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

[Ravi]

Nope.

As has been pointed out- your 'appeal' is anything but rational or logical.

As has been pointed out: both adults control their bodies- the male controls whether or not to donate his sperm- the female controls her decision whether to receive the sperm, and controls her body when it comes to her own health.

Once a baby is born both parents are equally legally responsible.

Abortion has zero to do with 'health'. Why can't you people ever be honest about this topic? Why can't you own what you support?

Again....we should listen to males in this regard.

Are you going senile?

She's saying that you are saying the male gets the decision, not that you are a male. Jebus!

Uh, no she's not, this is the second time she's done it in this thread.

And you've been all over this thread ceding control to the male in the equation. Read for comprehension.

 

[rightwinger]

That's unequal obligation. Where a woman is responsible for every child she bears. But a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

That's not equality.

Worse, it runs headlong into the nature of the obligation itself: to the child. If the child exists, a father has an obligation to support the child. As does a mother. You're insisting that a father should be able absolve himself of that obligation at will. While a mother can't.

That's not equality either.

Your proposals are expressly unequal, illogical, irrational, and shatter on the obligation a parent has for the support of their own children.

Women control the use of their own bodies the same way men control the use of theirs. Its equal. And there's never any financial obligation that she is released from while has to pay. Its always equal as well.

Either both are financially responsible or neither are. You demand unequal obligation and the voiding of the right of a child for support from both parents.

Nope.

Your entire post is destroyed by the simple fact that the man has no choice as to whether or not he becomes a father after conception, but the female has every choice as to whether or not she becomes a mother at that point, whether the person she carries will live or die.

Its not even mildly bruised by your claim, as a man has every control over the use of his body that a woman has over hers. He can choose not to use his body to carry the child to term. And a woman can make the same choice about her own body.

Obliterating your entire argument. Which is then shattered again by your demand for unequal obligation. And then shattered again by the child's right to support from both parents.

Leaving nothing but finely ground fallacy dust.

It leaves nothing but your hypocrisy.

I'm holding both mother and father to the same standards, the same control over their own bodies, the same degree of control over the other's body and the same obligation to any child born.

I don't think 'hypocrisy' means what you think it means.

How is it the 'same standard' for a woman to be able to spread her legs at every whim and enjoy sex whenever she likes and not have to be 'burdened' with being a mother, but the man has to 'keep it in his pants' if he doesn't want to be a father??

Believe it or not

It is usually the woman who bares the burden of that decision

 

[rightwinger]

Is that something else you are expressing medical expertise in?

Your memory sucks.

First you are a medical expert on what nine months of pregnancy is like.....then you are a medical expert on why people do and do not get abortions...and now you are a medical expert on senility and memory loss.

My memory of your posts is just fine.

I'm an expert at nine months of pregnancy because I've done it three times.

Females get abortions to get rid of an unwanted responsibility 99% of the time. The male doesn't have that choice, only the female.

And yes, your memory of who I am sucks.

Abortion is used for family planning. A woman gets to decide how many children she wants to care for if any

Family planning?? Do you think women plan to get pregnant and then kill their own child for convenience sake??? You just put an even uglier picture on it than most! Thanks!

You don't get to decide how many children a woman will have. The decision is up to her

50 years ago women would have 6-8 children in their lifetime. Now, they get to decide

 

[Newby]

Abortion has zero to do with 'health'. Why can't you people ever be honest about this topic? Why can't you own what you support?

Again....we should listen to males in this regard.

Are you going senile?

She's saying that you are saying the male gets the decision, not that you are a male. Jebus!

Uh, no she's not, this is the second time she's done it in this thread.

And you've been all over this thread ceding control to the male in the equation. Read for comprehension.

No, I'm being what's called 'fair', I'm not a victim just because I'm a woman, and if I do something irresponsible then I live with and accept the consequences for that behavior. I'm not a femi-nazi that's out to destroy men at every opportunity.

And I don't see how giving men the same 'choice' after conception as to whether or not they want to be a father, is ceding control of anything.

 

[orogenicman]

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

Period

Just so Viagra is covered under your health insurance, right?

 

[Newby]

Your memory sucks.

First you are a medical expert on what nine months of pregnancy is like.....then you are a medical expert on why people do and do not get abortions...and now you are a medical expert on senility and memory loss.

My memory of your posts is just fine.

I'm an expert at nine months of pregnancy because I've done it three times.

Females get abortions to get rid of an unwanted responsibility 99% of the time. The male doesn't have that choice, only the female.

