This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="DarkPrinceXC"]If he doesn't want children, why doesn't he get "fixed"?NYiVtec
that would mean losing your manhood:|
Not true at all. You dont get your balls removed in a vasectomy. What happens at the end is the still the same. You didnt think the secretion was all sperm did you? Maybe about 15%. Basically you lose nothing but the ability to make sure regardless of what happens you wont have children. It can also be reversed. Dont even need a cut anymore.
[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]They are choosing to have a baby when they have sex.JandurinMost people aren't choosing to have a baby when they have sex. Consciously.
Well, I use the world choosing pretty loosly. I understand most people don't understand why they engage in a specific behavior, they just do it because they feel like it. But part of the pleasure of sex is to encourage reproduction in the human species. So by having sex, you are choosing to reproduce. Even if you're mind can't comprehend it.
[QUOTE="fbigent34"][QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="fbigent34"][QUOTE="Sajedene"]If you ask me -- you all got the easy end of the stick here. All you got to do is put in some money for the next 21 years. The woman who CHOOSES to keep the child is obligated to be a MOTHER to that child -- not just an ATM machine.
The reason why the mother has more weight in this decision again comes down to the FACT that she has to be the one to carry it and give birth to it -- if she keeps it (again stressing that that is the only time a man has to pay child support) RAISE it, nurture it, care for it, educate it, etc etc etc etc.
Seriously, somene please explain to me how to make it work in a scenario where a man wants to keep the child but the woman doesnt. HOW can one make that work? If you can explain it to me - then I will accept the existance of a double standard.
Sajedene
you not even listing whats the point? your using the women body agurement. and the fact man cant have babies is a double standard when it TAKES TWO TO MAKE A BABY Man And Female.
BUT it ONLY TAKES ONE TO CARRY AND GIVE BIRTH TO IT. Not by choice either. Which is the whole point I'm trying to make. A man can choose to keep the baby the day he can choose to carry it for 9 months and give birth to it. Women didnt choose this scenario - so it can not be a double standard. Women don't choose to be the one to carry that child.
without the male you wouldnt have a baby so therefor you couldnt choice as it wouldnt of matter since your not getting pregant.
Jus the fact that it takes two to have a baby they both should have a decison since its there child. not the mothers there both parents father/mother.
stop using the body agurement.
I will stop using it the day the man has the option to carry the baby and give birth to it.
Here is the jist: If a man and a woman choose to have sex they accept the consequence of having a baby - whether that happens or not. That is the choice they both make.
So if a woman gets pregnant, they've already both established that they knew this could happen. BUT because it is the woman who has to carry the baby and her "burden" alone - she gets to decide whether she has to do this or not. Out of courtesy she can ask for the man's opinion and say on the matter - but the bottom line is that she has to be the one to carry it - so she gets the say if she gets to carry it or not.
The reason why you do not want to use the body argument is because there is no arguing out of it. It is the intention of nature for a woman to carry that child. But the decision to HAVE that child or not is not made during the the existence of pregnancy but during the consent of sex.
The issue is this.
If two people accept the consenquences of having a baby while having sex, then often there a mutual understanding of what happens afterwards. If the women changes her mind, and says she wants to keep the baby, then the consenquence of that on the father when they made the decision before conception is forced.
If the decision to keep the child or not is totally upon the women, and I agree it should, then what happens afterwards should as well. A man should only need to carry financially with a child if prior, during, and after he was part of the decision. If at any point he is not able to be part of the decision, then he should have the option of backing out.
If he and the woman wanted the baby and she carries the baby to term then he also agreed to afterwards and should have to financially support the child. If they didnt want to keep the child and she went ahead with the pregnancy, then adoption and all financial obligations to make sure it happens he needs to help with.
A women has no right to make the decision to keep the child or not and expect the man's hand to be tied afterwards. Plenty of couples have broken up and the man had no issues supporting the children because he was apart of their life and he wanted them. However some men have invested alot of time with someone and the idea was always children, and when one came about and the women changed her mind and got a abortion, where does it leave the man?
Women should have consenquences to THEIR decision as well. Regardless of the body arguement, which i AGREE with, they should also have to have consenquences to that as well. You shouldnt be able to change your mind in the middle and expect step 3 to always be the same. You go with plan A, you change plan B, plan C also should change on whomever chose to change plan B.
