If it is your body & your choice why the he'll do I have to pay for the next 18 years?

[hazlnut]

You want complete control over the entire situation (pregnancy, life & death) then you should foot the entire bill.

Period

You realize, the argument works in reverse.

Because if you force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, it's YOU who want complete control over her -- so you get to foot the bill.

You also realize that it's cheaper to have an abortion (or pay for one) than support a child for eighteen years.

 

[martybegan]

All the more reason for women to be more selective of who they sleep with, and how much protection they use. You again keep bringing up biological issues with childbirth, and keep ignoring the main question, why should a woman be able to terminate their responsibility for a fetus unilaterally while a man cannot? We are obviously talking about an unplanned (by at least one party, usually both) pregnancy.

We have spent the past few decades trying to make sex as easy and meaningless as possible. What you want is only one side to be unable to deal with the consequences after the fact, and have that side soley decided by gender. That is discrimination.

When it comes to birth, biology is all there is. That is why the man gets no say. He isn't the one carrying the kid. When you change that, then you will have a point. Until then, you have nothing.

You are the one with no legal point. All you can do is appeal to biology and emotion, and not give a single credible reason why a man, when he properly notifies a woman in time for a legal abortion, should be held responsible for a child he doesn't want. If a woman can get rid of one they don't want, the man should have the same option. Fair is Fair.

Fair is not what you are interested in. So I am fine with you thinking it is unfair. The man gets no say in the pregnancy. None. Not even a little bit. And he is still financially responsible. If he doesn't want that deal, he should get snipped so he doesn't have that problem.

If and when he is willing and able to take on the pregnancy himself, then I fully support his right to make the decision and the woman still has the financial responsibility. Because fair is fair.

Or the woman can get her tubes tied, fair is fair after all.

Again, it isn't about the biology of pregnancy, its about the legal ability to have consequence free sex. If women have it, men should have it as well.

It is entirely about biology. I realize you prefer it not be because it is inconvenient, but those are the facts. If you decide to have sex and you aren't snipped, that is the chance you take. You go into the deal with your eyes open. If you think it is a bad deal, then don't do it.

Then one can just as easily say that for the woman... oh wait, she has an out than men don't have.

You don't want equality, you want to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[martybegan]

There is no child unless the mother decides to have one.

And there is obligation for anyone until the child is born. The basis of that obligation is the child's existence. If she loses custody of the child, she's still obligated to pay for the child's support.

Its the exact same situation for the father. Neither 'choice' nor 'power' is the basis of that obligation to pay. But the child being born.

The child becomes meaningless in the equation once you accept the fact that both sides should have a choice before and after sex, if you want true equality.

You have true equality. Each person controls their own body. Your version of 'equality' is a man controlling his own body and controlling a woman's body. While she controls neither his body, nor her own.

Um, that's not equality.

What is meaningful is the choice made by the woman after she know the man doesn't want a kid, and as long as that position is made clear before legal on demand abortion is not allowed.

Same fallacious basis as always. As the obligation to support a child isn't based on choice or power. Its based on the child's existence. As its the child who has the right to support. Making any 'contract' signed irrelevant as the party with the right to support didn't sign it.

If the child exists, the obligation exists. You can't get around that.

Again, because the State takes the place of Daddy with the Shotgun.

Running back to the patriarchy...

Why would the state assume financial responsibility? There's no other contract that works like this. Party A and Party B sign a contract that obligates Party C to pay?

Um, that's not how it works. The obligation is on the part of the parents. Not the State. There's no logical reason for the State to take that responsibility. Nor any logical reason to absolve a father of the responsibility of supporting his own child.

Your argument again, doesn't make the slightest sense.

Ever hear of WIC? The state plays daddy in far to many cases.

 

[PratchettFan]

When it comes to birth, biology is all there is. That is why the man gets no say. He isn't the one carrying the kid. When you change that, then you will have a point. Until then, you have nothing.

