If women can get abortions, men should be able to opt out of fatherhood

[Dreamy]

It's not a double standard, it's nature. If you don't like the way our biology is take it up with God. The child has to be cared for, period. That is the issue here and that is the purpose of child support. Whether or not you find that fair is completely irrelevant because it's not about you or men versus women, it's about the child. Don't get someone pregnant if you aren't ready to be a father and then you'll never have to deal with this situation. It's really quite a simple concept.

I would agree about the above but then again could we not also say to women who get pregnant and choose to abort don't get pregnant if you are not ready to be a mother and you won't have to deal with abortion or pregnancy?

Duh! But since the woman is the one getting impregnated and it's her body going through the pregnancy the male is far more impacted by her decision than the other way around, so it would be prudent for a guy not to put the baby inside her in the first place if he doesn't want one.

Honest to God, I don't know why you people are having such a difficult time understanding the logic of this. It's not that hard.

Honestly I do get it. My issue is legal aspect of making babies and how the law addresses it. If the law can hold the father or sperm donor liable after birth should he not have as much say before birth? I know what will be said. He body, her choice. Yeah I get that but the created fetus is half his too. Should the baby have rights to be protected by his father in a legal sense from abortion would be my question? If not then can the law allow him to be terminated from the after birth financials since he had no rights before the birth?

Just some thoughts. I know the law does not work as I describe but I wonder why sometimes.

 

[Richard-H]

Sex education should emphasize teaching men everything possible about birth control AND female sexual cycles. Men should be taught to take responsibility.

The fact is that women are in 'Romantic la-la land' when having sex...they have no control over themselves and don't think about pregnancy. It's one of nature's tricks.

Men ALWAYS assume that pregnancy would be the FIRST and FOREMOST thing on a woman's mind when she decides to have sex. It's NOT.

Men never totally lose control. They are the ones that need to keep a grip.

 

[bripat9643]

I never indicated one way or the other whether or not I have a "problem" with abortion. It's simply called minding my own damn business. It's not for me to decide what another person does with their body.

Then why is it your business to decide who pays support for her child?

 

[Ravi]

Life isn't fair. Once you give your sperm away it is no longer your call as to what becomes of it.

 

[bripat9643]

Sex education should emphasize teaching men everything possible about birth control AND female sexual cycles. Men should be taught to take responsibility.

The fact is that women are in 'Romantic la-la land' when having sex...they have no control over themselves and don't think about pregnancy. It's one of nature's tricks.

Men ALWAYS assume that pregnancy would be the FIRST and FOREMOST thing on a woman's mind when she decides to have sex. It's NOT.

Men never totally lose control. They are the ones that need to keep a grip.

That's the most insulting thing to women I've ever seen anyone post in this forum. It's also sexist.

 

[bripat9643]

Life isn't fair. Once you give your sperm away it is no longer your call as to what becomes of it.

Fine, then we have no responsibility for what happens to it either.

 

[bripat9643]

It's not a double standard, it's nature. If you don't like the way our biology is take it up with God. The child has to be cared for, period. That is the issue here and that is the purpose of child support. Whether or not you find that fair is completely irrelevant because it's not about you or men versus women, it's about the child. Don't get someone pregnant if you aren't ready to be a father and then you'll never have to deal with this situation. It's really quite a simple concept.

I would agree about the above but then again could we not also say to women who get pregnant and choose to abort don't get pregnant if you are not ready to be a mother and you won't have to deal with abortion or pregnancy?

Duh! But since the woman is the one getting impregnated and it's her body going through the pregnancy the male is far more impacted by her decision than the other way around, so it would be prudent for a guy not to put the baby inside her in the first place if he doesn't want one.

Honest to God, I don't know why you people are having such a difficult time understanding the logic of this. It's not that hard.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that a man shouldn't have any responsibility for a choice he has no control over?

 

[Dreamy]

Life isn't fair. Once you give your sperm away it is no longer your call as to what becomes of it.

Isn't a woman offering up her egg too by agreeing to sex? Yeah the party may be at her "place" lol but they are both offering parts of themselves.