If two people accept the consenquences of having a baby while having sex, then often there a mutual understanding of what happens afterwards. If the women changes her mind, and says she wants to keep the baby, then the consenquence of that on the father when they made the decision before conception is forced.
If the decision to keep the child or not is totally upon the women, and I agree it should, then what happens afterwards should as well. A man should only need to carry financially with a child if prior, during, and after he was part of the decision. If at any point he is not able to be part of the decision, then he should have the option of backing out.
If he and the woman wanted the baby and she carries the baby to term then he also agreed to afterwards and should have to financially support the child. If they didnt want to keep the child and she went ahead with the pregnancy, then adoption and all financial obligations to make sure it happens he needs to help with.
A women has no right to make the decision to keep the child or not and expect the man's hand to be tied afterwards. Plenty of couples have broken up and the man had no issues supporting the children because he was apart of their life and he wanted them. However some men have invested alot of time with someone and the idea was always children, and when one came about and the women changed her mind and got a abortion, where does it leave the man?
Women should have consenquences to THEIR decision as well. Regardless of the body arguement, which i AGREE with, they should also have to have consenquences to that as well. You shouldnt be able to change your mind in the middle and expect step 3 to always be the same. You go with plan A, you change plan B, plan C also should change on whomever chose to change plan B.
CreasianDevaili
I agree. The problem is that any idea of "men's rights" is viewed as being oppressive to women somehow. It's kinda of funny and sad.
The only way to implement this would be to have a contract signed the moment pregnancy is determined. Or, maybe even a contract before sex :o A sexual contract.Women should have consenquences to THEIR decision as well. Regardless of the body arguement, which i AGREE with, they should also have to have consenquences to that as well. You shouldnt be able to change your mind in the middle and expect step 3 to always be the same. You go with plan A, you change plan B, plan C also should change on whomever chose to change plan B.
CreasianDevaili
[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"]If two people accept the consenquences of having a baby while having sex, then often there a mutual understanding of what happens afterwards. If the women changes her mind, and says she wants to keep the baby, then the consenquence of that on the father when they made the decision before conception is forced.
If the decision to keep the child or not is totally upon the women, and I agree it should, then what happens afterwards should as well. A man should only need to carry financially with a child if prior, during, and after he was part of the decision. If at any point he is not able to be part of the decision, then he should have the option of backing out.
If he and the woman wanted the baby and she carries the baby to term then he also agreed to afterwards and should have to financially support the child. If they didnt want to keep the child and she went ahead with the pregnancy, then adoption and all financial obligations to make sure it happens he needs to help with.
A women has no right to make the decision to keep the child or not and expect the man's hand to be tied afterwards. Plenty of couples have broken up and the man had no issues supporting the children because he was apart of their life and he wanted them. However some men have invested alot of time with someone and the idea was always children, and when one came about and the women changed her mind and got a abortion, where does it leave the man?
Women should have consenquences to THEIR decision as well. Regardless of the body arguement, which i AGREE with, they should also have to have consenquences to that as well. You shouldnt be able to change your mind in the middle and expect step 3 to always be the same. You go with plan A, you change plan B, plan C also should change on whomever chose to change plan B.
TSCombo
I agree. The problem is that any idea of "men's rights" is viewed as being oppressive to women somehow. It's kinda of funny and sad.
Some women were fighting the release of the male conception pill because they argued it infringed on the rights of women's right to choose when they got pregnant.
[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"]The only way to implement this would be to have a contract signed the moment pregnancy is determined. Or, maybe even a contract before sex :o A sexual contract.Women should have consenquences to THEIR decision as well. Regardless of the body arguement, which i AGREE with, they should also have to have consenquences to that as well. You shouldnt be able to change your mind in the middle and expect step 3 to always be the same. You go with plan A, you change plan B, plan C also should change on whomever chose to change plan B.
Jandurin
We have contracts when people get married. Should be no issue here. If the couple wants children, then this is a good way to make sure women who have children with a guy for many years and gets dumped will get swift justice and support. Oh wait they do!
Need a contract that says if the man isnt part of the decision in Part B that he dosent have to be legally obligated to be part of Part C. However if Part B the man changes his mind, then Part C is reverted back to the original decision in Part A. So if the man decided he didnt want children, he cant force the women to have the child. If however he didnt and the women agreed in the beginning, then if the women has the child then she is 100% liable alone if the man chooses to leave it that way.
