Should Woman's Choice Trump the Man's??

Aunt Spiker said:

So, no, what has accompanied your view throughout history has been toxic - at best - to everyone else that is deemed to be 'in the way'

Which is evident even in your views you've stated here in this thread: those who hold views that are different than yours are immoral and wrong.

Click to expand...

Anyone who is standing in the way of what is Right should find themselves in a very "toxic" situation so far as I am concerned. That's simple reason and logic as I see it. To accept that Wrong exists and to attempt to do nothing about it is the height of insanity in my mind. Especially since those things which are Wrong generally multiply and expand themselves much more easily than those which are Right.

Okay, Bod....

If a woman chooses to keep her pregnancy and have a child against the man's wishes and she chooses to not use her legal option of birth control and have an abortion, should the man have to pay child support for her choice.Should the man have to pay Child Support if he does not want the child and the woman decides to not opt to have an abortion as a means of contraception?

Click to expand...

Then You go on and said...

This thread is about a woman's choice subjugating a man to the role of a wallet for 18 years due to the whim of a woman's choice to keep a child against his wishes.

Click to expand...

This thread is not about a woman's right to choose.

Click to expand...

I want you to see that I know what the fundamental issue is in your post.

Answer:

(A) The issue of using the appropriate birth control isn't just the responsibility of the woman "ever". Birth Control can and does fail on its own without any tampering. Many a babies are conceived because of birth control failure.

Even if the woman dupes a man by not taking birth control. Or even say she's damaged the condom on purpose. I seriously doubt she'd be jumping out of her pants to tell her guy she'd duped him into having a child. How's he to know?

My question becomes: Why did the guy choose not to wear a condom? And especially if its a playmate or girlfriend with no intent to marry, or one night stand that swears she's on birth control. You know as well as I do - that women DUPING men for a baby, although not uncommon, is still the exception - not the rule. Doubling up on birth control never hurts, but men just take it for granted that if a woman is on the pill - all is safe and using rubbers suck.

(B) If a man is Truly Pro-life - then abortion is out of the question for him anyway. Don't punish an unwanted child because he or she isn't wanted. Both are responsible for the child's support and welfare. And I'd really have to wonder why a Pro-life man is with a Pro-choice woman. Doesn't calculate for me.

You go on and say....

That being said, this thread is not about the law, but about what is right.

Click to expand...

Bod...WHO DETERMINES THE DEFINITION OF WHAT "RIGHT" IS? The word RIGHT is the most fought over word in the entire world. The word RIGHT causes more violence and damage than any other word I can think of. The word RIGHT destroys more relationships (of all kind) than any other word I can think of.

The word RIGHT is incredibly abstract. If it weren't - then DP and all other forums would be out of business.

BOD...if you are truly PRO-LIFE - Then why wouldn't you want to be liable for a child - even if you didn't want it? What's the baby to do - check itself in at the local orphanage? Maybe it needs to call up Child Protective Services and say - "Nobody wants to be responsible for me so come pick me up."

Yep, you are going to hate it, but your stance brings me back to: "It doesn't matter what you want, how unfair you think it is, how much you think men are discriminated against - or even give you the privilege to ask "why do the man have to be liable"? In the end - LAWS determine what is RIGHT for everybody...not for just you or me. People have a real problem agreeing on what is RIGHT...or even it's meaning. Not everyone agrees with the law, but it doesn't matter what they agree with UNLESS they have the power to change them.

If the baby pops out of the womb...then are both responsible, period.

IF YOU WANNA PLAY...and it's discovered that you share DNA...then you PAY! Regardless of the circumstance!

OH, and when it comes to married couples - your fate is written in concrete. Like it or not, no matter what you think is RIGHT - there are many laws to deal with pregnancy issues and babies.

Gipper said:

So a woman can shirk responsibility via abortion, but a man can't?

Click to expand...

So all a man has to say is "you have to abort!" and then he's absolved of paying any support to the child when it's born? :shock:

David D. said:

So all a man has to say is "you have to abort!" and then he's absolved of paying any support to the child when it's born? :shock:

Click to expand...

yes thats the way it should be as long as its done in the same time frame of legal abortion and he gives up all parental rights.

Thats whats fair, logical and nondiscriminatory.

Centrist77 said:

yes thats the way it should be as long as its done in the same time frame of legal abortion and he gives up all parental rights.