You are the one with no legal point. All you can do is appeal to biology and emotion, and not give a single credible reason why a man, when he properly notifies a woman in time for a legal abortion, should be held responsible for a child he doesn't want. If a woman can get rid of one they don't want, the man should have the same option. Fair is Fair.

Fair is not what you are interested in. So I am fine with you thinking it is unfair. The man gets no say in the pregnancy. None. Not even a little bit. And he is still financially responsible. If he doesn't want that deal, he should get snipped so he doesn't have that problem.

If and when he is willing and able to take on the pregnancy himself, then I fully support his right to make the decision and the woman still has the financial responsibility. Because fair is fair.

Or the woman can get her tubes tied, fair is fair after all.

Again, it isn't about the biology of pregnancy, its about the legal ability to have consequence free sex. If women have it, men should have it as well.

It is entirely about biology. I realize you prefer it not be because it is inconvenient, but those are the facts. If you decide to have sex and you aren't snipped, that is the chance you take. You go into the deal with your eyes open. If you think it is a bad deal, then don't do it.

Then one can just as easily say that for the woman... oh wait, she has an out than men don't have.

You don't want equality, you want to have your cake and eat it too.

Since I am a man, it's not my cake. The reason she has an out the man doesn't have is due to biology. At the same time, the man can (assuming he's a total ass) just walk away. The woman can't. Again, due to biology. It's her body, not the man's. He gets no say in it.

You don't want equality, you want control. "Fair" is just a code word for control. If you really don't think it is fair, then stand up for your rights and refuse to have sex. That will teach those darn women.

 

[martybegan]

You are the one with no legal point. All you can do is appeal to biology and emotion, and not give a single credible reason why a man, when he properly notifies a woman in time for a legal abortion, should be held responsible for a child he doesn't want. If a woman can get rid of one they don't want, the man should have the same option. Fair is Fair.

Fair is not what you are interested in. So I am fine with you thinking it is unfair. The man gets no say in the pregnancy. None. Not even a little bit. And he is still financially responsible. If he doesn't want that deal, he should get snipped so he doesn't have that problem.

If and when he is willing and able to take on the pregnancy himself, then I fully support his right to make the decision and the woman still has the financial responsibility. Because fair is fair.

Or the woman can get her tubes tied, fair is fair after all.

Again, it isn't about the biology of pregnancy, its about the legal ability to have consequence free sex. If women have it, men should have it as well.

It is entirely about biology. I realize you prefer it not be because it is inconvenient, but those are the facts. If you decide to have sex and you aren't snipped, that is the chance you take. You go into the deal with your eyes open. If you think it is a bad deal, then don't do it.

Then one can just as easily say that for the woman... oh wait, she has an out than men don't have.

You don't want equality, you want to have your cake and eat it too.

Since I am a man, it's not my cake. The reason she has an out the man doesn't have is due to biology. At the same time, the man can (assuming he's a total ass) just walk away. The woman can't. Again, due to biology. It's her body, not the man's. He gets no say in it.

You don't want equality, you want control. "Fair" is just a code word for control. If you really don't think it is fair, then stand up for your rights and refuse to have sex. That will teach those darn women.

She CAN just walk away, its called an abortion. She doesn't have to refuse to have sex, she has an out. What is the issue with men having a legal out as well?

It would spread responsibility equally, before sex, and after.

You are holding one sex to a higher standard than the other. Where is the equality in that?

 

[PratchettFan]

Fair is not what you are interested in. So I am fine with you thinking it is unfair. The man gets no say in the pregnancy. None. Not even a little bit. And he is still financially responsible. If he doesn't want that deal, he should get snipped so he doesn't have that problem.

If and when he is willing and able to take on the pregnancy himself, then I fully support his right to make the decision and the woman still has the financial responsibility. Because fair is fair.

Or the woman can get her tubes tied, fair is fair after all.

Again, it isn't about the biology of pregnancy, its about the legal ability to have consequence free sex. If women have it, men should have it as well.