That way the women has total control over her body. The man also has control as well.
[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"]The only way to implement this would be to have a contract signed the moment pregnancy is determined. Or, maybe even a contract before sex :o A sexual contract.Women should have consenquences to THEIR decision as well. Regardless of the body arguement, which i AGREE with, they should also have to have consenquences to that as well. You shouldnt be able to change your mind in the middle and expect step 3 to always be the same. You go with plan A, you change plan B, plan C also should change on whomever chose to change plan B.
Jandurin
bah, I was going to link the dave chappelle sex contract skit, but they have removed it from youtube:cry:
Well because I know full well the health complications that can come about from pregnancy, even to perfectly healthy women, such as gestational diabetes, I fully support women and their rights to choose for their bodies.
I just think that that choice should be their responsibility DURING and AFTER if they CHANGED it.
[QUOTE="TSCombo"][QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"]If two people accept the consenquences of having a baby while having sex, then often there a mutual understanding of what happens afterwards. If the women changes her mind, and says she wants to keep the baby, then the consenquence of that on the father when they made the decision before conception is forced.
If the decision to keep the child or not is totally upon the women, and I agree it should, then what happens afterwards should as well. A man should only need to carry financially with a child if prior, during, and after he was part of the decision. If at any point he is not able to be part of the decision, then he should have the option of backing out.
If he and the woman wanted the baby and she carries the baby to term then he also agreed to afterwards and should have to financially support the child. If they didnt want to keep the child and she went ahead with the pregnancy, then adoption and all financial obligations to make sure it happens he needs to help with.
A women has no right to make the decision to keep the child or not and expect the man's hand to be tied afterwards. Plenty of couples have broken up and the man had no issues supporting the children because he was apart of their life and he wanted them. However some men have invested alot of time with someone and the idea was always children, and when one came about and the women changed her mind and got a abortion, where does it leave the man?
Women should have consenquences to THEIR decision as well. Regardless of the body arguement, which i AGREE with, they should also have to have consenquences to that as well. You shouldnt be able to change your mind in the middle and expect step 3 to always be the same. You go with plan A, you change plan B, plan C also should change on whomever chose to change plan B.
CreasianDevaili
I agree. The problem is that any idea of "men's rights" is viewed as being oppressive to women somehow. It's kinda of funny and sad.
Some women were fighting the release of the male conception pill because they argued it infringed on the rights of women's right to choose when they got pregnant.
Dang. I'm not suprised. The male perspective in the matter doesn't even get a platform. Having a baby doesn't take two people anymore apparently.
Well because I know full well the health complications that can come about from pregnancy, even to perfectly healthy women, such as gestational diabetes, I fully support women and their rights to choose for their bodies.
I just think that that choice should be their responsibility DURING and AFTER if they CHANGED it.
CreasianDevaili
Women take that risk by having unprotected sex. I wouldn't compare the value of human life towards minor health complications.
[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"]Well because I know full well the health complications that can come about from pregnancy, even to perfectly healthy women, such as gestational diabetes, I fully support women and their rights to choose for their bodies.
I just think that that choice should be their responsibility DURING and AFTER if they CHANGED it.
LikeHaterade
Women take that risk by having unprotected sex. I wouldn't compare the value of human life towards minor health complications.
That can be another thread. Your talking to someone who, with his friend, went ahead with a pregnancy with a child with under 20% survival rate, 5% after the child was in the real world. Knowing this at 22 weeks with a 10/10 severity of heart deformalities. You know the pulmonary artery? My son didnt have one, at all. So I understand your thinking, cause I lived it.
However this thread is more about the environment of the parents and such. I cant talk about that stuff and combine it with the importance or non importance of the child's right or non right to life at the same time without just focusing on the child period.
If that makes sense.
[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"]Well because I know full well the health complications that can come about from pregnancy, even to perfectly healthy women, such as gestational diabetes, I fully support women and their rights to choose for their bodies.
I just think that that choice should be their responsibility DURING and AFTER if they CHANGED it.
CreasianDevaili
Women take that risk by having unprotected sex. I wouldn't compare the value of human life towards minor health complications.
