Is child support outdated in the abortion age?

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Women control sex, women control their birth control, women control carrying to term or not. Frankly if a woman has a baby in this day and age how is it anyone's responsibility but hers?

The rest may be true as far as control, but women do not control sex. They may be good cock-blocks, but that in no way means that they control sex. It is a mutual act. If a woman wanted sex with you, that in no way means you have to (or should) comply. It works both ways.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Unless you were raped, you also chose to have sex with the woman and accept her decision about a possible pregnancy. If you don't want to be a father, then you have two options, either to seek sterilization or to not engage in sex...with women.

Now as for being responsible for paying for a child that isn't yours, that's something else.

Also, no one chooses to be born into poverty.

If you're saying that women don't have 100% of the choice for childbirth, then why can't men veto a woman's desire to have an abortion? Would you agree to that? After all, if she didn't want to get pregnant then why didn't she have a tubal ligation or just not have sex?

Do you see how the logic of your argument can be turned around to either make abortion itself illegal or to give men a veto-power?

Men already have a lot more power than women in the United States, and if you think otherwise you are being irrational and ignoring the facts. Frankly, taking away the woman's right to decide whether or not to have the child would just be another act of a patriarchal society belittling women's freedom. As I said, if you don't want kids, don't have sex with women.

If you don't like that argument, then here's another. Pregnancy is inherently a life-threatening condition, for more than one individual. An abortion can make a woman sterile, there is the risk of infection, and obviously carrying to term carries its own risks. A woman who has an abortion can suffer severe psychological trauma. A woman who has a baby can get post-partum depression. At its core, I see it as a medical decision, best made by the person most effected by the choice. Would you like it if you had cancer and someone else got to decide if you received treatment?

I agree men shouldn't pay child support for a child that isn't his, and has no emotional attachment to him. Obviously in the case of adoption or some such, I think men should be held responsible to some degree.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Women control sex, women control their birth control, women control carrying to term or not. Frankly if a woman has a baby in this day and age how is it anyone's responsibility but hers?

The rest may be true as far as control, but women do not control sex. They may be good cock-blocks, but that in no way means that they control sex. It is a mutual act. If a woman wanted sex with you, that in no way means you have to (or should) comply. It works both ways.

Women have sex when they want to. Men have sex when they can. Women control sex.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Men don't get a choice in a lot of situations.

Condoms do fail.
Getting snipped isn't 100% sure, as your body can repair it in some men
other forms of BC fail.

So even if the guy is being responsible, accidents do happen but the women get 100% of the choice as to what happens. That's not fair.

IMO it should be if one person wants the child, the birth should happen, and then the parent who wants the child has 100% of the responsibility and the other doesn't have to have any involvement in it.

Women don't have to be responsible with BC, because if they have a kid then they get money for the next 18 years from the dude.

Abstinence works 100% of the time. See issue resolved.

If you're not ready for the responsibility of being a parent, you're not ready to start having sex with someone. Birth control is never 100% and the future of some poor child shouldn't be on the line (either through abortion or a poor environment to grow up in) because you want to satisfy your urges without responsibility.

Yes and there are unicorns and fairies and a man put 2 of every animal on one ship. :roll:


Save it for Sunday.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Unless you were raped, you also chose to have sex with the woman and accept her decision about a possible pregnancy. If you don't want to be a father, then you have two options, either to seek sterilization or to not engage in sex...with women.

Now as for being responsible for paying for a child that isn't yours, that's something else.

Also, no one chooses to be born into poverty.

If you're saying that women don't have 100% of the choice for childbirth, then why can't men veto a woman's desire to have an abortion? Would you agree to that? After all, if she didn't want to get pregnant then why didn't she have a tubal ligation or just not have sex?

Do you see how the logic of your argument can be turned around to either make abortion itself illegal or to give men a veto-power?

Men already have a lot more power than women in the United States, and if you think otherwise you are being irrational and ignoring the facts. Frankly, taking away the woman's right to decide whether or not to have the child would just be another act of a patriarchal society belittling women's freedom. As I said, if you don't want kids, don't have sex with women.