It is entirely about biology. I realize you prefer it not be because it is inconvenient, but those are the facts. If you decide to have sex and you aren't snipped, that is the chance you take. You go into the deal with your eyes open. If you think it is a bad deal, then don't do it.

Then one can just as easily say that for the woman... oh wait, she has an out than men don't have.

You don't want equality, you want to have your cake and eat it too.

Since I am a man, it's not my cake. The reason she has an out the man doesn't have is due to biology. At the same time, the man can (assuming he's a total ass) just walk away. The woman can't. Again, due to biology. It's her body, not the man's. He gets no say in it.

You don't want equality, you want control. "Fair" is just a code word for control. If you really don't think it is fair, then stand up for your rights and refuse to have sex. That will teach those darn women.

She CAN just walk away, its called an abortion. She doesn't have to refuse to have sex, she has an out. What is the issue with men having a legal out as well?

It would spread responsibility equally, before sex, and after.

You are holding one sex to a higher standard than the other. Where is the equality in that?

No, she can't just walk away. If she just walks away she will end up with a baby. She has to schedule and undergo a medical procedure or have the baby. Just walking away is not an option for her. The man, otoh, can just walk away. All he has to do is walk. Do you see the difference? No.... of course you don't. What am I thinking.

I am not holding one sex to a higher standard, nature is. There is nothing I can do about that. I suppose we could force the man to undergo surgery to have him take on all of the complications of pregnancy as well. That might help make the standards more equal. If the woman dies, we shoot him. That could make it more equal. But I don't think we should do that because he has no more control over biology than she does.

It's the woman's body, not yours. I know you don't think that is fair, but that's tough.

 

[rdean]

Why the he will?

I disagree. Man up and pay support and raise your kids, deadbeat daddies of America.

Auto correct

Anyhow this has nothing to do with deadbeat dads. This is about fairplay between men & women.

If a woman can kill the child the man should have the option to walk away as well.

Child? Women are killing children?

 

[martybegan]

Or the woman can get her tubes tied, fair is fair after all.

Again, it isn't about the biology of pregnancy, its about the legal ability to have consequence free sex. If women have it, men should have it as well.

It is entirely about biology. I realize you prefer it not be because it is inconvenient, but those are the facts. If you decide to have sex and you aren't snipped, that is the chance you take. You go into the deal with your eyes open. If you think it is a bad deal, then don't do it.

Then one can just as easily say that for the woman... oh wait, she has an out than men don't have.

You don't want equality, you want to have your cake and eat it too.

Since I am a man, it's not my cake. The reason she has an out the man doesn't have is due to biology. At the same time, the man can (assuming he's a total ass) just walk away. The woman can't. Again, due to biology. It's her body, not the man's. He gets no say in it.

You don't want equality, you want control. "Fair" is just a code word for control. If you really don't think it is fair, then stand up for your rights and refuse to have sex. That will teach those darn women.

She CAN just walk away, its called an abortion. She doesn't have to refuse to have sex, she has an out. What is the issue with men having a legal out as well?

It would spread responsibility equally, before sex, and after.

You are holding one sex to a higher standard than the other. Where is the equality in that?

No, she can't just walk away. If she just walks away she will end up with a baby. She has to schedule and undergo a medical procedure or have the baby. Just walking away is not an option for her. The man, otoh, can just walk away. All he has to do is walk. Do you see the difference? No.... of course you don't. What am I thinking.

I am not holding one sex to a higher standard, nature is. There is nothing I can do about that. I suppose we could force the man to undergo surgery to have him take on all of the complications of pregnancy as well. That might help make the standards more equal. If the woman dies, we shoot him. That could make it more equal. But I don't think we should do that because he has no more control over biology than she does.

It's the woman's body, not yours. I know you don't think that is fair, but that's tough.

I see the difference, I just don't think it means anything legally if true equality among the sexes is the goal.

In your scenario then make him pay for 1/2 of the abortion (or 3/4 considering it is her going through the procedure).

And all of your proposals are punitive in nature for the sole "sin" of casual sex, which was the whole goal of the sexual revolution.

