Isn't it time for a Pregnancy Law?

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Remedy

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Because she's the one carrying the baby. It's in her body so she gets to make the decision. If the two know each other and have discussed this prior then they can sit down and have a rational discussion. If not and it was just a fling well, I guess you made a poor choice and you'll just have to deal with it. .

And the "just have to deal with it" part is the part that he's trying to argue.

Just because someone made a poor choice doesn't mean that someone gets a blank check.

How can you justify $1,500 a month for just having a kid? Does she need to show receipts to prove that she spent all that money on the baby? Everyone knows that the woman just treats herself with the money. She uses it to buy things which have nothing to do with the baby, just as new clothes for herself, a new car for herself, jewelry, etc. In fact, this is extremely common. Welfare queens in the ghetto do this all the time- they get knocked up by a few different fathers and they get a nice amount of money every month.

I don't mind making the guy pay for the baby, but the money has to be justified. Some of these laws are just plain unfair.

What if, as is common nowadays, the woman just wants to have a kid and doesn't care with who? The guy might want to stick around and raise the kid, but the woman kicks him out. Yet she still gets a huge paycheck every month so she can treat herself at his expense. If the baby's lucky, it might see some of the money.

Any idea how much it can cost to raise a child. Have YOU raised one; by yourself or even with a partner. Try it 24/7 and see what happens for a week or a month if you are man enough to handle an infant for that time frame.

Remember,m the mother may not be able to work to support herself because she ahs to take care of the child.

Her income has gone out the window for a period of time and when she can re-enter the workforce, her income level may be less and the expenses of the child grow.

Tada. You miss the whole point of the argument the OP was trying to make.

The Woman still has the two choices: Abortion or Keep the child for nine months. And Quite possibly give the child up for adoption after the birth. But, that's very rarely an option chosen.

The point the OP is trying to make is that, if she wants to have an abortion she can. With or without his written consent. If she wants to have keep the child by giving birth. She can do this with or without the his written consent.

The bottom line is, the man has no consent on the issue and this is not a form of equality as he is stuck no matter the decision of the female in general. It needs to be balanced where he has an option before the final date of what an abortion can be performed on a woman so he can opt out or stay involved by written consent.

If he decides to get married to a woman after whole birth and they serve him child support notifications, the woman that he already married may very well have to foot part of the child support payments as well. This type of ****** is NOT fair and needs to be handled in a form of equality.

Can a condom be used? Yes. But, condoms have nothing to do with this. It's about equal rights, or the lack there of.

Narmer, I hope I understood what you were trying to say in your original post.

:thumbsup: You nailed it on the head (no pun intended).

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Balt
No. Your choice is when you decide to either wrap it up or you don't. After that, it's her body and she can do what she wants.

Yeah, but condoms break. Even then it's still her choice. Going to extremes, after sex a man can throw his condom away. The woman can get it out of the trash and somehow impregnate herself. Even in a wild circumstance like that, the father is still responsible, I believe.

EDIT: Of course she can do as she likes, but she would be responsible for her actions. Both parties shouldn't be. Both parties did not agree to have a child.

This is the worst case, but yes it happens. I have known one situation where he wouldn't have intercourse with her...like more often than not, he put it on her chest or body somewhere (he didn't say the spot, just that she took it) and used it as lube on herself telling him she was ready.

She did not get pregnant and he did not see her again. He was very wealthy and about 20 something (my age at the time).

One of my longterm exes tried to claim she was pregnant and provided a blood test basically hinting I needed to marry her. It was a wierd situation, she was a great girl...my mom loved her, but we had broken up about 8 months. She called to come down for Christmas and told my mom she just wanted to see us. My parents are open-minded so they agreed she could stay downstairs (I was 20 at the time in college).

It was too ackward for me though, I couldn't perform....nothing that could make a baby happened. If she would have been more quiet it would have happened, I think she wanted everyone to know (my parents and brother) we were messing around.

Can't say the details....but needless to say someone somehow got 'exposed' to a disease at work and they needed to test everyone they had met in the last week. Test was not for the disease, but pregnancy in her. Got to love friends! I didn't know she was testing her for that at the time.