If you don't like that argument, then here's another. Pregnancy is inherently a life-threatening condition, for more than one individual. An abortion can make a woman sterile, there is the risk of infection, and obviously carrying to term carries its own risks. A woman who has an abortion can suffer severe psychological trauma. A woman who has a baby can get post-partum depression. At its core, I see it as a medical decision, best made by the person most effected by the choice. Would you like it if you had cancer and someone else got to decide if you received treatment?

I agree men shouldn't pay child support for a child that isn't his, and has no emotional attachment to him. Obviously in the case of adoption or some such, I think men should be held responsible to some degree.

And yet we live in a country where that is exactly what happens for every cancer patient. See insurance companies

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Men don't get a choice in a lot of situations.

Condoms do fail.
Getting snipped isn't 100% sure, as your body can repair it in some men
other forms of BC fail.

So even if the guy is being responsible, accidents do happen but the women get 100% of the choice as to what happens. That's not fair.

IMO it should be if one person wants the child, the birth should happen, and then the parent who wants the child has 100% of the responsibility and the other doesn't have to have any involvement in it.

Women don't have to be responsible with BC, because if they have a kid then they get money for the next 18 years from the dude.

Abstinence works 100% of the time. See issue resolved.

If you're not ready for the responsibility of being a parent, you're not ready to start having sex with someone. Birth control is never 100% and the future of some poor child shouldn't be on the line (either through abortion or a poor environment to grow up in) because you want to satisfy your urges without responsibility.

No, that is not a solution. You can preach abstinence all you want, but unwanted pregnancies will still occur. Rather than shut our eyes and put our fingers in our ears, we should have reasonable solutions in place for when it occurs.

Currently the woman has control over whether to abort or not. I think if you gave men something in exchange for giving up that decision, then we'd have a real solution. Here's my stab at a fair solution:

If a man serves a pregnant woman with a notarized legal letter before the end of the second trimester stating that he supported an abortion then he should be exempt from child support payments since she ignored him and kept it anyway (thereby indicating that she wants the child with or without the man's consent). Also, if it's clear that the man was never informed (ie contact was cut off before the end of the 2-3 months), then he should also be exempt from having to pay child support.

If the man's morals/dignity/whatever prevent him from getting a notarized letter, then he has to pay child support as normal. Serving it is easy enough, just like serving a restraining order (ie can be done by a third party, so long as she gets it somehow).

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
just because a man wants to have sex with doesn't mean he wants to have a baby with you.

Consciously? Yeah, that might be the case. However, the urge to have sex with a person stems from biological imperative to reproduce. So indirectly it is. Just because the urge to have children isn't a conscious one doesn't give you a free pass on the responsibility and consequences of sex.

Its not a consequence of sex. Its a choice by the women to be/get pregnant and stay that way. Back in the day when nobody knew about where babies came from sure it was a consequence but in todays age as implied in the OP....there are a multitude of options leading up to and including abortion to avoid procreation or prevent it in the first place. A women chooses "CONSCIOUSLY" to bypass those options. A man has no say in the matter and is held at the whim of "her choice"

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Men don't get a choice in a lot of situations.

Condoms do fail.
Getting snipped isn't 100% sure, as your body can repair it in some men
other forms of BC fail.

So even if the guy is being responsible, accidents do happen but the women get 100% of the choice as to what happens. That's not fair.

IMO it should be if one person wants the child, the birth should happen, and then the parent who wants the child has 100% of the responsibility and the other doesn't have to have any involvement in it.

Women don't have to be responsible with BC, because if they have a kid then they get money for the next 18 years from the dude.

Abstinence works 100% of the time. See issue resolved.

If you're not ready for the responsibility of being a parent, you're not ready to start having sex with someone. Birth control is never 100% and the future of some poor child shouldn't be on the line (either through abortion or a poor environment to grow up in) because you want to satisfy your urges without responsibility.

Yes and there are unicorns and fairies and a man put 2 of every animal on one ship. :roll:


Save it for Sunday.

Lol. Who said abstinence can only come from a religious perspective? Do you see anything logically or morally wrong with my suggestion or do you just label any concept that makes you accountable in any way as coming from the "sky fairy"?