And you keep going back to "its a woman's body" over and over. that isn't in dispute. What is in dispute is the fact that she can terminate her responsibility unilaterally, and the man cannot, which is unfair from an everyone is equal perspective.

 

[PratchettFan]

It is entirely about biology. I realize you prefer it not be because it is inconvenient, but those are the facts. If you decide to have sex and you aren't snipped, that is the chance you take. You go into the deal with your eyes open. If you think it is a bad deal, then don't do it.

Then one can just as easily say that for the woman... oh wait, she has an out than men don't have.

You don't want equality, you want to have your cake and eat it too.

Since I am a man, it's not my cake. The reason she has an out the man doesn't have is due to biology. At the same time, the man can (assuming he's a total ass) just walk away. The woman can't. Again, due to biology. It's her body, not the man's. He gets no say in it.

You don't want equality, you want control. "Fair" is just a code word for control. If you really don't think it is fair, then stand up for your rights and refuse to have sex. That will teach those darn women.

She CAN just walk away, its called an abortion. She doesn't have to refuse to have sex, she has an out. What is the issue with men having a legal out as well?

It would spread responsibility equally, before sex, and after.

You are holding one sex to a higher standard than the other. Where is the equality in that?

No, she can't just walk away. If she just walks away she will end up with a baby. She has to schedule and undergo a medical procedure or have the baby. Just walking away is not an option for her. The man, otoh, can just walk away. All he has to do is walk. Do you see the difference? No.... of course you don't. What am I thinking.

I am not holding one sex to a higher standard, nature is. There is nothing I can do about that. I suppose we could force the man to undergo surgery to have him take on all of the complications of pregnancy as well. That might help make the standards more equal. If the woman dies, we shoot him. That could make it more equal. But I don't think we should do that because he has no more control over biology than she does.

It's the woman's body, not yours. I know you don't think that is fair, but that's tough.

I see the difference, I just don't think it means anything legally if true equality among the sexes is the goal.

In your scenario then make him pay for 1/2 of the abortion (or 3/4 considering it is her going through the procedure).

And all of your proposals are punitive in nature for the sole "sin" of casual sex, which was the whole goal of the sexual revolution.

And you keep going back to "its a woman's body" over and over. that isn't in dispute. What is in dispute is the fact that she can terminate her responsibility unilaterally, and the man cannot, which is unfair from an everyone is equal perspective.

I don't think you do see the difference. But I see no point in continuing to say the same thing over and over again.

 

[jillian]

You want complete control over the entire situation (pregnancy, life & death) then you should foot the entire bill.

Period

child support is for the benefit of the child not the mother.

get over it.

 

[martybegan]

Then one can just as easily say that for the woman... oh wait, she has an out than men don't have.

You don't want equality, you want to have your cake and eat it too.

Since I am a man, it's not my cake. The reason she has an out the man doesn't have is due to biology. At the same time, the man can (assuming he's a total ass) just walk away. The woman can't. Again, due to biology. It's her body, not the man's. He gets no say in it.

You don't want equality, you want control. "Fair" is just a code word for control. If you really don't think it is fair, then stand up for your rights and refuse to have sex. That will teach those darn women.

She CAN just walk away, its called an abortion. She doesn't have to refuse to have sex, she has an out. What is the issue with men having a legal out as well?

It would spread responsibility equally, before sex, and after.

You are holding one sex to a higher standard than the other. Where is the equality in that?

No, she can't just walk away. If she just walks away she will end up with a baby. She has to schedule and undergo a medical procedure or have the baby. Just walking away is not an option for her. The man, otoh, can just walk away. All he has to do is walk. Do you see the difference? No.... of course you don't. What am I thinking.

I am not holding one sex to a higher standard, nature is. There is nothing I can do about that. I suppose we could force the man to undergo surgery to have him take on all of the complications of pregnancy as well. That might help make the standards more equal. If the woman dies, we shoot him. That could make it more equal. But I don't think we should do that because he has no more control over biology than she does.