Thats whats fair, logical and nondiscriminatory.

Click to expand...

It is none of those things. It isn't fair because the woman is the one who actually carries the child and for many people having an abortion is a major decision. It isn't as easy as a man flippantly signing a piece of paper eschewing responsibility for his offspring. It isn't logical because the whole purpose of child support is to ensure that the child is well-provided for financially, by both parents to the best of their abilities. It doesn't assess who is more at "fault" for the pregnancy occurring in the first place. And it's only non-discriminatory in the narrowest sense, because men already have the same abortion rights as women (i.e. if you get pregnant, you're just as free as a woman is to have an abortion).

Kandahar said:

It is none of those things. It isn't fair because the woman is the one who actually carries the child and for many people having an abortion is a major decision. It isn't as easy as a man flippantly signing a piece of paper eschewing responsibility for his offspring. It isn't logical because the whole purpose of child support is to ensure that the child is well-provided for financially, by both parents to the best of their abilities. It doesn't assess who is more at "fault" for the pregnancy occurring in the first place. And it's only non-discriminatory in the narrowest sense, because men already have the same abortion rights as women (i.e. if you get pregnant, you're just as free as a woman is to have an abortion).

Click to expand...

uhm who cares if the woman carries the child LMAO that is absolutely MEANINGLESS in this debate.

Please explain to me what merit that has in this debate?

also please stay on topic, nobody claim who is more at fault so save appeals to emotion please.

Its totally logical because its fair and regardless of what you think the purpose of child support is this wont effect it in reality LMAO

and your last line about equal abortion rights is just totally dishonest because you have nothing else of substance to offer.

Blacks had the same rights as white before too, they could drink out of water fountains just not THIS water fountain. See how silly that is but I would prefer dont to play silly games and talk about REALITY and real world facts.

Centrist77 said:

uhm who cares if the woman carries the child LMAO that is absolutely MEANINGLESS in this debate.

Click to expand...

*let me start by saying I’m mostly anti-abortion, but in the spirit of the discussion…*

I think there are undeniable, fundamental physical differences between a man and a woman, and I’m sorry Centrist the whole process is not more ‘fair’ where maybe the man and the women could mutually fertilize a mutually formed skin pod that is somewhere outside and detached from both of their bodies, but that just isn’t the case.

The child grows in the woman, not the man, and therefore only a woman can have an abortion, and ultimately only a woman can choose to abort.

If a man could abort, they’d be able to have that choice too, but men can’t have babies (and there’s nothing you can do to change this).

Centrist77 said:

Blacks had the same rights as white before too, they could drink out of water fountains just not THIS water fountain. See how silly that is but I would prefer dont to play silly games and talk about REALITY and real world facts.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant in the discussion because there are no differences between a black man vs a white man, whereas there are MANY differences between a man and a woman.

David D. said:

*let me start by saying I’m mostly anti-abortion, but in the spirit of the discussion…*

I think there are undeniable, fundamental physical differences between a man and a woman, and I’m sorry Centrist the whole process is not more ‘fair’ where maybe the man and the women could mutually fertilize a mutually formed skin pod that is somewhere outside and detached from both of their bodies, but that just isn’t the case.

The child grows in the woman, not the man, and therefore only a woman can have an abortion, and ultimately only a woman can choose to abort.

If a man could abort, they’d be able to have that choice too, but men can’t have babies (and there’s nothing you can do to change this).





Irrelevant in the discussion because there are no differences between a black man vs a white man, whereas there are MANY differences between a man and a woman.

Click to expand...

you seem to be saying I want the man to be able to tell the women NOT to abort?
nope thats not what I want at all I only want options for the man in the beggining to not be responsible if the WOMEN chooses to not abort.

The physical difference are meaningless the law needs to be fair, just and not discriminate.

So regardless of the physical differences the law needs to be fair. Sorry EQUAL RIGHTS.
Pretty simple and common sense. The law can MAKE it fair without compromising anything else so it needs done.

Another one Boddhi, seriously?

Centrist77 said:

you seem to be saying I want the man to be able to tell the women NOT to abort?
nope thats not what I want at all I only want options for the man in the beggining to not be responsible if the WOMEN chooses to not abort.

Click to expand...

Your scenario would basically mean that any male who wishes not to be a father would could just sign a paper saying "I asked her to abort, so now I don't have to provide any support for the child". Seems too easy. What kind of effect do you think this would have on low income areas?