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Men don't get a choice in a lot of situations.

Condoms do fail.
Getting snipped isn't 100% sure, as your body can repair it in some men
other forms of BC fail.

So even if the guy is being responsible, accidents do happen but the women get 100% of the choice as to what happens. That's not fair.

IMO it should be if one person wants the child, the birth should happen, and then the parent who wants the child has 100% of the responsibility and the other doesn't have to have any involvement in it.

Women don't have to be responsible with BC, because if they have a kid then they get money for the next 18 years from the dude.

Abstinence works 100% of the time. See issue resolved.

If you're not ready for the responsibility of being a parent, you're not ready to start having sex with someone. Birth control is never 100% and the future of some poor child shouldn't be on the line (either through abortion or a poor environment to grow up in) because you want to satisfy your urges without responsibility.

Yes and there are unicorns and fairies and a man put 2 of every animal on one ship. :roll:


Save it for Sunday.

Lol. Who said abstinence can only come from a religious perspective? Do you see anything logically or morally wrong with my suggestion or do you just label any concept that makes you accountable in any way as coming from the "sky fairy"?

Because it is a religious concept that the nude human body is shameful because some chick ate an apple that a talking snake said not to.


Abstinence is not a realistic concept. Looks good on paper as far as preventing unwanted pregnancy and STDs, but it doesnt work.

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Because it is a religious concept that the nude human body is shameful because some chick ate an apple that a talking snake said not to.


Abstinence is not a realistic concept. Looks good on paper as far as preventing unwanted pregnancy and STDs, but it doesnt work.

Whoa. Who said anything about the nude human body being shameful? And who said abstinence is strictly a religious concept? Abstinence IS a realistic solution. I know lots of people who waited to have sex until they were ready to take on the responsibility of becoming a parent. I never said it was an easy solution but it would work if people took responsibility for their actions.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Unless you were raped, you also chose to have sex with the woman and accept her decision about a possible pregnancy. If you don't want to be a father, then you have two options, either to seek sterilization or to not engage in sex...with women.

Now as for being responsible for paying for a child that isn't yours, that's something else.

Also, no one chooses to be born into poverty.

If you're saying that women don't have 100% of the choice for childbirth, then why can't men veto a woman's desire to have an abortion? Would you agree to that? After all, if she didn't want to get pregnant then why didn't she have a tubal ligation or just not have sex?

Do you see how the logic of your argument can be turned around to either make abortion itself illegal or to give men a veto-power?

Men already have a lot more power than women in the United States, and if you think otherwise you are being irrational and ignoring the facts. Frankly, taking away the woman's right to decide whether or not to have the child would just be another act of a patriarchal society belittling women's freedom. As I said, if you don't want kids, don't have sex with women.

If you don't like that argument, then here's another. Pregnancy is inherently a life-threatening condition, for more than one individual. An abortion can make a woman sterile, there is the risk of infection, and obviously carrying to term carries its own risks. A woman who has an abortion can suffer severe psychological trauma. A woman who has a baby can get post-partum depression. At its core, I see it as a medical decision, best made by the person most effected by the choice. Would you like it if you had cancer and someone else got to decide if you received treatment?

I agree men shouldn't pay child support for a child that isn't his, and has no emotional attachment to him. Obviously in the case of adoption or some such, I think men should be held responsible to some degree.

And yet we live in a country where that is exactly what happens for every cancer patient. See insurance companies

I know that's exactly what happens, from personal experience. It emphasizes my point, you don't want other people making your medical decisions for you.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31


Because it is a religious concept that the nude human body is shameful because some chick ate an apple that a talking snake said not to.


Abstinence is not a realistic concept. Looks good on paper as far as preventing unwanted pregnancy and STDs, but it doesnt work.

I have to say, as a Christian, whatever religion believes THAT is wacky!

And abstinence DOES work, 100% of the time. When used. You might want to rephrase that.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Ocguy31


Because it is a religious concept that the nude human body is shameful because some chick ate an apple that a talking snake said not to.


Abstinence is not a realistic concept. Looks good on paper as far as preventing unwanted pregnancy and STDs, but it doesnt work.