It's the woman's body, not yours. I know you don't think that is fair, but that's tough.

I see the difference, I just don't think it means anything legally if true equality among the sexes is the goal.

In your scenario then make him pay for 1/2 of the abortion (or 3/4 considering it is her going through the procedure).

And all of your proposals are punitive in nature for the sole "sin" of casual sex, which was the whole goal of the sexual revolution.

And you keep going back to "its a woman's body" over and over. that isn't in dispute. What is in dispute is the fact that she can terminate her responsibility unilaterally, and the man cannot, which is unfair from an everyone is equal perspective.

I don't think you do see the difference. But I see no point in continuing to say the same thing over and over again.

Then why do you post to a message board?

 

[dilloduck]

You want complete control over the entire situation (pregnancy, life & death) then you should foot the entire bill.

Period

child support is for the benefit of the child not the mother.

get over it.

and the mother has the SOLE decision whether that child is born. If it's not born ( which is again---her sole decision ) there is no need for ANYONE to provide support. Can't women take the financial responsibility for their decisions ?

 

[dilloduck]

Then one can just as easily say that for the woman... oh wait, she has an out than men don't have.

You don't want equality, you want to have your cake and eat it too.

Since I am a man, it's not my cake. The reason she has an out the man doesn't have is due to biology. At the same time, the man can (assuming he's a total ass) just walk away. The woman can't. Again, due to biology. It's her body, not the man's. He gets no say in it.

You don't want equality, you want control. "Fair" is just a code word for control. If you really don't think it is fair, then stand up for your rights and refuse to have sex. That will teach those darn women.

She CAN just walk away, its called an abortion. She doesn't have to refuse to have sex, she has an out. What is the issue with men having a legal out as well?

It would spread responsibility equally, before sex, and after.

You are holding one sex to a higher standard than the other. Where is the equality in that?

No, she can't just walk away. If she just walks away she will end up with a baby. She has to schedule and undergo a medical procedure or have the baby. Just walking away is not an option for her. The man, otoh, can just walk away. All he has to do is walk. Do you see the difference? No.... of course you don't. What am I thinking.

I am not holding one sex to a higher standard, nature is. There is nothing I can do about that. I suppose we could force the man to undergo surgery to have him take on all of the complications of pregnancy as well. That might help make the standards more equal. If the woman dies, we shoot him. That could make it more equal. But I don't think we should do that because he has no more control over biology than she does.

It's the woman's body, not yours. I know you don't think that is fair, but that's tough.

I see the difference, I just don't think it means anything legally if true equality among the sexes is the goal.

In your scenario then make him pay for 1/2 of the abortion (or 3/4 considering it is her going through the procedure).

And all of your proposals are punitive in nature for the sole "sin" of casual sex, which was the whole goal of the sexual revolution.

And you keep going back to "its a woman's body" over and over. that isn't in dispute. What is in dispute is the fact that she can terminate her responsibility unilaterally, and the man cannot, which is unfair from an everyone is equal perspective.

I don't think you do see the difference. But I see no point in continuing to say the same thing over and over again.

so you're claiming that having an abortion is equal to paying 18 years of child support ? That is what you call equal ?

 

[Care4all]

Fair is not what you are interested in. So I am fine with you thinking it is unfair. The man gets no say in the pregnancy. None. Not even a little bit. And he is still financially responsible. If he doesn't want that deal, he should get snipped so he doesn't have that problem.

If and when he is willing and able to take on the pregnancy himself, then I fully support his right to make the decision and the woman still has the financial responsibility. Because fair is fair.

Or the woman can get her tubes tied, fair is fair after all.

Again, it isn't about the biology of pregnancy, its about the legal ability to have consequence free sex. If women have it, men should have it as well.

It is entirely about biology. I realize you prefer it not be because it is inconvenient, but those are the facts. If you decide to have sex and you aren't snipped, that is the chance you take. You go into the deal with your eyes open. If you think it is a bad deal, then don't do it.

Then one can just as easily say that for the woman... oh wait, she has an out than men don't have.