That can be another thread. Your talking to someone who, with his friend, went ahead with a pregnancy with a child with under 20% survival rate, 5% after the child was in the real world. Knowing this at 22 weeks with a 10/10 severity of heart deformalities. You know the pulmonary artery? My son didnt have one, at all. So I understand your thinking, cause I lived it.
However this thread is more about the environment of the parents and such. I cant talk about that stuff and combine it with the importance or non importance of the child's right or non right to life at the same time without just focusing on the child period.
If that makes sense.
It can be used in another thread. I was just responding to your post but you were obviously talking about a woman's right compared to the man so I took it the wrong way. When there is a debate or discussion about abortion in itself, excluding men in women's rights, it's a debate/discussion about life. I'm sorry to hear about your son.
[QUOTE="BladeOfHeaven"]Yea he should have to pay..its his kid, his DNA, and somewhat his creation, and he obviously wanted it to be there. If he didn't and it was an accident, then it's his fault and there are consequences.peaceful_angerBut that's my question, if the woman has a choice on whether the baby lives or dies, then why doesn't the man have a choice on whether he wants to pay child support or not.
I kind of agree, a women has to be a willing participant in the sexual encounter or it's rape. However when the man has expressed his non concent to having a child it's ignored. Ultimately you should accept your responsibilities and take care of said child, but I think it's a raw deal to be forced into fatherhood. And I've seen women intentionally lie and deceive guys to get pregnant either to hold on to them or just because they wanted a kid. Also if you don't want to be a father in the first place how good of a job are you really going to do? You're not really doing this prospective kid any favors, especially after they are of age to start asking about their deadbeat dad.
[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"]Well because I know full well the health complications that can come about from pregnancy, even to perfectly healthy women, such as gestational diabetes, I fully support women and their rights to choose for their bodies.
I just think that that choice should be their responsibility DURING and AFTER if they CHANGED it.
LikeHaterade
Women take that risk by having unprotected sex. I wouldn't compare the value of human life towards minor health complications.
That can be another thread. Your talking to someone who, with his friend, went ahead with a pregnancy with a child with under 20% survival rate, 5% after the child was in the real world. Knowing this at 22 weeks with a 10/10 severity of heart deformalities. You know the pulmonary artery? My son didnt have one, at all. So I understand your thinking, cause I lived it.
However this thread is more about the environment of the parents and such. I cant talk about that stuff and combine it with the importance or non importance of the child's right or non right to life at the same time without just focusing on the child period.
If that makes sense.
It can be used in another thread. I was just responding to your post but you were obviously talking about a woman's right compared to the man so I took it the wrong way. When there is a debate or discussion about abortion in itself, excluding men in women's rights, it's a debate/discussion about life. I'm sorry to hear about your son.
Oh its not anything bad. I know how you feel and you've written solid points and I respect them. This entire thing is connected to all of it, health+right to life+pro-choice+individual rights+more. So I just wanted to talk about the individual rights which does have to directly do with the initial aspects of pro-life or pro-choice. Just that its impossible to talk about it all without going to whats more important, which is the debate on pro-life or pro-choice.
This entire debate, overall, is very personal to me. Very personal. Individual rights sometimes are less, because I myself am getting snipped and that is because of alot of factors. However it does tie in with this particular debate of women's body rights vs men's rights on pregnancy.
When a man sleeps with a woman, he's accepting that there's a chance that they'll conceive a child and that it will be his responsibility to support. Why should he get to tell someone to kill their child because he's too cheap to pay for it? It's not like he'd have to even raise it if he didn't want to. Women have to give birth and most often raise the baby by themselves in that situation so a man has no right trying to get her to kill a child because he doesn't want to pay.SlorgieNel
But why does he have to pay at all? Equal parental rights, and sharing. Each parent pays to take care of the child when they are with them solely. Maybe one does health while the other handles dental and vision.
It's not as easy as "do I want a child or not", some just don't want to abort a child, or adopt it away, cause it's too hard.[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]Now to the people who are pro-choice and are saying well he knew the consequences, didn't the woman know the consequences as well, yet she gets to choose whether to have an abortion or not? So if the woman knew the consequences, but still gets to choose, then why can't the man choose to not pay child support?Hungry_bunny
They're not all doing it to screw the guy over.
Haha, nice sig, I like it better then the last one.