Men could impregnate as many women as they could possibly want because they would have absolutely NO consequence for doing so. What's to stop them from doing this? What would be their incentive for even using birth control?

This is not an equal rights situation because each person isn't affected equally by the pregnancy, and again comes down to our biological differences.

Centrist77 said:

The physical difference are meaningless the law needs to be fair, just and not discriminate.

Click to expand...

Physical difference is not meaningless. It's much easier for a man to opt out than a woman because essentially the woman has to make the final choice as to whether or not she is going to assassinate and flush out the growing fetus inside of her. This is a much more difficult decision than just signing some piece of paper. Your system puts all of the heavy burden on the female, which is not fair.

Once conception has taken place, I believe the man is now along for the ride.

If he's scared about whether or not she's taken her pill, then use a freakin' condom. And if you think the condom has been tampered with, go and buy your own. That simple.

Centrist77 said:

uhm who cares if the woman carries the child LMAO that is absolutely MEANINGLESS in this debate.

Please explain to me what merit that has in this debate?

also please stay on topic, nobody claim who is more at fault so save appeals to emotion please.

Its totally logical because its fair and regardless of what you think the purpose of child support is this wont effect it in reality LMAO

and your last line about equal abortion rights is just totally dishonest because you have nothing else of substance to offer.

Blacks had the same rights as white before too, they could drink out of water fountains just not THIS water fountain. See how silly that is but I would prefer dont to play silly games and talk about REALITY and real world facts.

Click to expand...

One more thing.

How about we make it completely fair;

The man can say that he wishes not to have to pay child support and that's fine. On the same token, the female can opt out from having to support the child as well, and that's fine too.

As for the abortion, that's a different topic. What happens to the baby after it's born?

The man can say that he wishes not to have to pay child support and that's fine.

Click to expand...

I think that's what many of us guys wish to have. It's also an available method to avoid a "trap" set by a woman. Otherwise, you have 18 years of her dangling something you don't want over your head.

Gipper said:

I think that's what many of us guys wish to have. It's also an available method to avoid a "trap" set by a woman. Otherwise, you have 18 years of her dangling something you don't want over your head.

Click to expand...

When you sleep with a lady, it's your own job to protect yourself. Buy your own condoms and don't rely on what she says about the BC pills.

If you impregnate, and that turns into a baby which makes it out of the birthing canal into the world, it’s 50% yours under the law (unless both producing parties consent to relieve this responsibility from one or the other).

She has the right to make it 0% hers before it gets to that point. I don't.

That needs to change.

Gipper said:

She has the right to make it 0% hers before it gets to that point. I don't.

Click to expand...

Sure you do.



+



=

I lol'd.

Rohypnol can get expensive. I was thinking a little Drano in her Hawaiian Punch. But then I gotta talk to the police and all that crap...

David D. said:

Your scenario would basically mean that any male who wishes not to be a father would could just sign a paper saying "I asked her to abort, so now I don't have to provide any support for the child". Seems too easy. What kind of effect do you think this would have on low income areas?.

Click to expand...

It would have to be under the same time frame as choosing to abort of course, it couldn't be 5 years later. And it would have the same effect it has on them now when the women has a baby against the mans wishes. So this might make some people more responsible, SOME, a low a mount probably but at least the law is now fair.

David D. said:

Men could impregnate as many women as they could possibly want because they would have absolutely NO consequence for doing so. What's to stop them from doing this? What would be their incentive for even using birth control?

Click to expand...

WOMEN can do this NOW, they can say they are on the pill, shot etc or say they cant get pregnant or simply not stop when its time. This happens NOW. And in reality some men do this now also. It would give BOTH parties EQUAL/FAIR incentive is what it would do.

David D. said:

This is not an equal rights situation because each person isn't affected equally by the pregnancy, and again comes down to our biological differences.

Click to expand...

actually I think it is and your argument has no impact on that. What if I dont want to hire women because they get periods and they might take maternity leave? can I do that? nope because it violates their equal rights no matter there biological differences. Try again

David D. said:

Physical difference is not meaningless. It's much easier for a man to opt out than a woman because essentially the woman has to make the final choice as to whether or not she is going to assassinate and flush out the growing fetus inside of her. This is a much more difficult decision than just signing some piece of paper. Your system puts all of the heavy burden on the female, which is not fair.

