Abortion--soley her body/choice, but not responsibility

Ceili wrote:

Your priorities are all messed up. Only a fool would stop working not to pay child support. We all have responsibilities we are forced to paying for, but a child is more than a bill.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of foolish men out there Ceili. If a man chooses to engage is sexual activity with a woman, and that union results in a pregnancy, the man is obligated to support his child. Hopefully, he will also be a part of his childs life and the mother should do all she can to create a welcoming environment in which parenthood is shared with the father. All too often, the man isn't interested in the child and as a result, causes much emotional pain to the child, who is an innocent victim.

Quote:

A man can choose to refrain from having sex or he can assume control of birthcontrol.

Men should either learn to keep it in their pants (do more thinking with their big head instead of their little head) or have a vascetomy. Condoms can break or slip off and aren't all that reliable, IMO. Besides, no matter how sensitive the packaging says the condom is, sex just doesn't feel as good with a condom.
Too many people worry about saving the unborn babies. How about saving the babies that are already here. The ones that are unwanted, the ones that are ill or have emotional problems. The pro-life crowd isn't really pro-life. They are pro-baby being born. Once these babies are born, the pro-lifers are the same people who want to cut welfare spending and call these children burdens on the tax system. People like that really peeve me off. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

I know all that...I'm a single mother.
However, I think if your going to have sex. Never assume they other party has taken care of the birthcontrol issue. Be responsible for yourself firstly, and if the stork arrives take responsibility for that too.

0 Replies

Ceili wrote:

I know all that...I'm a single mother.
However, I think if your going to have sex. Never assume they other party has taken care of the birthcontrol issue. Be responsible for yourself firstly, and if the stork arrives take responsibility for that too.

Birth control is a two way street. Too many times the men trust the woman when she tells them she's using birth control when, in fact, she isn't. Quite a few men have been used as a sperm bank by women who want to have a child. Men have to stop being so lazy and trusting.

0 Replies

This one's a touchy subject, eh...

I wish that there was some sort of legally binding agreement that two adults could have saying, in advance, that the sex they were having was not for procreation - and that in the event of pregnancy the agreement is to abort.

I don't think we do the world any favours by bringing unwanted children into it - particularly the unwanted children.

As a guy in his late twenties it is a real concern that a woman will say, "no I don't want to have a baby now - I wouldn't keep it if I got pregnant".

So you both use birth control...and let's say that the condom breaks and for some reason her pill fails...I know that it's a remote possibility...but...it's a scary thought that she may change her mind and there's nothing you can do about it.

Don't jump on me here - I'm not saying we should change the rules...I'm just saying that when two people agree that there's no intention to have a kid - changing that intention unilaterally isn't right.

0 Replies

I think many are picking up on the unfairness inherent to biology. Which is not bad at all. But to try to respond with greater injustuce (like having one be able to dictate a polemic surgical procedure for the other) isn't, IMO, fair either.

0 Replies

I guess it's the last place where women have total control. Gasp!
I would not be happy if one of my son's girlfriends got pregnant and he wanted it and she didn't, but ultimately, there's not much to be done about it. While it's in her body, it's hers. Part of her.
At the same time, if one of my boys impregnated a girl and she wanted to have a baby and he didn't, he'd be stuck having to get used to that fact and having to support a child. Too bad, but that's the way it goes. There's nothing to be done about it but to step up. You play, you pay. Protect yourself in all possible ways.
Much worse things happen to people and they don't even get sex out of the deal.
Sometimes life aint fair, guys. Get used to it.
We have! Sad

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Ceili wrote:
A man can choose to refrain from having sex or he can assume control of birthcontrol.

leaving the woman free of responsibility?

What an asinine comment to make. A fertile woman is never free of responsibility.

0 Replies

suzy wrote:

Sometimes life aint fair, guys. Get used to it.
We have!

How true.

And you know, the ultimate response to the whole issue is to not engage in sex with someone you don't want to have a child with. Is that realistic? No. But you have to prepare yourself for that possibility.

0 Replies

Jer wrote:

As a guy in his late twenties it is a real concern that a woman will say, "no I don't want to have a baby now - I wouldn't keep it if I got pregnant".
So you both use birth control...and let's say that the condom breaks and for some reason her pill fails...I know that it's a remote possibility...but...it's a scary thought that she may change her mind and there's nothing you can do about it.

As unromantic as it may sound, before a couple has sex, they should talk about what the woman would do should she accidentally become pregnant. If the man is strongly oppossed to abortion and the woman favors it, then the two of them really shouldn't have sex. It can be devistating to a man who impregates a woman and she aborts a child that he wanted to have. Disagrement about abortion can and often does happen between married couples as well.

0 Replies

willow_tl wrote:

An abortion is a medical procedure as well rove..what's good for the goose is good for the gander my friend. And i am glad you would "step up to the plate" but it is still the females decision whether she wants to carry that fetus to term...:-)

Like I said, I wouldn't agree with abortion as a forced medical procedure. But if the man wants the abortion and the woman doesn't than she should take on all of the financial responsibility her self. It makes perfect sense to me. This isn't a matter of biology being unfair to the men. It's a matter of the laws only protecting the women and sticking it to the men hard. Don't complain about being the one that has to carry the baby. That's nature. We can't change nature but we can fix laws!

0 Replies

roverroad wrote:

It's a matter of the laws only protecting the women and sticking it to the men hard.

While you might like to believe otherwise, those laws are in place to protect the child and not women.

It's a complicated issue and you can't just simplify it by stating that a pregnancy unwanted by the man but wanted by the woman should be resolved by placing all financial responsibility on the woman.

For anyone engaging in sex, one of the consequences could be an unwanted pregnancy. Everyone engaging in sex realizes this, so they should also accept the possible consequences.