[QUOTE="SlorgieNel"]When a man sleeps with a woman, he's accepting that there's a chance that they'll conceive a child and that it will be his responsibility to support. Why should he get to tell someone to kill their child because he's too cheap to pay for it? It's not like he'd have to even raise it if he didn't want to. Women have to give birth and most often raise the baby by themselves in that situation so a man has no right trying to get her to kill a child because he doesn't want to pay.CreasianDevaili
But why does he have to pay at all? Equal parental rights, and sharing. Each parent pays to take care of the child when they are with them solely. Maybe one does health while the other handles dental and vision.
This was the case before factoring abortion into the equation. The idea situation is that both will be around to take care of the child but the modern view is that the woman decides if she wants the child first and then the guy acts according to the decision that she decides.Most of these post's have this wording " When a man chooses to have sex with a woman" I don't know about you guys, but plenty of "women choose to have sex with men" too. Or are all women getting raped here or what? There is indeed a double standard. Carrying a baby for 9 months does not give one more sway when important decisions need to be made. The most important decision was already made 9 months ago, when you opened your legs. It takes two yall. I totally see what the OP is saying now. I will say this though, anyone who doesn't wan't to support their own child is a deadbeat.out0v0rder
I agree. The whole point of making the baby all about the women's rights causes these dilemas to pop up.
[QUOTE="Sajedene"]I believe that the decision to have the child is made when they chose to have sex or not - not when the woman gets pregnant. The reason why the woman has more say in the abortion matter is because she is the one who has to carry the thing for 9 months and then pop it out.
fbigent34
Thats a double standard and not fair for guys thats the problem.
Well, the guy would only be paying child support if he wasn't in a relationship with the girl, meaning he probably didn't help pay her way through the pregnancy and get all of the necessary plans into place. When she gives birth she'll have to pay a lot of money to raise that child. If the guy is in a relationship with her, it's taken care of. If not, well...tough cookies. I don't think the law is perfect by any means(and there are various ways I think could make it much more efficient and less oppressive) but it helps weed out the deadbeats in society.
If the guy is in a relation with the pregnant girl, chances are his take on the matter will play a serious role in whether an abortion will be had, or if it'll go to term and then kept or put up for adoption. If the guy is not in a relationship with her, chances are he doesn't give a crap about that child, so why should he have a say in the matter?
Now of course, the girl could have been a bit promiscuous and the pregnancy was the outcome of that, and maybe the prospective guy would want her to carry it to term and would want to try and have a relationship, but the girl doesn't want any of it. In cases like this, the girl would very likely go get an abortion against the wishes of the guy. Cases like these are the minority rather than the majority though.
[QUOTE="TSCombo"][QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"]If two people accept the consenquences of having a baby while having sex, then often there a mutual understanding of what happens afterwards. If the women changes her mind, and says she wants to keep the baby, then the consenquence of that on the father when they made the decision before conception is forced.
If the decision to keep the child or not is totally upon the women, and I agree it should, then what happens afterwards should as well. A man should only need to carry financially with a child if prior, during, and after he was part of the decision. If at any point he is not able to be part of the decision, then he should have the option of backing out.
If he and the woman wanted the baby and she carries the baby to term then he also agreed to afterwards and should have to financially support the child. If they didnt want to keep the child and she went ahead with the pregnancy, then adoption and all financial obligations to make sure it happens he needs to help with.
A women has no right to make the decision to keep the child or not and expect the man's hand to be tied afterwards. Plenty of couples have broken up and the man had no issues supporting the children because he was apart of their life and he wanted them. However some men have invested alot of time with someone and the idea was always children, and when one came about and the women changed her mind and got a abortion, where does it leave the man?
Women should have consenquences to THEIR decision as well. Regardless of the body arguement, which i AGREE with, they should also have to have consenquences to that as well. You shouldnt be able to change your mind in the middle and expect step 3 to always be the same. You go with plan A, you change plan B, plan C also should change on whomever chose to change plan B.
CreasianDevaili
I agree. The problem is that any idea of "men's rights" is viewed as being oppressive to women somehow. It's kinda of funny and sad.
Some women were fighting the release of the male conception pill because they argued it infringed on the rights of women's right to choose when they got pregnant.
It's things like this that make me sad to be a feminist, when neo-feminists take the stage and gain more political power than real feminists. REAL feminists fight for equality, or as close to it as you can get. They fought for women's rights, civil rights alongside Martin Luther King, they fought for men's rights, they fought for reform in the working sector.