And yes, your memory of who I am sucks.

Abortion is used for family planning. A woman gets to decide how many children she wants to care for if any

Family planning?? Do you think women plan to get pregnant and then kill their own child for convenience sake??? You just put an even uglier picture on it than most! Thanks!

You don't get to decide how many children a woman will have. The decision is up to her

50 years ago women would have 6-8 children in their lifetime. Now, they get to decide

Well, apparently it's not up to her, or she wouldn't get pregnant if she didn't want to become pregnant, it's really not that difficult. What you're implying is that she's just a victim, she can't help getting pregnant, it's 'forced' on her!!!

 

[G.T.]

I dont think i can decide for a woman...

But i dont find it moral to abort unless it was due to rape or effecting momma's health.

I cant fathom any reason why, in my line of virtues, that it would be ok otherwise....BUT, im not god(debatable) and im sure theres other reasons un-thought of

 

[Skylar]

That's unequal obligation. Where a woman is responsible for every child she bears. But a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

That's not equality.

Worse, it runs headlong into the nature of the obligation itself: to the child. If the child exists, a father has an obligation to support the child. As does a mother. You're insisting that a father should be able absolve himself of that obligation at will. While a mother can't.

That's not equality either.

Your proposals are expressly unequal, illogical, irrational, and shatter on the obligation a parent has for the support of their own children.

Women control the use of their own bodies the same way men control the use of theirs. Its equal. And there's never any financial obligation that she is released from while has to pay. Its always equal as well.

Either both are financially responsible or neither are. You demand unequal obligation and the voiding of the right of a child for support from both parents.

Nope.

Your entire post is destroyed by the simple fact that the man has no choice as to whether or not he becomes a father after conception, but the female has every choice as to whether or not she becomes a mother at that point, whether the person she carries will live or die.

Its not even mildly bruised by your claim, as a man has every control over the use of his body that a woman has over hers. He can choose not to use his body to carry the child to term. And a woman can make the same choice about her own body.

Obliterating your entire argument. Which is then shattered again by your demand for unequal obligation. And then shattered again by the child's right to support from both parents.

Leaving nothing but finely ground fallacy dust.

It leaves nothing but your hypocrisy.

I'm holding both mother and father to the same standards, the same control over their own bodies, the same degree of control over the other's body and the same obligation to any child born.

I don't think 'hypocrisy' means what you think it means.

How is it the 'same standard' for a woman to be able to spread her legs at every whim and enjoy sex whenever she likes and not have to be 'burdened' with being a mother, but the man has to 'keep it in his pants' if he doesn't want to be a father??

Again, she has control over her body. He has control over his. That's the same standard. If a man wants to choose if his body is used to carry a fetus to term, he should get pregnant.

 

[Valerie]

No, I'm saying that the op has merit in that the male should have the same choice in whether he becomes a father or not, either emotionally or financially. So if the woman CHOOSES to have the baby, then she should make that choice not expecting the man to want to be a father, and he should have the right to make that decision, just like the female does. And since he can't force her to abort, then he should not be legally obligated to financially become a father.

nature created an unequal circumstance by giving one gender a womb.

that 'unequal' circumstance is not determined by the government, so why are you so hung up on "equality"?


you want the government to provide men with wombs so things will be 'equal'??

you want the government to allow the man to force abortion upon a woman so things will be 'equal'??

i thought you were against abortion altogether ^ so that makes no sense...


you want women to let men off the financial hook, as a great equalizer for their lack of a womb.

you want to reduce men to nameless sperm donors...

that is up to the mother of the child, but in the eyes of the law, once the child is born, both parents are responsible.

you want to punish the woman for choosing NOT to abort by letting the dad opt out, you will INCREASE the incidence of abortion.

 

[chikenwing]

Your entire post is destroyed by the simple fact that the man has no choice as to whether or not he becomes a father after conception, but the female has every choice as to whether or not she becomes a mother at that point, whether the person she carries will live or die.

Its not even mildly bruised by your claim, as a man has every control over the use of his body that a woman has over hers. He can choose not to use his body to carry the child to term. And a woman can make the same choice about her own body.

Obliterating your entire argument. Which is then shattered again by your demand for unequal obligation. And then shattered again by the child's right to support from both parents.

Leaving nothing but finely ground fallacy dust.

It leaves nothing but your hypocrisy.

I'm holding both mother and father to the same standards, the same control over their own bodies, the same degree of control over the other's body and the same obligation to any child born.