0 Replies

roverroad wrote:

But if the man wants the abortion and the woman doesn't than she should take on all of the financial responsibility her self. It makes perfect sense to me. This isn't a matter of biology being unfair to the men. It's a matter of the laws only protecting the women and sticking it to the men hard. Don't complain about being the one that has to carry the baby. That's nature. We can't change nature but we can fix laws!

Allow me to offer a hypothetical in the interests of shedding some light on this topic:

Driver accidentally hits Pedestrian, injuring her severely. Driver did not intend to hit Pedestrian, but it is clear that he was negligent and that he alone was responsible. Pedestrian's doctors give her a choice: she can have an operation to correct her injuries, or she can forego surgery. If she has the operation, she has a 50 percent chance of dying, but if she survives she will be 100 percent cured. On the other hand, if she foregoes surgery, her lifespan will not be shortened but will crippled for the rest of her life.

Pedestrian has brought a lawsuit against Driver. Driver can anticipate that, if Pedestrian decides to forego surgery he will have to pay $100,000 in damages. If she has surgery and dies, it is certain that he will pay at least $1 million or more in damages to Pedestrian's estate. And if she has the surgery and survives, Driver will have to pay $10,000.

As Pedestrian is weighing her medical options, Driver tells her: "since your decision will undoubtedly affect me, I should have a say in whatever choice you make. After all, it's not fair that you have 100 percent of the choice while I bear 100 percent of the financial burden. Therefore, in exchange for paying you $100,000 right now, I demand that you forego that operation. If, on the other hand, you choose to reject my offer and go ahead with the surgery, then I will be absolved of all responsibility and I won't be obligated to pay you (or your estate) anything."

Now, is that fair?

0 Replies

That's a ridiculous hypothetical.

I have yet to see anyone suggest a woman keep her legs closed. It takes two to tango.

0 Replies

Oh, just saw this one. Seems to be coming back to the same thing -- RealityCheck really doesn't like condoms.

Yes, it takes two to tango. Two to take responsibility for birth control. If you don't trust her, use a condom.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

That's a ridiculous hypothetical.

I have yet to see anyone suggest a woman keep her legs closed. It takes two to tango.

In that it's an example of something that's not a mutual responsibility it's, indeed, different.

But it's a good example, that the notion that responsibility should equal control is a false premise.

I took it, not as an example of a comparable situation on the whole, but of a very good example of how financial liability does not mean one should have the right to choose someone else's medical options.

0 Replies

caprice wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Ceili wrote:
A man can choose to refrain from having sex or he can assume control of birthcontrol.

leaving the woman free of responsibility?

What an asinine comment to make. A fertile woman is never free of responsibility.

How equally asinine to take my comment beyond it's intended use. Ceili offered two options and neither placed any responsibility on the woman and that's wrong. A woman has many options. The pill, an IUD, a diaphragm, abstinence and several others.

0 Replies

You've driven Reality Checker away, you bastards. It was inevitable, I suppose. No matter, though; his brilliance will live on in my signature.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

roverroad wrote:
But if the man wants the abortion and the woman doesn't than she should take on all of the financial responsibility her self. It makes perfect sense to me. This isn't a matter of biology being unfair to the men. It's a matter of the laws only protecting the women and sticking it to the men hard. Don't complain about being the one that has to carry the baby. That's nature. We can't change nature but we can fix laws!

Allow me to offer a hypothetical in the interests of shedding some light on this topic:

Driver accidentally hits Pedestrian, injuring her severely. Driver did not intend to hit Pedestrian, but it is clear that he was negligent and that he alone was responsible. Pedestrian's doctors give her a choice: she can have an operation to correct her injuries, or she can forego surgery. If she has the operation, she has a 50 percent chance of dying, but if she survives she will be 100 percent cured. On the other hand, if she foregoes surgery, her lifespan will not be shortened but will crippled for the rest of her life.

Pedestrian has brought a lawsuit against Driver. Driver can anticipate that, if Pedestrian decides to forego surgery he will have to pay $100,000 in damages. If she has surgery and dies, it is certain that he will pay at least $1 million or more in damages to Pedestrian's estate. And if she has the surgery and survives, Driver will have to pay $10,000.

As Pedestrian is weighing her medical options, Driver tells her: "since your decision will undoubtedly affect me, I should have a say in whatever choice you make. After all, it's not fair that you have 100 percent of the choice while I bear 100 percent of the financial burden. Therefore, in exchange for paying you $100,000 right now, I demand that you forego that operation. If, on the other hand, you choose to reject my offer and go ahead with the surgery, then I will be absolved of all responsibility and I won't be obligated to pay you (or your estate) anything."

Now, is that fair?

As outrageous as this hypothetical is, it's still relates to this. It doesn't matter what the intention was. It matters what the result is.

Suzy said it best - you play, you pay. TANSTAAFL people.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

That's a ridiculous hypothetical.

I have yet to see anyone suggest a woman keep her legs closed. It takes two to tango.

So - what ARE you suggesting? This seems to be the only safe way - that men and women BOTH keep their legs closed - if they do not, the cards begin to fall in ways that, according to some of you, is unfair and legally actionable.

I have not yet heard too many men say that they prefer not to have sex - but it seems only logical, since both birth control, and the psyche of the human being once presented with the possibility of progeny, are inherently somewhat unpredictable....

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

So - what ARE you suggesting? This seems to be the only safe way - that men and women BOTH keep their legs closed - if they do not, the cards begin to fall in ways that, according to some of you, is unfair and legally actionable.

It's just unrealistic. People will never stop having sex to prevent pregnancy. Some will but most wont. Therefore since it's not realistic you have to deal with what is realistic. What to do after the pregnancy happens.

0 Replies

Abortion--soley her body/choice, but not responsibility

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know