It seems the biggest feminist organizations nowadays are led by extremists who villify men, and that's not right.
[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"][QUOTE="TSCombo"][QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"]If two people accept the consenquences of having a baby while having sex, then often there a mutual understanding of what happens afterwards. If the women changes her mind, and says she wants to keep the baby, then the consenquence of that on the father when they made the decision before conception is forced.
If the decision to keep the child or not is totally upon the women, and I agree it should, then what happens afterwards should as well. A man should only need to carry financially with a child if prior, during, and after he was part of the decision. If at any point he is not able to be part of the decision, then he should have the option of backing out.
If he and the woman wanted the baby and she carries the baby to term then he also agreed to afterwards and should have to financially support the child. If they didnt want to keep the child and she went ahead with the pregnancy, then adoption and all financial obligations to make sure it happens he needs to help with.
A women has no right to make the decision to keep the child or not and expect the man's hand to be tied afterwards. Plenty of couples have broken up and the man had no issues supporting the children because he was apart of their life and he wanted them. However some men have invested alot of time with someone and the idea was always children, and when one came about and the women changed her mind and got a abortion, where does it leave the man?
Women should have consenquences to THEIR decision as well. Regardless of the body arguement, which i AGREE with, they should also have to have consenquences to that as well. You shouldnt be able to change your mind in the middle and expect step 3 to always be the same. You go with plan A, you change plan B, plan C also should change on whomever chose to change plan B.
Lockedge
I agree. The problem is that any idea of "men's rights" is viewed as being oppressive to women somehow. It's kinda of funny and sad.
Some women were fighting the release of the male conception pill because they argued it infringed on the rights of women's right to choose when they got pregnant.
It's things like this that make me sad to be a feminist, when neo-feminists take the stage and gain more political power than real feminists. REAL feminists fight for equality, or as close to it as you can get. They fought for women's rights, civil rights alongside Martin Luther King, they fought for men's rights, they fought for reform in the working sector.
It seems the biggest feminist organizations nowadays are led by extremists who villify men, and that's not right.
I am trying to find the article. This was around 3-4 years back that I read it. It was legit also which made it even worse. We all thought it was a joke until we actually saw the quotes that "It robs us the right to choose when and how we get pregnant". This is one thing that has pushed it back I believe from being approved by the FDA.
It went heavily in the argument that women natural instincts of what they should bear children would be hindered or stopped by the ability for their mate to not produce sperm when they chose. It was rather.. insane.
Luckly however the mass majority do not think that way. But yes, a small organization of 100 women can be heard louder than 10,000 if they speak like a extreme group.
Meh, I'd say the prospective mothers should have about 60% say in it.MetalGear_NintyLegally mothers have 100% of the say.
[QUOTE="fbigent34"][QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="fbigent34"][QUOTE="Sajedene"]If you ask me -- you all got the easy end of the stick here. All you got to do is put in some money for the next 21 years. The woman who CHOOSES to keep the child is obligated to be a MOTHER to that child -- not just an ATM machine.
The reason why the mother has more weight in this decision again comes down to the FACT that she has to be the one to carry it and give birth to it -- if she keeps it (again stressing that that is the only time a man has to pay child support) RAISE it, nurture it, care for it, educate it, etc etc etc etc.
Seriously, somene please explain to me how to make it work in a scenario where a man wants to keep the child but the woman doesnt. HOW can one make that work? If you can explain it to me - then I will accept the existance of a double standard.
Sajedene
you not even listing whats the point? your using the women body agurement. and the fact man cant have babies is a double standard when it TAKES TWO TO MAKE A BABY Man And Female.
BUT it ONLY TAKES ONE TO CARRY AND GIVE BIRTH TO IT. Not by choice either. Which is the whole point I'm trying to make. A man can choose to keep the baby the day he can choose to carry it for 9 months and give birth to it. Women didnt choose this scenario - so it can not be a double standard. Women don't choose to be the one to carry that child.
without the male you wouldnt have a baby so therefor you couldnt choice as it wouldnt of matter since your not getting pregant.
Jus the fact that it takes two to have a baby they both should have a decison since its there child. not the mothers there both parents father/mother.
stop using the body agurement.
I will stop using it the day the man has the option to carry the baby and give birth to it.