I have to say, as a Christian, whatever religion believes THAT is wacky!

And abstinence DOES work, 100% of the time. When used. You might want to rephrase that.

It works on paper. As in, sounds great!


In reality, humans are programmed to procreate at puberty. I would say that nerdy/anti-social/unattractive people may "hold out", but that is due to a lack of ability to find someone of the opposite sex to....well....screw.

I bet 80% of people who "wait for marriage" were programmed at a very young age to think that there is a magic man in the sky whatching what they do.

Please tell me how many people (other than religious) you think would say "NO!" if a beautiful women was offering them sex.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
just because a man wants to have sex with doesn't mean he wants to have a baby with you.

Then get yourself cut, use a condom, and enjoy.

You people do realize that getting cut is ususally reversible and as an insurance policy you can freeze some sperm.

/thread

 

[piasabird]

Since a Man and a Woman are suppose to be equal then my take on this is a Man can only be required to pay half the child support.

Abortion is murder and not a choice.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Men don't get a choice in a lot of situations.

Condoms do fail.
Getting snipped isn't 100% sure, as your body can repair it in some men
other forms of BC fail.

So even if the guy is being responsible, accidents do happen but the women get 100% of the choice as to what happens. That's not fair.

IMO it should be if one person wants the child, the birth should happen, and then the parent who wants the child has 100% of the responsibility and the other doesn't have to have any involvement in it.

Women don't have to be responsible with BC, because if they have a kid then they get money for the next 18 years from the dude.

Abstinence works 100% of the time. See issue resolved.

If you're not ready for the responsibility of being a parent, you're not ready to start having sex with someone. Birth control is never 100% and the future of some poor child shouldn't be on the line (either through abortion or a poor environment to grow up in) because you want to satisfy your urges without responsibility.

True, but seriously grow up. According to you I should die a virgin, because I don't want kids and having sex could result in pregnancy.

Legally women have options available to them when accidents happen. They get the choice in having an abortion or not, keeping the child or putting them up for adoption, etc and all while they get the guy locked into paying child support for a child he may not have any involvement with (or the mom may prevent from seeing, or isn't even biologically the father).

Sorry but men get screwed with CS. If anybody knows of guys who are able to get out of CS without the mothers consent, show me how and I will say I am wrong that men get screwed with CS (and I don't mean by not paying it either, because they still owe it). CS agencies have the ability (in the county I grew up in) to go into your bank account and take funds directly out without letting you know. One day you have $4k in the bank. The next you have $0. That type of shit is complete bs, and should be against the law as far as I'm concerned.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Women control sex, women control their birth control, women control carrying to term or not. Frankly if a woman has a baby in this day and age how is it anyone's responsibility but hers?

The rest may be true as far as control, but women do not control sex. They may be good cock-blocks, but that in no way means that they control sex. It is a mutual act. If a woman wanted sex with you, that in no way means you have to (or should) comply. It works both ways.

Women have sex when they want to. Men have sex when they can. Women control sex.

That is more a byproduct (a misconception even) of cultural norms. There are plenty of women out there who want sex, but don't/can't go out and get it, same as men. Besides, some of us men aren't barbarians who will slip their pecker into some (or any) female every chance we get. Sex is a mutual, as is the decision to have it...

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
just because a man wants to have sex with doesn't mean he wants to have a baby with you.

Consciously? Yeah, that might be the case. However, the urge to have sex with a person stems from biological imperative to reproduce. So indirectly it is. Just because the urge to have children isn't a conscious one doesn't give you a free pass on the responsibility and consequences of sex.

Its not a consequence of sex. Its a choice by the women to be/get pregnant and stay that way. Back in the day when nobody knew about where babies came from sure it was a consequence but in todays age as implied in the OP....there are a multitude of options leading up to and including abortion to avoid procreation or prevent it in the first place. A women chooses "CONSCIOUSLY" to bypass those options. A man has no say in the matter and is held at the whim of "her choice"

Just because you can take preventative measures when you have sex, and the woman has the legal (and practical) right to an abortion doesn't mean it isn't a consequence, nor solely the woman's choice. No preventative measure, aside from not having sex, is 100% effective, so pregnancy is a possible CONSEQUENCE. Abortion is another thing to consider. For some, it isn't really a choice whether that be due to legal/moral/financial or other considerations.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
just because a man wants to have sex with doesn't mean he wants to have a baby with you.