You don't want equality, you want to have your cake and eat it too.

Since I am a man, it's not my cake. The reason she has an out the man doesn't have is due to biology. At the same time, the man can (assuming he's a total ass) just walk away. The woman can't. Again, due to biology. It's her body, not the man's. He gets no say in it.

You don't want equality, you want control. "Fair" is just a code word for control. If you really don't think it is fair, then stand up for your rights and refuse to have sex. That will teach those darn women.

She CAN just walk away, its called an abortion. She doesn't have to refuse to have sex, she has an out. What is the issue with men having a legal out as well?

It would spread responsibility equally, before sex, and after.

You are holding one sex to a higher standard than the other. Where is the equality in that?

Marty, marty, Marty....

The woman, (for the most part) who has the baby is the woman who has never even thought she had a right to abortion, abortion has never been in her vocabulary..... CAN YOU COMPREHEND THAT? She has never had a CHOICE, there was no choice of abortion to make for her, abortion was UNTHINKABLE.

AND YOU are saying, THIS WOMAN, this woman who never had a choice, (due to religious reasons for the most part) should be punished with no financial help from the Father for his and her child, BECAUSE other women DO have a choice to have an abortion? Because other women fought for this right to abort, and other men voted for this right to choice, when she never ever even considered it a choice....or because of some Supreme court decision for OTHER WOMEN that she never considered herself a part of...?

You are INSANE....on this, dear one.

 

[PratchettFan]

Since I am a man, it's not my cake. The reason she has an out the man doesn't have is due to biology. At the same time, the man can (assuming he's a total ass) just walk away. The woman can't. Again, due to biology. It's her body, not the man's. He gets no say in it.

You don't want equality, you want control. "Fair" is just a code word for control. If you really don't think it is fair, then stand up for your rights and refuse to have sex. That will teach those darn women.

She CAN just walk away, its called an abortion. She doesn't have to refuse to have sex, she has an out. What is the issue with men having a legal out as well?

It would spread responsibility equally, before sex, and after.

You are holding one sex to a higher standard than the other. Where is the equality in that?

No, she can't just walk away. If she just walks away she will end up with a baby. She has to schedule and undergo a medical procedure or have the baby. Just walking away is not an option for her. The man, otoh, can just walk away. All he has to do is walk. Do you see the difference? No.... of course you don't. What am I thinking.

I am not holding one sex to a higher standard, nature is. There is nothing I can do about that. I suppose we could force the man to undergo surgery to have him take on all of the complications of pregnancy as well. That might help make the standards more equal. If the woman dies, we shoot him. That could make it more equal. But I don't think we should do that because he has no more control over biology than she does.

It's the woman's body, not yours. I know you don't think that is fair, but that's tough.

I see the difference, I just don't think it means anything legally if true equality among the sexes is the goal.

In your scenario then make him pay for 1/2 of the abortion (or 3/4 considering it is her going through the procedure).

And all of your proposals are punitive in nature for the sole "sin" of casual sex, which was the whole goal of the sexual revolution.

And you keep going back to "its a woman's body" over and over. that isn't in dispute. What is in dispute is the fact that she can terminate her responsibility unilaterally, and the man cannot, which is unfair from an everyone is equal perspective.

I don't think you do see the difference. But I see no point in continuing to say the same thing over and over again.

Then why do you post to a message board?

Pure masochism.

 

[Syriusly]

There are some men who just really, really, really, don't want to be responsible for the children that they sire.

That is what this thread is about.

 

[martybegan]

There are some men who just really, really, really, don't want to be responsible for the children that they sire.

That is what this thread is about.

Actually its about the fallacy that some people are seeking equality, where they are actually seeking superiority in certain situations.

 

[martybegan]

Or the woman can get her tubes tied, fair is fair after all.

Again, it isn't about the biology of pregnancy, its about the legal ability to have consequence free sex. If women have it, men should have it as well.