Here is the jist: If a man and a woman choose to have sex they accept the consequence of having a baby - whether that happens or not. That is the choice they both make.
So if a woman gets pregnant, they've already both established that they knew this could happen. BUT because it is the woman who has to carry the baby and her "burden" alone - she gets to decide whether she has to do this or not. Out of courtesy she can ask for the man's opinion and say on the matter - but the bottom line is that she has to be the one to carry it - so she gets the say if she gets to carry it or not.
The reason why you do not want to use the body argument is because there is no arguing out of it. It is the intention of nature for a woman to carry that child. But the decision to HAVE that child or not is not made during the the existence of pregnancy but during the consent of sex.
:roll: did you here what i said? no you avoding the whole augrment of mine. WITHOUT MALES YOU WOULDNT HAVE A BABY SO YOU WOULDNT BE ABLE TO BE PRO-CHOICE/PRO-OBRITON OR AGASINT IT FOR THAT MATTER.
you wouldnt care. the fact that it takes TWO TWO TWO TWO TWO DIFFRENT SEX TWO HAVE A BABY. IT SHOULD BE THERE BTOH CHOICES LISTEN.
Intill you can conuter agurment this good day beacuse your keep going back to your old saying. and not asnwering this part of it.
[QUOTE="fbigent34"][QUOTE="Sajedene"]I believe that the decision to have the child is made when they chose to have sex or not - not when the woman gets pregnant. The reason why the woman has more say in the abortion matter is because she is the one who has to carry the thing for 9 months and then pop it out.
Lockedge
Thats a double standard and not fair for guys thats the problem.
Well, the guy would only be paying child support if he wasn't in a relationship with the girl, meaning he probably didn't help pay her way through the pregnancy and get all of the necessary plans into place. When she gives birth she'll have to pay a lot of money to raise that child. If the guy is in a relationship with her, it's taken care of. If not, well...tough cookies. I don't think the law is perfect by any means(and there are various ways I think could make it much more efficient and less oppressive) but it helps weed out the deadbeats in society.
If the guy is in a relation with the pregnant girl, chances are his take on the matter will play a serious role in whether an abortion will be had, or if it'll go to term and then kept or put up for adoption. If the guy is not in a relationship with her, chances are he doesn't give a crap about that child, so why should he have a say in the matter?
Now of course, the girl could have been a bit promiscuous and the pregnancy was the outcome of that, and maybe the prospective guy would want her to carry it to term and would want to try and have a relationship, but the girl doesn't want any of it. In cases like this, the girl would very likely go get an abortion against the wishes of the guy. Cases like these are the minority rather than the majority though.
thats not an agurement your just using that "child support theroy here" the fact it takes two to make a baby should be both parents decison not one.
If you're kid got in trouble would you talk to the other one about a puinishment or agree with them on it? of coruse parents is loving and caring for eachother and your child.
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Meh, I'd say the prospective mothers should have about 60% say in it.VandalvideoLegally mothers have 100% of the say.
...and that's the problem. :wink:
[QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="fbigent34"][QUOTE="Sajedene"]I believe that the decision to have the child is made when they chose to have sex or not - not when the woman gets pregnant. The reason why the woman has more say in the abortion matter is because she is the one who has to carry the thing for 9 months and then pop it out.
fbigent34
Thats a double standard and not fair for guys thats the problem.
Well, the guy would only be paying child support if he wasn't in a relationship with the girl, meaning he probably didn't help pay her way through the pregnancy and get all of the necessary plans into place. When she gives birth she'll have to pay a lot of money to raise that child. If the guy is in a relationship with her, it's taken care of. If not, well...tough cookies. I don't think the law is perfect by any means(and there are various ways I think could make it much more efficient and less oppressive) but it helps weed out the deadbeats in society.
If the guy is in a relation with the pregnant girl, chances are his take on the matter will play a serious role in whether an abortion will be had, or if it'll go to term and then kept or put up for adoption. If the guy is not in a relationship with her, chances are he doesn't give a crap about that child, so why should he have a say in the matter?
Now of course, the girl could have been a bit promiscuous and the pregnancy was the outcome of that, and maybe the prospective guy would want her to carry it to term and would want to try and have a relationship, but the girl doesn't want any of it. In cases like this, the girl would very likely go get an abortion against the wishes of the guy. Cases like these are the minority rather than the majority though.
thats not an agurement your just using that "child support theroy here" the fact it takes two to make a baby should be both parents decison not one.