Consciously? Yeah, that might be the case. However, the urge to have sex with a person stems from biological imperative to reproduce. So indirectly it is. Just because the urge to have children isn't a conscious one doesn't give you a free pass on the responsibility and consequences of sex.

Its not a consequence of sex. Its a choice by the women to be/get pregnant and stay that way. Back in the day when nobody knew about where babies came from sure it was a consequence but in todays age as implied in the OP....there are a multitude of options leading up to and including abortion to avoid procreation or prevent it in the first place. A women chooses "CONSCIOUSLY" to bypass those options. A man has no say in the matter and is held at the whim of "her choice"

Just because you can take preventative measures when you have sex, and the woman has the legal (and practical) right to an abortion doesn't mean it isn't a consequence, nor solely the woman's choice. No preventative measure, aside from not having sex, is 100% effective, so pregnancy is a possible CONSEQUENCE. Abortion is another thing to consider. For some, it isn't really a choice whether that be due to legal/moral/financial or other considerations.

lol .......ok so you are basing your argument solely on the 0.01% chance a that pregnancy occurs when a women is on birth control and a condom is used. get real.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Women control sex, women control their birth control, women control carrying to term or not. Frankly if a woman has a baby in this day and age how is it anyone's responsibility but hers?

The rest may be true as far as control, but women do not control sex. They may be good cock-blocks, but that in no way means that they control sex. It is a mutual act. If a woman wanted sex with you, that in no way means you have to (or should) comply. It works both ways.

Women have sex when they want to. Men have sex when they can. Women control sex.

Well, men have sex with attractive women when they can.

I would say that women control 90% of the relationship. Not sex. I've turned down sex before. I know men both married and unmarried who at times turn it down.

Hilariously, the women get pissed off when we do. I guess they like double-standards.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Men don't get a choice in a lot of situations.

Condoms do fail.
Getting snipped isn't 100% sure, as your body can repair it in some men
other forms of BC fail.

So even if the guy is being responsible, accidents do happen but the women get 100% of the choice as to what happens. That's not fair.

IMO it should be if one person wants the child, the birth should happen, and then the parent who wants the child has 100% of the responsibility and the other doesn't have to have any involvement in it.

Women don't have to be responsible with BC, because if they have a kid then they get money for the next 18 years from the dude.

Abstinence works 100% of the time. See issue resolved.

If you're not ready for the responsibility of being a parent, you're not ready to start having sex with someone. Birth control is never 100% and the future of some poor child shouldn't be on the line (either through abortion or a poor environment to grow up in) because you want to satisfy your urges without responsibility.

Yes and there are unicorns and fairies and a man put 2 of every animal on one ship. :roll:


Save it for Sunday.

Lol. Who said abstinence can only come from a religious perspective? Do you see anything logically or morally wrong with my suggestion or do you just label any concept that makes you accountable in any way as coming from the "sky fairy"?

Because it is a religious concept that the nude human body is shameful because some chick ate an apple that a talking snake said not to.


Abstinence is not a realistic concept. Looks good on paper as far as preventing unwanted pregnancy and STDs, but it doesnt work.

Doesn't work? Who has ever gotten undesirably pregnant by abstaining from sex?

That's kinda like saying sobriety isn't a realistic way to prevent alcoholism.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Again you don't seem to have read what I've written(I'm starting to think you are purposely not reading it). The PREMISE is "CHOICE" which allows one side to have full control after conception and the other - none. THAT isn't "CHOICE" - that's onesideded "choice". Yes, obviously after a child is born and kept(2nd "choice" given only to mother but IMO "owed" due to carry/delivery) the "choice" no longer exists and both have to act in the best interest of the child regardless of their situation. However, since both have EQUAL responsibility up to and including conception -there should be "choice" provided to both IF we are going to be in a "choice" world.