Click to expand...

no it puts EQUAL burden on them both.
The current system makes it an easier burden on the female because after she makes her choice the man is stuck and because he is stuck it could effect her choice. Currently she gets to make the choice FOR THE MAN and FORCE HIM. The way I want to make it is that its a SELF CHOICE.

And actually the guy can still get screwed if he wants the kid and she doesnt BUT I would never even dream of forcing a women to carry a child she didnt want that is just asinine. THAT is the one unfairness I can live with due to biological circumstances.

David D. said:

Once conception has taken place, I believe the man is now along for the ride.

Click to expand...

and thats what is GREATLY unfair and discriminating, he gets no choice and has no power, thats plain wrong.

David D. said:

If he's scared about whether or not she's taken her pill, then use a freakin' condom. And if you think the condom has been tampered with, go and buy your own. That simple.

Click to expand...

condoms break, they fail, hell in extremely rare cases sperm has been removed from a condom and used to trap a guy.

so NO its not "that simple"
reality is never that simple especially when dealing with fair or not.

David D. said:

One more thing.

How about we make it completely fair;

The man can say that he wishes not to have to pay child support and that's fine. On the same token, the female can opt out from having to support the child as well, and that's fine too.

As for the abortion, that's a different topic. What happens to the baby after it's born?

Click to expand...

it can never be "completely fair" that part I get. Women can and should be allowed to abort and I would never force them otherwise thats just wrong on so many levels.

but as far as your scenario THAT can happen now. Women are free to give up thier babies for adoption if thats what they choose. :shrug:

Gipper said:

She has the right to make it 0% hers before it gets to that point. I don't.

That needs to change.

Click to expand...

As Tucker Points out you can always perform an adhoc abortion against her will.

On a serious note, why do you think a man is not allowed to force a woman to have an abortion?

Centrist77 said:

It would have to be under the same time frame as choosing to abort of course, it couldn't be 5 years later. And it would have the same effect it has on them now when the women has a baby against the mans wishes. So this might make some people more responsible, SOME, a low a mount probably but at least the law is now fair.

Click to expand...

About the timeline – definitely. And true, a lot of dead beat fathers out there either way. Guess now they can be legal deadbeats.

Centrist77 said:

WOMEN can do this NOW, they can say they are on the pill, shot etc or say they cant get pregnant or simply not stop when its time. This happens NOW. And in reality some men do this now also. It would give BOTH parties EQUAL/FAIR incentive is what it would do.

Click to expand...

There’s a difference. Simply speaking – in the context of reproduction - men are ‘givers’ and women are ‘takers’.

Think of how society treats promiscuous men and promiscuous women differently.

Centrist77 said:

actually I think it is and your argument has no impact on that. What if I dont want to hire women because they get periods and they might take maternity leave? can I do that? nope because it violates their equal rights no matter there biological differences. Try again

Click to expand...

I was speaking on biological differences as it relates directly to the primary act of having a baby and reproduction, not the ‘secondary’ effect the biological differences have as in the example you bring up.

Centrist77 said:

no it puts EQUAL burden on them both.
The current system makes it an easier burden on the female because after she makes her choice the man is stuck and because he is stuck it could effect her choice. Currently she gets to make the choice FOR THE MAN and FORCE HIM. The way I want to make it is that its a SELF CHOICE.

And actually the guy can still get screwed if he wants the kid and she doesnt BUT I would never even dream of forcing a women to carry a child she didnt want that is just asinine. THAT is the one unfairness I can live with due to biological circumstances.

Click to expand...

Again, men are the givers and women are the receivers when it comes to sex. If a man chooses to ‘give it’ to a female (sorry, not my intention to be crude with this statement), he better be wholly ready for any consequences that may result after that point, in my opinion.

Also, burden =/=.

Under your idea man chooses yes/no to having to care for child.

Women choses yes/no to killing her child.

Women seems to have a much more significant decision to make.

Centrist77 said:

it can never be "completely fair" that part I get. Women can and should be allowed to abort and I would never force them otherwise thats just wrong on so many levels.

but as far as your scenario THAT can happen now. Women are free to give up thier babies for adoption if thats what they choose. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Sure, I can dig the adoption thing, but only if the man has to pay his share of all associated costs?

David D. said:

About the timeline – definitely. And true, a lot of dead beat fathers out there either way. Guess now they can be legal deadbeats.