Å

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Narmer
Shouldn't we change the law so that a man has to give written approval for the go-ahead on a pregnancy, and only then is he liable for future expenditures?

the guy gives his "approval" for the pregnancy when he ejaculates 100 million spermatozoa into the woman's vaginal canal. what did he think was going to happen? sperm + egg = pregnancy.

 

[Nyati13]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Man and woman DO have a choice: whether to have unprotected sex! Yes, she can take the pill and then later lie about going off the pill...but you have the choice to put on the condom or not.

This isn't about CONDOMS or protection. This is about personal responsability for both parties. Why should the woman have all the power in a situation like this? Why Can't a man have some say in the outcome.

No, it's about you trying to say that the man has no responsibility. The man does have a say in the outcome. Don't have sex with a woman you don't trust. It really is that simple, and that is where the man's personal responsibility comes in.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Narmer
Shouldn't we change the law so that a man has to give written approval for the go-ahead on a pregnancy, and only then is he liable for future expenditures?

the guy gives his "approval" for the pregnancy when he ejaculates 100 million spermatozoa into the woman's vaginal canal. what did he think was going to happen? sperm + egg = pregnancy.

Nobody is denying that part, we're talking about the legal implications.

1.) Girl gets pregnant. Man wants to keep baby, woman wants to abort it. She gets the abortion, man has no say.

2.) Girl gets pregnant. Man wants to abort baby, woman wants to keep it. She has the baby, man has no say. Now man has to pay her for 18 years.


As you can see, the law isn't fair as it gives one person the legal advantage.

 

[Injury]

You people on the first page could start charging $50 for your prime real estate for the viewing pleasure. I brough my lawn chair but found it was already at standing room only. 🙁


Pass the popcorn.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Nyati13


No, it's about you trying to say that the man has no responsibility. The man does have a say in the outcome. Don't have sex with a woman you don't trust. It really is that simple, and that is where the man's personal responsibility comes in.

Again, the scope of this thread is limited to the point when the woman finds out she is pregnant and the couple disagrees on whether to keep it or not. The contention is that there are no equal rights here, it's heavily biased towards the woman.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

If you can't fully trust the girl you are sleeping with there is a serious issue right there.

 

[Geekbabe]

and if the woman should become sterile or die as result of getting rid of a pregnancy that the guy doesn't want, how do we make that "equal" What intrusive medical procedure are you proposing that men undergo to equal that of abortion or birth or is that just the small price women should pay for the honor of jumpin your jock?

It seems to me that you're looking to foist ALL the consequences onto women in these situations.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
and if the woman should become sterile or die as result of getting rid of a pregnancy that the guy doesn't want, how do we make that "equal" What intrusive medical procedure are you proposing that men undergo to equal that of abortion or birth or is that just the small price women should pay for the honor of jumpin your jock?

It seems to me that you're looking to foist ALL the consequences onto women in these situations.

that is fine I wouldn't want any woman to become sterile...but that is not what happens in legal abortions though

My take is you want the kid you accept it...don't play that you are just a passive bystander to intercourse. Most guys are used to being told to go home without protection. When we meet a chick that says f-it let's do it, we are not expecting her to cry "OH NOES I AM PREGNORZ! MARRY ME!".

Taking care of a pregnancy that morning after or a few weeks down the road is nothing...wait several months then that could be a viable baby.

In this 'game' their are no winners, and most look at the emotional part rather than then subjective one.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
and if the woman should become sterile or die as result of getting rid of a pregnancy that the guy doesn't want, how do we make that "equal" What intrusive medical procedure are you proposing that men undergo to equal that of abortion or birth or is that just the small price women should pay for the honor of jumpin your jock?

It seems to me that you're looking to foist ALL the consequences onto women in these situations.

Ok, if you're saying that it's wrong for the guy to force the woman to get an abortion, what if the guy wants the woman to have the kid, and she's the one that wants the abortion? What then?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Narmer
Shouldn't we change the law so that a man has to give written approval for the go-ahead on a pregnancy, and only then is he liable for future expenditures?

the guy gives his "approval" for the pregnancy when he ejaculates 100 million spermatozoa into the woman's vaginal canal. what did he think was going to happen? sperm + egg = pregnancy.