I don't think 'hypocrisy' means what you think it means.

How is it the 'same standard' for a woman to be able to spread her legs at every whim and enjoy sex whenever she likes and not have to be 'burdened' with being a mother, but the man has to 'keep it in his pants' if he doesn't want to be a father??

Again, she has control over her body. He has control over his. That's the same standard. If a man wants to choose if his body is used to carry a fetus to term, he should get pregnant.

So no rights ,no responsibility.Your point of view is staggering slanted one way,ignoring all others,the father,the child,and the child is the one that really loses.

Take responsibility,instead of running from it.

 

[Skylar]

I dont think i can decide for a woman...

But i dont find it moral to abort unless it was due to rape or effecting momma's health.

I cant fathom any reason why, in my line of virtues, that it would be ok otherwise....BUT, im not god(debatable) and im sure theres other reasons un-thought of

I don't think gender has anything to do with it. I don't think a woman has any more authority to make that choice for another woman than a man does. She may be able to empathize more fully, but she has just as little say on the use of another woman's body.

I would never have abortion myself. But my aversion to the practice doesn't translate into a sense that I should be making this choice for anyone else.

 

[Skylar]

Its not even mildly bruised by your claim, as a man has every control over the use of his body that a woman has over hers. He can choose not to use his body to carry the child to term. And a woman can make the same choice about her own body.

Obliterating your entire argument. Which is then shattered again by your demand for unequal obligation. And then shattered again by the child's right to support from both parents.

Leaving nothing but finely ground fallacy dust.

It leaves nothing but your hypocrisy.

I'm holding both mother and father to the same standards, the same control over their own bodies, the same degree of control over the other's body and the same obligation to any child born.

I don't think 'hypocrisy' means what you think it means.

How is it the 'same standard' for a woman to be able to spread her legs at every whim and enjoy sex whenever she likes and not have to be 'burdened' with being a mother, but the man has to 'keep it in his pants' if he doesn't want to be a father??

Again, she has control over her body. He has control over his. That's the same standard. If a man wants to choose if his body is used to carry a fetus to term, he should get pregnant.

So no rights ,no responsibility.Your point of view is staggering slanted one way,ignoring all others,the father,the child,and the child is the one that really loses.

Take responsibility,instead of running from it.

On the contrary, if a man fathers a child he's responsible for supporting it.

You've got a losing argument. As either you're arguing that a woman is responsible for every child she bears but a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

Or...

You're arguing that a man should be able to control his own body and control a woman's body. While a woman can control neither her own body nor a man's.

And neither argument have a thing to do with 'equality'. But unequal obligation and unequal control over one's own body.

 

[Syriusly]

Again....we should listen to males in this regard.

Are you going senile?

She's saying that you are saying the male gets the decision, not that you are a male. Jebus!

Uh, no she's not, this is the second time she's done it in this thread.

And you've been all over this thread ceding control to the male in the equation. Read for comprehension.

No, I'm being what's called 'fair', I'm not a victim just because I'm a woman, and if I do something irresponsible then I live with and accept the consequences for that behavior. I'm not a femi-nazi that's out to destroy men at every opportunity.

And I don't see how giving men the same 'choice' after conception as to whether or not they want to be a father, is ceding control of anything.

I don't think you are capable of seeing why there is no 'same choice'.

A woman who is pregnant has the decision on how to treat her body- she can have an abortion, or she can try to carry the pregnancy to term- those are the two alternatives.

To give the man the 'same choice' would mean that he could make a woman have an abortion or make her try to carry it to term.

There is no other 'equivalent'- opting out of being financially responsible is not the same thing.

 

[Syriusly]

That's unequal obligation. Where a woman is responsible for every child she bears. But a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

That's not equality.

Worse, it runs headlong into the nature of the obligation itself: to the child. If the child exists, a father has an obligation to support the child. As does a mother. You're insisting that a father should be able absolve himself of that obligation at will. While a mother can't.

That's not equality either.

Your proposals are expressly unequal, illogical, irrational, and shatter on the obligation a parent has for the support of their own children.

Women control the use of their own bodies the same way men control the use of theirs. Its equal. And there's never any financial obligation that she is released from while has to pay. Its always equal as well.

Either both are financially responsible or neither are. You demand unequal obligation and the voiding of the right of a child for support from both parents.

Nope.

Your entire post is destroyed by the simple fact that the man has no choice as to whether or not he becomes a father after conception, but the female has every choice as to whether or not she becomes a mother at that point, whether the person she carries will live or die.