I am reading every word, but there is always a chance that I simply do not understand what you are trying to say. Just to make sure we are on the same page, please clearly define what choice it is you want that you do not have. I am under the impression that what you want is the following. If it is wrong then please correct me.

You want a say in the choice of abortion which is something men currently do not have. If she doesn't want an abortion and you do then you want to no longer be legally and fiscally responsible for the child. You do not want to be required to pay child support. Is that correct?

If that is correct, then not only have I been reading every word of your posts but I also understand them fully and have responded as such. Also, if that is correct, I would like to know how you justify what you want as being fair to the child?

No, none of this is about me. It's also not about about what I really think about the whole thing - it's my opinion based on the premise of "choice" which the OP presented. "choice" being abortion and such that a woman currently has available.

So again, EVERYTHING is EXACTLY the same up to and during conception as far as choices and responsibility. AFTER conception there is only one party that has "choice" and that is the woman. This is wrong if "choice" really is "choice". If a woman doesn't want the child she can abort but a man has ZERO say in it - ie no choice. So yes, a male should have the same/equal "choice" option a woman has to not have the child. The manifestation of this would likely be a legal process much like already exists for a parent to give up all "rights" to a child. This period of "choice" would be similar in length from conception as an abortion would be. This is not about a male having the chance to "force" anything on the woman as in abortion, etc.



Now remember that the above is developed and posted under the premise offered of "choice" and I may or may not agree with the premise or any of the current realities in play surrounding this discussion.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Again you don't seem to have read what I've written(I'm starting to think you are purposely not reading it). The PREMISE is "CHOICE" which allows one side to have full control after conception and the other - none. THAT isn't "CHOICE" - that's onesideded "choice". Yes, obviously after a child is born and kept(2nd "choice" given only to mother but IMO "owed" due to carry/delivery) the "choice" no longer exists and both have to act in the best interest of the child regardless of their situation. However, since both have EQUAL responsibility up to and including conception -there should be "choice" provided to both IF we are going to be in a "choice" world.

I am reading every word, but there is always a chance that I simply do not understand what you are trying to say. Just to make sure we are on the same page, please clearly define what choice it is you want that you do not have. I am under the impression that what you want is the following. If it is wrong then please correct me.

You want a say in the choice of abortion which is something men currently do not have. If she doesn't want an abortion and you do then you want to no longer be legally and fiscally responsible for the child. You do not want to be required to pay child support. Is that correct?

If that is correct, then not only have I been reading every word of your posts but I also understand them fully and have responded as such. Also, if that is correct, I would like to know how you justify what you want as being fair to the child?

No, none of this is about me. It's also not about about what I really think about the whole thing - it's my opinion based on the premise of "choice" which the OP presented. "choice" being abortion and such that a woman currently has available.

So again, EVERYTHING is EXACTLY the same up to and during conception as far as choices and responsibility. AFTER conception there is only one party that has "choice" and that is the woman. This is wrong if "choice" really is "choice". If a woman doesn't want the child she can abort but a man has ZERO say in it - ie no choice. So yes, a male should have the same/equal "choice" option a woman has to not have the child. The manifestation of this would likely be a legal process much like already exists for a parent to give up all "rights" to a child. This period of "choice" would be similar in length from conception as an abortion would be. This is not about a male having the chance to "force" anything on the woman as in abortion, etc.



Now remember that the above is developed and posted under the premise offered of "choice" and I may or may not agree with the premise or any of the current realities in play surrounding this discussion.

In that case, I was right all along about what I believed you were saying and I very much disagree with granting this "choice" that you want because I believe it is very much unfair to the child once he/she is born. Sorry. Life sucks and it is not always fair. It's YOUR kid regardless of whether or not you want it. Obey your court order. Pay your child support. It's the law and quite frankly, I think it is the most fair way to do it and I think it is best for this country. The only thing that is wrong and needs fixing is increased enforcement so that every father pays his child support once court ordered.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
just because a man wants to have sex with doesn't mean he wants to have a baby with you.

