on that because she is pregnant? Really?

So people can stop making mortgage payments because they are paying the mortgage?

They can not complete jobs they've agreed to because they are the ones doing the job?

They can stop making child support payments they agreed to because they are the ones making child support payments?

You seem to have this idea that you can make life fair through the law. You can't.

I don't suppose you are actually basing this on anything? I don't have the idea that we can make life fair through the law. I do, however, believe that the laws we do make should be fair.

She has nine months to decide, you have five minutes. That's life. Your chance to avoid pregnancy comes when you do.

But you need to answer the above as to why she can abort a pregnancy she consented to? Why aren't you saying that once the child is concieved, then both parties are responsible and while the woman endures the pregnancy portion by herself - "That's life"?

 

[misterman]

But they both can refrain from having sex. So if the arguement that if one doesn't want to have children one should refrain from having sex applies to man, it should apply equally to women.

But it doesn't, because of biology. She has two chances instead of one.

This is called life. It's unfair sometimes.

 

[rivrrat]

But it doesn't, because of biology. She has two chances instead of one.

Biology has nothing to do with it. The law does. That can be changed.

 

[misterman]

Care to provide an actual reason? The default for a statement is to apply to everyone not excluded in the statement. If there is a reason for it to be gender specific, please provide one.

Because only one gender can get pregnant, and therefore have an abortion.

Um..okay. I never mentioned forcing women to have abortions. Does this apply to something I said? If so, please explain. And also, Godzilla is coming.

You didn't, others on this thread did.

I'm pretty sure the statement I made says as much. That really isn't an answer at all. I mean, she has consented to the pregnancy but she can go back on that because she is pregnant? Really?

Um, yeah. She can have an abortion. The father can't. Pretty obvious.

So people can stop making mortgage payments because they are paying the mortgage?

No, that's illegal. Abortion is legal.

I don't suppose you are actually basing this on anything? I don't have the idea that we can make life fair through the law. I do, however, believe that the laws we do make should be fair.

They are fair.

Everyone has the right to an abortion if they become pregnant.

But you need to answer the above as to why she can abort a pregnancy she consented to? Why aren't you saying that once the child is concieved, then both parties are responsible and while the woman endures the pregnancy portion by herself - "That's life"?

She can abort because she's the pregnant one. Are you claiming the right of fathers to prevent abortion? That's a different issue.

 

[misterman]

Biology has nothing to do with it. The law does. That can be changed.

Biology has nothing to do with the fact that a woman can choose to abort but a man can't?

How would you change this legally?