 

[BBCAmerica]

I find it highly hypocritical that a woman can get an abortion, without notifying the man who impregnated her, and without even justifying it. Yet if a woman gets pregnant, keeps the baby, the male now has to pay child support. That is insane. Men should be able to opt out completely from being involved in raising the child and not have to pay a dime of child support since women can do the same thing via abortion.

I agree 100%. A man has zero say so on weather he can become a father or not in certain situations. If a woman and a man get pregnant on accident it is entirely up to the woman to decide if they get to be parents or not. Completely unfair. If we are going to have legal abortion (I'm against that) we should go all the way. If you don't want to have that baby then don't. But give the dad the same rights. Let the father legally say "I don't want to be a father"., If he does want to be a father and she doesn't want to be a mother then have my baby give him/her to me and kick rocks bitch

 

[BBCAmerica]

Life isn't fair. Once you give your sperm away it is no longer your call as to what becomes of it.

That's bullshit. The system is set up for the mother. If there is a hard working father and a drug addicted welfare mother, the system will look out for the well being of the 2% poundage they get from dad's check. Not the child. They will do everything they can to keep that kid with the mom so they can both fleece the father.

 

[thanatos144]

Simple answer to the OP is this......For years we are taught us men are dogs who do nothing but cheat, eat, drink , and fight and dont have the mental ability to make tough decisions....It all is wrapped up in the myth that women are smarter and more responsible.......50 million dead babies say they are as stupid as us men.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Liberalism REALLY treats women as inferior....helpless.....and needy......

If the woman has CONTROL of her body then she should be RESPONSIBLE for her body....and all the after-effects of having sex.....including taking care of the child if she gives birth....

instead Liberal Government becomes the "Husband/Father-in-Abstentia".....and the STATE takes care of the woman by providing taxpayer support and chasing after the man for his money....

But this is exactly what Liberalism/Leftism is after.....to TAKE OVER/DESTROY THE FAMILY UNIT.....

 

[Ravi]

Life isn't fair. Once you give your sperm away it is no longer your call as to what becomes of it.

That's bullshit. The system is set up for the mother. If there is a hard working father and a drug addicted welfare mother, the system will look out for the well being of the 2% poundage they get from dad's check. Not the child. They will do everything they can to keep that kid with the mom so they can both fleece the father.

You sound bitter. You shouldn't have given your sperm to a druggie.

 

[Dreamy]

Liberalism REALLY treats women as inferior....helpless.....and needy......

If the woman has CONTROL of her body then she should be RESPONSIBLE for her body....and all the after-effects of having sex.....including taking care of the child if she gives birth....

instead Liberal Government becomes the "Husband/Father-in-Abstentia".....and the STATE takes care of the woman by providing taxpayer support and chasing after the man for his money....

But this is exactly what Liberalism/Leftism is after.....to TAKE OVER/DESTROY THE FAMILY UNIT.....

Very sadly true.

 

[Si modo]

I would agree about the above but then again could we not also say to women who get pregnant and choose to abort don't get pregnant if you are not ready to be a mother and you won't have to deal with abortion or pregnancy?

Duh! But since the woman is the one getting impregnated and it's her body going through the pregnancy the male is far more impacted by her decision than the other way around, so it would be prudent for a guy not to put the baby inside her in the first place if he doesn't want one.

Honest to God, I don't know why you people are having such a difficult time understanding the logic of this. It's not that hard.

Honestly I do get it. My issue is legal aspect of making babies and how the law addresses it. If the law can hold the father or sperm donor liable after birth should he not have as much say before birth? I know what will be said. He body, her choice. Yeah I get that but the created fetus is half his too. Should the baby have rights to be protected by his father in a legal sense from abortion would be my question? If not then can the law allow him to be terminated from the after birth financials since he had no rights before the birth?

Just some thoughts. I know the law does not work as I describe but I wonder why sometimes.

This is the way I see it: I prioritize the right of the woman to her own body in this situation. And, that is exactly the right others who are pro-Choice value so much. I think it's worthy of such prioritized value.