Its not even mildly bruised by your claim, as a man has every control over the use of his body that a woman has over hers. He can choose not to use his body to carry the child to term. And a woman can make the same choice about her own body.

Obliterating your entire argument. Which is then shattered again by your demand for unequal obligation. And then shattered again by the child's right to support from both parents.

Leaving nothing but finely ground fallacy dust.

It leaves nothing but your hypocrisy.

I'm holding both mother and father to the same standards, the same control over their own bodies, the same degree of control over the other's body and the same obligation to any child born.

I don't think 'hypocrisy' means what you think it means.

How is it the 'same standard' for a woman to be able to spread her legs at every whim and enjoy sex whenever she likes and not have to be 'burdened' with being a mother, but the man has to 'keep it in his pants' if he doesn't want to be a father??

If a woman has sex and has a child she has the same obligation as the male has who has sex and has a child.

The woman has a choice regarding her own body- in a similar way a man has a choice over whether to wear a condom or not is controlling his own body.

Once a child is borne both parents are legally obligated.

 

[Valerie]

• While the rate has increased substantially among poor and low-income women, it has declined among higher-income women. In 1994, the unintended pregnancy rate among women with incomes below the federal poverty line was 88 per 1,000 women aged 15–44; it rose to 120 in 2001 and 137 in 2008—a 56% increase since 1994. At the same time, the rate among higher-income women (those with incomes at or above 200% of the poverty line) fell from 34 in 1994 to 28 in 2001 and 26 in 2008—a 24% decrease.[6]


• Women aged 18–19 were one of the few groups to see notable improvements between 2001 and 2008. Both their unintended pregnancy rate and their unintended birth rate declined by about 15%.[6]



Outcomes of Unintended Pregnancy


• In 2008, 40% of unintended pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) ended in abortion and 60% ended in birth. This was a shift from 2001, when 47% ended in abortion and 53% ended in a birth.[6]


• In 2008, the share of births reported as unintended by women was 40%, [11] and the unintended birth rate was 27 per 1,000 women aged 15–44.[6] The abortion rate in 2008 was 20 per 1,000 women.[7]


• The proportion of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion decreased across all racial and ethnic subgroups. However, black women are still more likely to end an unintended pregnancy by abortion than women in other racial and ethnic groups.[6]


• Compared with higher-income women, poor and low-income women are less likely to end an unintended pregnancy by abortion. Consequently, poor women have a relatively high unintended birth rate.[6]


• The proportion of births that fathers report as unintended – about four in 10 – is similar to that reported by mothers. The proportion varies significantly according to fathers’ union status, age, education level, and race and ethnicity.[12]


• More than one in 10 single men indicated that they did not know about the pregnancy until after the child was born. Among single men aware of the pregnancy, nearly three out of four births were reported as unintended. [12]



Cost of Unintended Pregnancy


• In 2010, two-thirds (68%) of the 1.5 million unplanned births were paid for by public insurance programs, primarily Medicaid. In comparison, 51% of births overall and 38% of planned births were funded by these programs.[13]


• Of the 2.0 million publicly funded births, about half, 1.0 million, were unplanned. By comparison, 1.5 million out of 4.0 million total births nationwide were unplanned (38%).[13]


• In eight states and the District of Columbia, at least 75% of unplanned births were paid for by public programs. Mississippi was the state with the highest proportion (82%), and the District of Columbia's proportion was 85%. All but two of those nine jurisdictions are in the South, a region with high levels of poverty.[13]


• Total public expenditures on unintended pregnancies nationwide were estimated to be $21.0 billion in 2010. Of that, $14.6 billion were federal expenditures and $6.4 billion were state expenditures.[13]


• In 19 states, public expenditures related to unintended pregnancies exceeded $400 million. Texas spent the most ($2.9 billion), followed by California ($1.8 billion), New York ($1.5 billion) and Florida ($1.3 billion). Those four states are also the nation’s most populous. [13]



Preventing Unintended Pregnancy


• Two-thirds (68%) of U.S. women at risk for unintended pregnancy use contraception consistently and correctly throughout the course of any given year; these women account for only 5% of all unintended pregnancies. In contrast, the 18% of women at risk who use contraception inconsistently or incorrectly account for 41% of all unintended pregnancies. The 14% of women at risk who do not practice contraception at all or who have gaps of a month or more during the year account for 54% of all unintended pregnancies (see graph).[14]