Nobody is denying that part, we're talking about the legal implications.

1.) Girl gets pregnant. Man wants to keep baby, woman wants to abort it. She gets the abortion, man has no say.

2.) Girl gets pregnant. Man wants to abort baby, woman wants to keep it. She has the baby, man has no say. Now man has to pay her for 18 years.


As you can see, the law isn't fair as it gives one person the legal advantage.

the law is fair. the women grows the baby inside her, so she gets to decide if it lives or dies.

if you find this offensive, why not complain to God about the fact that men can't get pregnant?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Nyati13
Why should the woman have all the power in a situation like this? Why Can't a man have some say in the outcome.

the "inequality" if you want to call it that is biological - it is the way things are set up in nature, where mammalian females give birth and males do not. We as a society value the right of individuals to make decisions about their own bodies. thus whether or not a particular women decides to continue a pregnancy or terminate is none of anyone else's business.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
and if the woman should become sterile or die as result of getting rid of a pregnancy that the guy doesn't want, how do we make that "equal" What intrusive medical procedure are you proposing that men undergo to equal that of abortion or birth or is that just the small price women should pay for the honor of jumpin your jock?

It seems to me that you're looking to foist ALL the consequences onto women in these situations.

Ok, if you're saying that it's wrong for the guy to force the woman to get an abortion, what if the guy wants the woman to have the kid, and she's the one that wants the abortion? What then?

it's too bad for him. life's tough, isn't it? 🙂

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: aidanjm


the law is fair. the women grows the baby inside her, so she gets to decide if it lives or dies.

if you find this offensive, why not complain to God about the fact that men can't get pregnant?

The law is not fair, because the guy does not get to decide where his money goes. The woman is basically making that decision as well.

A more realistic law would be:

Man wants baby +woman wants baby = mutual decision, woman has baby and man helps support baby

Man wants baby+ woman doesn't want baby= woman is allowed to abort the pregnancy, overriding the man's decision

Man doesn't doesn't want baby + woman doesn't want baby= woman aborts the pregnancy, mutual decision

Man doesn't want baby +woman wants baby = woman allowed to have baby, overrides man's decision, but is not entitled to child support


In this layout, it would allow the woman to control what happens to her body, but would also allow the man to have some influence in the decision in the form of controlling his money.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
and if the woman should become sterile or die as result of getting rid of a pregnancy that the guy doesn't want, how do we make that "equal" What intrusive medical procedure are you proposing that men undergo to equal that of abortion or birth or is that just the small price women should pay for the honor of jumpin your jock?

It seems to me that you're looking to foist ALL the consequences onto women in these situations.

Ok, if you're saying that it's wrong for the guy to force the woman to get an abortion, what if the guy wants the woman to have the kid, and she's the one that wants the abortion? What then?

it's too bad for him. life's tough, isn't it? 🙂

In my last example, you tried to justify the law on moral grounds, but now that I've made a logical point that you can't refute, you just seem to take satisfaction in that life isn't fair.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Man doesn't want baby +woman wants baby = woman allowed to have baby, overrides man's decision, but is not entitled to child support

yeah, but then everyone would have to pay for the child through taxes. And your fellow citizens don't WANT to have to pay for your child. They think you should have kept your d1ck in your pants if you weren't willing to deal responsibily with the consequences. 🙂

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
and if the woman should become sterile or die as result of getting rid of a pregnancy that the guy doesn't want, how do we make that "equal" What intrusive medical procedure are you proposing that men undergo to equal that of abortion or birth or is that just the small price women should pay for the honor of jumpin your jock?

It seems to me that you're looking to foist ALL the consequences onto women in these situations.

Ok, if you're saying that it's wrong for the guy to force the woman to get an abortion, what if the guy wants the woman to have the kid, and she's the one that wants the abortion? What then?

it's too bad for him. life's tough, isn't it? 🙂

In my last example, you tried to justify the law on moral grounds, but now that I've made a logical point that you can't refute, you just seem to take satisfaction in that life isn't fair.

Yeah that's the thing...it's for most women their one grasp of sovreignity.

If they were serious about it, they would not want the child support.

I have gotten one woman pregnant, she lost it by no outside force prior to 3 months which is normal. She didn't try to get me to cover anything.