It is entirely about biology. I realize you prefer it not be because it is inconvenient, but those are the facts. If you decide to have sex and you aren't snipped, that is the chance you take. You go into the deal with your eyes open. If you think it is a bad deal, then don't do it.

Then one can just as easily say that for the woman... oh wait, she has an out than men don't have.

You don't want equality, you want to have your cake and eat it too.

Since I am a man, it's not my cake. The reason she has an out the man doesn't have is due to biology. At the same time, the man can (assuming he's a total ass) just walk away. The woman can't. Again, due to biology. It's her body, not the man's. He gets no say in it.

You don't want equality, you want control. "Fair" is just a code word for control. If you really don't think it is fair, then stand up for your rights and refuse to have sex. That will teach those darn women.

She CAN just walk away, its called an abortion. She doesn't have to refuse to have sex, she has an out. What is the issue with men having a legal out as well?

It would spread responsibility equally, before sex, and after.

You are holding one sex to a higher standard than the other. Where is the equality in that?

Marty, marty, Marty....

The woman, (for the most part) who has the baby is the woman who has never even thought she had a right to abortion, abortion has never been in her vocabulary..... CAN YOU COMPREHEND THAT? She has never had a CHOICE, there was no choice of abortion to make for her, abortion was UNTHINKABLE.

AND YOU are saying, THIS WOMAN, this woman who never had a choice, (due to religious reasons for the most part) should be punished with no financial help from the Father for his and her child, BECAUSE other women DO have a choice to have an abortion? Because other women fought for this right to abort, and other men voted for this right to choice, when she never ever even considered it a choice....or because of some Supreme court decision for OTHER WOMEN that she never considered herself a part of...?

You are INSANE....on this, dear one.

Or she can do a little research on the man she plans to sleep with, you know, actually find out if he is into having kids.

The type of person who finds abortion to be abominable is probably also NOT the type who sleeps around willy-nilly.

 

[dilloduck]

There are some men who just really, really, really, don't want to be responsible for the children that they sire.

That is what this thread is about.

and women who don't want to be responsible for what they conceived.

 

[dilloduck]

Or the woman can get her tubes tied, fair is fair after all.

Again, it isn't about the biology of pregnancy, its about the legal ability to have consequence free sex. If women have it, men should have it as well.

It is entirely about biology. I realize you prefer it not be because it is inconvenient, but those are the facts. If you decide to have sex and you aren't snipped, that is the chance you take. You go into the deal with your eyes open. If you think it is a bad deal, then don't do it.

Then one can just as easily say that for the woman... oh wait, she has an out than men don't have.

You don't want equality, you want to have your cake and eat it too.

Since I am a man, it's not my cake. The reason she has an out the man doesn't have is due to biology. At the same time, the man can (assuming he's a total ass) just walk away. The woman can't. Again, due to biology. It's her body, not the man's. He gets no say in it.

You don't want equality, you want control. "Fair" is just a code word for control. If you really don't think it is fair, then stand up for your rights and refuse to have sex. That will teach those darn women.

She CAN just walk away, its called an abortion. She doesn't have to refuse to have sex, she has an out. What is the issue with men having a legal out as well?

It would spread responsibility equally, before sex, and after.

You are holding one sex to a higher standard than the other. Where is the equality in that?

Marty, marty, Marty....

The woman, (for the most part) who has the baby is the woman who has never even thought she had a right to abortion, abortion has never been in her vocabulary..... CAN YOU COMPREHEND THAT? She has never had a CHOICE, there was no choice of abortion to make for her, abortion was UNTHINKABLE.

AND YOU are saying, THIS WOMAN, this woman who never had a choice, (due to religious reasons for the most part) should be punished with no financial help from the Father for his and her child, BECAUSE other women DO have a choice to have an abortion? Because other women fought for this right to abort, and other men voted for this right to choice, when she never ever even considered it a choice....or because of some Supreme court decision for OTHER WOMEN that she never considered herself a part of...?

You are INSANE....on this, dear one.

Her religion should trump the law ? Tell that to phamacists who don't want to fill morning after pill prescriptions.