Consciously? Yeah, that might be the case. However, the urge to have sex with a person stems from biological imperative to reproduce. So indirectly it is. Just because the urge to have children isn't a conscious one doesn't give you a free pass on the responsibility and consequences of sex.

Its not a consequence of sex. Its a choice by the women to be/get pregnant and stay that way. Back in the day when nobody knew about where babies came from sure it was a consequence but in todays age as implied in the OP....there are a multitude of options leading up to and including abortion to avoid procreation or prevent it in the first place. A women chooses "CONSCIOUSLY" to bypass those options. A man has no say in the matter and is held at the whim of "her choice"

Just because you can take preventative measures when you have sex, and the woman has the legal (and practical) right to an abortion doesn't mean it isn't a consequence, nor solely the woman's choice. No preventative measure, aside from not having sex, is 100% effective, so pregnancy is a possible CONSEQUENCE. Abortion is another thing to consider. For some, it isn't really a choice whether that be due to legal/moral/financial or other considerations.

lol .......ok so you are basing your argument solely on the 0.01% chance a that pregnancy occurs when a women is on birth control and a condom is used. get real.

There are PLENTY of counterexamples to the statement you initially provided, despite the percentages you claim. This is a FACT. Hence, you saying that pregnancy isn't a possible consequence of (protected or otherwise) sex is false.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Again you don't seem to have read what I've written(I'm starting to think you are purposely not reading it). The PREMISE is "CHOICE" which allows one side to have full control after conception and the other - none. THAT isn't "CHOICE" - that's onesideded "choice". Yes, obviously after a child is born and kept(2nd "choice" given only to mother but IMO "owed" due to carry/delivery) the "choice" no longer exists and both have to act in the best interest of the child regardless of their situation. However, since both have EQUAL responsibility up to and including conception -there should be "choice" provided to both IF we are going to be in a "choice" world.

I am reading every word, but there is always a chance that I simply do not understand what you are trying to say. Just to make sure we are on the same page, please clearly define what choice it is you want that you do not have. I am under the impression that what you want is the following. If it is wrong then please correct me.

You want a say in the choice of abortion which is something men currently do not have. If she doesn't want an abortion and you do then you want to no longer be legally and fiscally responsible for the child. You do not want to be required to pay child support. Is that correct?

If that is correct, then not only have I been reading every word of your posts but I also understand them fully and have responded as such. Also, if that is correct, I would like to know how you justify what you want as being fair to the child?

No, none of this is about me. It's also not about about what I really think about the whole thing - it's my opinion based on the premise of "choice" which the OP presented. "choice" being abortion and such that a woman currently has available.

So again, EVERYTHING is EXACTLY the same up to and during conception as far as choices and responsibility. AFTER conception there is only one party that has "choice" and that is the woman. This is wrong if "choice" really is "choice". If a woman doesn't want the child she can abort but a man has ZERO say in it - ie no choice. So yes, a male should have the same/equal "choice" option a woman has to not have the child. The manifestation of this would likely be a legal process much like already exists for a parent to give up all "rights" to a child. This period of "choice" would be similar in length from conception as an abortion would be. This is not about a male having the chance to "force" anything on the woman as in abortion, etc.



Now remember that the above is developed and posted under the premise offered of "choice" and I may or may not agree with the premise or any of the current realities in play surrounding this discussion.

In that case, I was right all along about what I believed you were saying and I very much disagree with granting this "choice" that you want because I believe it is very much unfair to the child once he/she is born. Sorry. Life sucks and it is not always fair. It's YOUR kid regardless of whether or not you want it. Obey your court order. Pay your child support. It's the law and quite frankly, I think it is the most fair way to do it and I think it is best for this country. The only thing that is wrong and needs fixing is increased enforcement so that every father pays his child support once court ordered.

No, you are not correct because what I have been saying because what I've stated is in the context of "CHOICE" - not what's "best for the child after born and kept. Now again - look at what I've stated about after kept and born - obviously what is best for the child should be done but "best for the child" is not part of "choice" because "it" is just a glob of cells in the world of "choice".

Yes your blustering at the end I agree with but you keep missing the separation and context.

Question - do you agree with "choice" as it pertains to a woman?