I had 2 other chicks that were not pregnant try to get me to pay up. I bought a few tests each time and said light them up then.

Getting an abortion in the first few weeks is not going to cause any type of major repurcussions other than those religious based. Those that don't do it are just afraid or using it for ulterior motives.

 

[judasmachine]

Man, you don't do the crime if you can't do the time. You are responsible for your actions. Use oral sex next time, you can't get them pregnant that way.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
yeah, but then everyone would have to pay for the child through taxes. And your fellow citizens don't WANT to have to pay for your child. They think you should have kept your d1ck in your pants if you weren't willing to deal responsibily with the consequences. 🙂

huh, have you had sex yet?

not all women are living in poverty nor need a man to support them.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
and if the woman should become sterile or die as result of getting rid of a pregnancy that the guy doesn't want, how do we make that "equal" What intrusive medical procedure are you proposing that men undergo to equal that of abortion or birth or is that just the small price women should pay for the honor of jumpin your jock?

It seems to me that you're looking to foist ALL the consequences onto women in these situations.

Ok, if you're saying that it's wrong for the guy to force the woman to get an abortion, what if the guy wants the woman to have the kid, and she's the one that wants the abortion? What then?

it's too bad for him. life's tough, isn't it? 🙂

In my last example, you tried to justify the law on moral grounds, but now that I've made a logical point that you can't refute, you just seem to take satisfaction in that life isn't fair.

it's not that I can't refute whatever point you think you have made. the bottom line for me is that the right to decide what happens to one's own body has to come over any imagined rights of the sperm donor. as for who is going to pay for the ki, that is a decision made by the broader society - who basically thinks that men who impregnate a woman and then refuse to pay for the child are irresponsible and "deadbeat dads".

 

[PowerEngineer]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Nyati13


No, it's about you trying to say that the man has no responsibility. The man does have a say in the outcome. Don't have sex with a woman you don't trust. It really is that simple, and that is where the man's personal responsibility comes in.

Again, the scope of this thread is limited to the point when the woman finds out she is pregnant and the couple disagrees on whether to keep it or not. The contention is that there are no equal rights here, it's heavily biased towards the woman.

And that's perhaps the problem. The scope of your thinking needs to be expanded! Your thinking shouldn't start when your sex partner finds out she is pregnant! It better start before you have sex!

You have to know that pregnancy is a possible outcome that can only be made less likely by all means of birth control. You should already know that the women gets to make all the decisions concerning the pregnancy and her health (and I wouldn't want it any other way). You also know that society holds both the mother and father financially responsible for the raising of their child (and wouldn't it be nice if you cared enough about your sex partner to want to help in every way you could?).

Think these things through before you have sex. Make your choice and live with it. If you do decide to roll the dice, then don't whine if you roll snake eyes!

:frown:

 

[Remedy]

Wow, I never seen a forum with so many dense members before

People keep mentioning birth control methods like Condoms and Pills, etc. It has nothing to do with that birth control methods.

How many times does this need to be outlined? 😕

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Narmer
While it is a known fact that men hold a lot of power in this country, it is also a fact that women could theoretically acquire those powers as well. However, this isn't true the other way around. If a woman gets pregnant, she holds enormous power over the man, which could be a life-changing event for him. As we all know, power can lead to corruption, which women have a monopoly on in this particular situation. If not, then the two could sit down and have a logical discussion on which way they want to go: having a child or having an abortion. But the conversation is uni-directional, where the man is told what's going to happen. In return, he either has to raise a child he does not want or break the law.

Shouldn't we change the law so that a man has to give written approval for the go-ahead on a pregnancy, and only then is he liable for future expenditures? Those should put enough pressure on the female as to whether or not she should carry out the pregnancy, resulting in something that's fair and balanced.

EDIT: THIS ISN'T ABOUT CONDOMS OR PROTECTION. IT'S ABOUT EQUAL RIGHTS

You have my full support brother!

 

[dxkj]

The ironic thing is, that all of these arguments being given... keep it in your pants, dont do the deed if you dont want to pay, etc can be turned back on a woman who wants an abortion when the man doesn't...

but then all of that gets trumped because it is a woman's body and her choice...