So, in this situation and remembering that I prioritize that right, if there is a couple who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant, I'll look at two situations:

1. The woman does not want to carry the baby to term, but the man wants to have that baby. He can't force the woman to carry that baby to term, because I personally prioritize the woman's right to her body (as do most pro-Choicers). So, the father is SOL and does not get what he wants. The mother does.

2. The woman wants to carry the baby to term, but the man wants them to have an abortion. That is another Choice the woman has. The father cannot force her to have an abortion, so he is SOL and does not get what he wants. Furthermore, he has the next 19 years of his life affected by the woman's choice.

I cannot reconcile how that is anything close to equal rights. If the woman is the one who gets to call the shots as to what happens to her body - even though both parties have a part in making that baby - then the father should be able to opt out of fatherhood in the second case (as long as the father can prove that was the situation in the early stages of the pregnancy - 1st trimester, for example).

Women cannot have equal rights when the rights aren't equal. Seems pretty obvious to me, if I believe that the woman's right to her own body is sacrosanct. And, I do.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Liberalism REALLY treats women as inferior....helpless.....and needy......

If the woman has CONTROL of her body then she should be RESPONSIBLE for her body....and all the after-effects of having sex.....including taking care of the child if she gives birth....

instead Liberal Government becomes the "Husband/Father-in-Abstentia".....and the STATE takes care of the woman by providing taxpayer support and chasing after the man for his money....

But this is exactly what Liberalism/Leftism is after.....to TAKE OVER/DESTROY THE FAMILY UNIT.....

Very sadly true.

yes....but people like Liberty Lemming fall for the Liberal Lies.....and then wind up asking silly questions about "equal rights" for men.....

the Marxist Machine only supports those "equal rights" which are ADVANTAGEOUS to their agenda...

it's more advantageous for them to keep "deadbeat fathers" under their government-controlling thumb....

 

[Dreamy]

Duh! But since the woman is the one getting impregnated and it's her body going through the pregnancy the male is far more impacted by her decision than the other way around, so it would be prudent for a guy not to put the baby inside her in the first place if he doesn't want one.

Honest to God, I don't know why you people are having such a difficult time understanding the logic of this. It's not that hard.

Honestly I do get it. My issue is legal aspect of making babies and how the law addresses it. If the law can hold the father or sperm donor liable after birth should he not have as much say before birth? I know what will be said. He body, her choice. Yeah I get that but the created fetus is half his too. Should the baby have rights to be protected by his father in a legal sense from abortion would be my question? If not then can the law allow him to be terminated from the after birth financials since he had no rights before the birth?

Just some thoughts. I know the law does not work as I describe but I wonder why sometimes.

This is the way I see it: I prioritize the right of the woman to her own body in this situation. And, that is exactly the right others who are pro-Choice value so much. I think it's worthy of such prioritized value.

So, in this situation and remembering that I prioritize that right, if there is a couple who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant, I'll look at two situations:

1. The woman does not want to carry the baby to term, but the man wants to have that baby. He can't force the woman to carry that baby to term, because I personally prioritize the woman's right to her body (as do most pro-Choicers). So, the father is SOL and does not get what he wants. The mother does.

2. The woman wants to carry the baby to term, but the man wants them to have an abortion. That is another Choice the woman has. The father cannot force her to have an abortion, so he is SOL and does not get what he wants. Furthermore, he has the next 19 years of his life affected by the woman's choice.

I cannot reconcile how that is anything close to equal rights. If the woman is the one who gets to call the shots as to what happens to her body - even though both parties have a part in making that baby - then the father should be able to opt out of fatherhood in the second case (as long as the father can prove that was the situation in the early stages of the pregnancy - 1st trimester, for example).

Woman cannot have equal rights when the rights aren't equal. Seems pretty obvious to me, if I believe that the woman's right to her own body is sacrosanct. And, I do.

Nicely presented. The above is exactly what I was highlighting.

The only possible way for a man to protect his interests is to be protected with a condom. If I was a man not ready to have a baby with all the costs he will be charged with or not ready to see his baby aborted I would.