Click to expand...

they wouldnt be legal anything they wouldnt be fathers at all, the people that want this to happen want them to give up all legal rights in that same time frame.

but currently the women that do this are legal con artists, thieves, and extortionist :shrug:

David D. said:

There’s a difference. Simply speaking – in the context of reproduction - men are ‘givers’ and women are ‘takers’.

Think of how society treats promiscuous men and promiscuous women differently.

Click to expand...

so basically two wrongs make a right? no thanks
women shouldnt be treated that way thats all, also on a side note its more so other WOMEN that treat them that way then men.

David D. said:

I was speaking on biological differences as it relates directly to the primary act of having a baby and reproduction, not the ‘secondary’ effect the biological differences have as in the example you bring up.

Click to expand...

doesnt really matter does it? you said biological isnt a factor in equal rights, thats wrong.

David D. said:

Again, men are the givers and women are the receivers when it comes to sex. If a man chooses to ‘give it’ to a female (sorry, not my intention to be crude with this statement), he better be wholly ready for any consequences that may result after that point, in my opinion.

Also, burden =/=.

Under your idea man chooses yes/no to having to care for child.

Women choses yes/no to killing her child.

Women seems to have a much more significant decision to make.

Click to expand...

this is an appeal to emotion that I dont buy
one its only your opinion that they may view it as "killing HER child" lol nice touch though

they both share it because it changes thier lives for ever financially and responsibility wise.
Plese do not imply that they man is ONLY agree to support a child and thats SO easy, I think you are smarted than that and NO im not being sarcastic. Im being honest and Im not buying that down play.

David D. said:

Sure, I can dig the adoption thing, but only if the man has to pay his share of all associated costs?

Click to expand...

not sure I agree with this and what are the standard costs, if it small than fine if its substantial then no.

SHE choose to HAVE the baby and give it up for adoption, He choose to not have the baby and give up all his parental rights in the abortion time frame. Thats her choice.

Centrist77 said:

one its only your opinion that they may view it as "killing HER child" lol nice touch though

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Centrist, to be honest, this is an issue I don’t care that much about because it is likely to affect me very little given that I am almost married (next month) and have been with a single female partner for many years now.

I will just close by saying I don’t think we are going to ever agree on this, and again I think that when it comes to reproduction men “give” and females “receive” and the man has total control up to the point he decides to “give”, which afterwards nature takes over and there’s nothing you can do from there.

End abortion. That would put a close to this topic.

David D. said:

Thanks.

Centrist, to be honest, this is an issue I don’t care that much about because it is likely to affect me very little given that I am almost married (next month) and have been with a single female partner for many years now.

I will just close by saying I don’t think we are going to ever agree on this, and again I think that when it comes to reproduction men “give” and females “receive” and the man has total control up to the point he decides to “give”, which afterwards nature takes over and there’s nothing you can do from there.

End abortion. That would put a close to this topic.

Click to expand...

no problem, you kept the debate civil, didnt attack even when confronted with friendly sarcasm ( seems a lot of people cant emotionally deal with that)

for that I think you are a good poster whether we agree or not :shrug:

as for abortion? that freedom will still happen with or without government allowing it and I would NEVER want abortions stopped. I could never force a women to give birth beyond her wishes.

Good talking to you

Centrist77 said:

Good talking to you

Click to expand...

Likewise.

And although I agree abortions will always continue to occur, illegal or not, they will be much less frequent in the United States if it were to be illegal.

I think there’s got to be women out there that despite wanting an abortion, they don’t feel comfortable recruiting some black market abortion doctor on Craigslist and meeting him/her at his underground lair or something like that.

Take it easy, Centrist77.

David D. said:

Likewise.

And although I agree abortions will always continue to occur, illegal or not, they will be much less frequent in the United States if it were to be illegal.

I think there’s got to be women out there that despite wanting an abortion, they don’t feel comfortable recruiting some black market abortion doctor on Craigslist and meeting him/her at his underground lair or something like that.

Take it easy, Centrist77.

Click to expand...

Craigslist rules!

David D said:

On a serious note, why do you think a man is not allowed to force a woman to have an abortion?

Click to expand...

I'm not saying force a woman to have an abortion. I'm saying allow a man to absolve himself of responsibility should he declare his intentions. A woman is allowed to do that via abortion. A man can do it via contract.