• Publicly funded family planning services help women avoid pregnancies they do not want and plan pregnancies they do want. In 2010, these services helped women avoid 2.2 million unintended pregnancies, which would likely have resulted in about 1.1 million unintended births and 760,000 abortions.[15]

• Without publicly funded family planning services, the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions occurring in the United States would be 66% higher among women overall, 70% higher among poor women and 73% higher among teens.[15]

• The costs associated with unintended pregnancy would be even higher if not for continued federal and state investments in family planning services. In 2010, the nationwide public investment in family planning services resulted in $13.6 billion in net savings from helping women avoid unintended pregnancies and a range of other negative reproductive health outcomes, such as HIV and other STIs, cervical cancer and infertility.[16]

• In the absence of the current U.S. publicly funded family planning effort, the public costs of unintended pregnancies in 2010 might have been 75% higher.[13]


Unintended Pregnancy in the United States

 

[hadit]

Is that something else you are expressing medical expertise in?

Your memory sucks.

First you are a medical expert on what nine months of pregnancy is like.....then you are a medical expert on why people do and do not get abortions...and now you are a medical expert on senility and memory loss.

My memory of your posts is just fine.

I'm an expert at nine months of pregnancy because I've done it three times.

Females get abortions to get rid of an unwanted responsibility 99% of the time. The male doesn't have that choice, only the female.

And yes, your memory of who I am sucks.

Abortion is used for family planning. A woman gets to decide how many children she wants to care for if any

Family planning?? Do you think women plan to get pregnant and then kill their own child for convenience sake??? You just put an even uglier picture on it than most! Thanks!

They're finally becoming honest about it. Yes, most abortion really is retroactive birth control, they just didn't want to admit it because it makes them look incredibly selfish.

 

[Skylar]

Your memory sucks.

First you are a medical expert on what nine months of pregnancy is like.....then you are a medical expert on why people do and do not get abortions...and now you are a medical expert on senility and memory loss.

My memory of your posts is just fine.

I'm an expert at nine months of pregnancy because I've done it three times.

Females get abortions to get rid of an unwanted responsibility 99% of the time. The male doesn't have that choice, only the female.

And yes, your memory of who I am sucks.

Abortion is used for family planning. A woman gets to decide how many children she wants to care for if any

Family planning?? Do you think women plan to get pregnant and then kill their own child for convenience sake??? You just put an even uglier picture on it than most! Thanks!

They're finally becoming honest about it. Yes, most abortion really is retroactive birth control, they just didn't want to admit it because it makes them look incredibly selfish.

Of course its birth control. What do you think motivates women to have abortions? The opportunity to stretch a little while in the stirrups?

 

[kaz]

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

Period

Who did you get pregnant now?

Wow, you were actually funny

 

[rightwinger]

First you are a medical expert on what nine months of pregnancy is like.....then you are a medical expert on why people do and do not get abortions...and now you are a medical expert on senility and memory loss.

My memory of your posts is just fine.

I'm an expert at nine months of pregnancy because I've done it three times.

Females get abortions to get rid of an unwanted responsibility 99% of the time. The male doesn't have that choice, only the female.

And yes, your memory of who I am sucks.

Abortion is used for family planning. A woman gets to decide how many children she wants to care for if any

Family planning?? Do you think women plan to get pregnant and then kill their own child for convenience sake??? You just put an even uglier picture on it than most! Thanks!

You don't get to decide how many children a woman will have. The decision is up to her

50 years ago women would have 6-8 children in their lifetime. Now, they get to decide

Well, apparently it's not up to her, or she wouldn't get pregnant if she didn't want to become pregnant, it's really not that difficult. What you're implying is that she's just a victim, she can't help getting pregnant, it's 'forced' on her!!!

Yet, it happens

Women have been getting pregnant "by accident" for centuries
A woman has the ability to plan the size of her family whether it makes you happy or not

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Period

Abort your baby or I will not pay child support....got it

Or keep the baby, but I don't want it.

This


Why can a woman KILL the baby but the man is FORCED to abide by whatever decision she makes.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating fathers to drop out of their child's life. I am advocating that the responsible parties have equally say so in the outcomes of their own futures.

And my children are fully grown so leave the personal bullshit out of the thread.

How can 2 people have equal say? If they disagree it's a 1 to 1 tie.

it's not an equal say. The woman has the ultimate choice on whether to keep the kid or not, the man has the choice to support the kid or not. One choice leads to the other.

No.