The law favors the woman(over unborn and father) in this matter and therefore a man has to look out for himself. Life is not fair, as some have stated but some women can be really master manipulators too. A baby being used to keep a man who is out to play is a dumb move as many a woman has learned.

 

[Dreamy]

Liberalism REALLY treats women as inferior....helpless.....and needy......

If the woman has CONTROL of her body then she should be RESPONSIBLE for her body....and all the after-effects of having sex.....including taking care of the child if she gives birth....

instead Liberal Government becomes the "Husband/Father-in-Abstentia".....and the STATE takes care of the woman by providing taxpayer support and chasing after the man for his money....

But this is exactly what Liberalism/Leftism is after.....to TAKE OVER/DESTROY THE FAMILY UNIT.....

Very sadly true.

yes....but people like Liberty Lemming fall for the Liberal Lies.....and then wind up asking silly questions about "equal rights" for men.....

the Marxist Machine only supports those "equal rights" which are ADVANTAGEOUS to their agenda...

it's more advantageous for them to keep "deadbeat fathers" under their government-controlling thumb....

I suspect he is looking for a better world. He can answer that for certain.

 

[Richard-H]

Sex education should emphasize teaching men everything possible about birth control AND female sexual cycles. Men should be taught to take responsibility.

The fact is that women are in 'Romantic la-la land' when having sex...they have no control over themselves and don't think about pregnancy. It's one of nature's tricks.

Men ALWAYS assume that pregnancy would be the FIRST and FOREMOST thing on a woman's mind when she decides to have sex. It's NOT.

Men never totally lose control. They are the ones that need to keep a grip.

That's the most insulting thing to women I've ever seen anyone post in this forum. It's also sexist.

Yes, it's both those things, but it's also TRUE. If it weren't there would be unwanted pregnancies.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Duh! But since the woman is the one getting impregnated and it's her body going through the pregnancy the male is far more impacted by her decision than the other way around, so it would be prudent for a guy not to put the baby inside her in the first place if he doesn't want one.

Honest to God, I don't know why you people are having such a difficult time understanding the logic of this. It's not that hard.

Honestly I do get it. My issue is legal aspect of making babies and how the law addresses it. If the law can hold the father or sperm donor liable after birth should he not have as much say before birth? I know what will be said. He body, her choice. Yeah I get that but the created fetus is half his too. Should the baby have rights to be protected by his father in a legal sense from abortion would be my question? If not then can the law allow him to be terminated from the after birth financials since he had no rights before the birth?

Just some thoughts. I know the law does not work as I describe but I wonder why sometimes.

This is the way I see it: I prioritize the right of the woman to her own body in this situation. And, that is exactly the right others who are pro-Choice value so much. I think it's worthy of such prioritized value.

So, in this situation and remembering that I prioritize that right, if there is a couple who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant, I'll look at two situations:

1. The woman does not want to carry the baby to term, but the man wants to have that baby. He can't force the woman to carry that baby to term, because I personally prioritize the woman's right to her body (as do most pro-Choicers). So, the father is SOL and does not get what he wants. The mother does.

2. The woman wants to carry the baby to term, but the man wants them to have an abortion. That is another Choice the woman has. The father cannot force her to have an abortion, so he is SOL and does not get what he wants. Furthermore, he has the next 19 years of his life affected by the woman's choice.

I cannot reconcile how that is anything close to equal rights. If the woman is the one who gets to call the shots as to what happens to her body - even though both parties have a part in making that baby - then the father should be able to opt out of fatherhood in the second case (as long as the father can prove that was the situation in the early stages of the pregnancy - 1st trimester, for example).

Women cannot have equal rights when the rights aren't equal. Seems pretty obvious to me, if I believe that the woman's right to her own body is sacrosanct. And, I do.

what's he going to do.....? Demand a pregnancy test during the first 3 months.......?

this whole 'question' really depends on the OPTION of ABORTION.....if abortion was illegal and the right of the baby to its LIFE was respected this whole stupid question wouldn't even exist...

however the Marxist Machine fucks up the whole natural world with its DEATH agenda....