If you're kid got in trouble would you talk to the other one about a puinishment or agree with them on it? of coruse parents is loving and caring for eachother and your child.
So a rapist would have a 50% say in whether the baby should be aborted or kept? Just shedding some perspective.
It takes two to make a child, I understand that. I've taken sex education classes through high-school and I live in a teen-pregnancy hotspot in my country. I see SO many girls/women walking strollers along. So many of them are single, because the guy who knocked them up wants nothing to do with them. Whether it was through drunken hookups or the dude running off once she got pregnant, I don't know, but it's commonplace here for the guy to run off to the factory and pay child support while avoiding her like the plague.
Allow me to ask you this question: IF each parent should be given 50% choice, and both disagree, then what happens?
:roll: did you here what i said? no you avoding the whole augrment of mine. WITHOUT MALES YOU WOULDNT HAVE A BABY SO YOU WOULDNT BE ABLE TO BE PRO-CHOICE/PRO-OBRITON OR AGASINT IT FOR THAT MATTER.
you wouldnt care. the fact that it takes TWO TWO TWO TWO TWO DIFFRENT SEX TWO HAVE A BABY. IT SHOULD BE THERE BTOH CHOICES LISTEN.
Intill you can conuter agurment this good day beacuse your keep going back to your old saying. and not asnwering this part of it.
fbigent34
No... did you hear what I said? It is indeed established that it takees TWO people to make a baby. As you yourself have reiterated over and over and I have never denied. When those two people choose to have sex, they have accepted the possiblity and made the decision (whether it was conscious or not) to make a baby.
Now that baby is made and done. The woman is pregnant -- but guess what? SHE AND ONLY SHE gets to carry it and give birth to it -- which is why she gets a heavier say in whether she CARRIES that baby or not!
The reason why a man has to pay child support is because when he had sex with her, he has accepted the possibility of her producing a baby for him. Since she has and has carried it to full term, will raise it, mother it and all that... but he doesnt want to do his fatherly obligations, then he pays the child support.
How much more simple do I have to make this for you?
Your argument is just saying "males are needed to pregnate a woman" well duh! So are women. Heck, without the woman to carry and birth you, you'd be non-existant either.
Meh, I'd say the prospective mothers should have about 60% say in it.MetalGear_Ninty
If it involves 2 or a million one person having 60% say in it means they have 100% say in it. Unsure what your saying here. That is how it is right now. So you agree with the current situation correct?
[QUOTE="fbigent34"]:roll: did you here what i said? no you avoding the whole augrment of mine. WITHOUT MALES YOU WOULDNT HAVE A BABY SO YOU WOULDNT BE ABLE TO BE PRO-CHOICE/PRO-OBRITON OR AGASINT IT FOR THAT MATTER.
you wouldnt care. the fact that it takes TWO TWO TWO TWO TWO DIFFRENT SEX TWO HAVE A BABY. IT SHOULD BE THERE BTOH CHOICES LISTEN.
Intill you can conuter agurment this good day beacuse your keep going back to your old saying. and not asnwering this part of it.
Sajedene
No... did you hear what I said? It is indeed established that it takees TWO people to make a baby. As you yourself have reiterated over and over and I have never denied. When those two people choose to have sex, they have accepted the possiblity and made the decision (whether it was conscious or not) to make a baby.
Now that baby is made and done. The woman is pregnant -- but guess what? SHE AND ONLY SHE gets to carry it and give birth to it -- which is why she gets a heavier say in whether she CARRIES that baby or not!
The reason why a man has to pay child support is because when he had sex with her, he has accepted the possibility of her producing a baby for him. Since she has and has carried it to full term, will raise it, mother it and all that... but he doesnt want to do his fatherly obligations, then he pays the child support.
How much more simple do I have to make this for you?
Your argument is just saying "males are needed to pregnate a woman" well duh! So are women. Heck, without the woman to carry and birth you, you'd be non-existant either.
You still may/will pay child support even in joint custody.
I think what he is saying is, both male and female outside of RAPE are equal in the decision/risk/outcome when they have sex, which is Part A. When Part B comes about, the mother has the only say. When Part C comes in both parties are involved either physically, financially, or both. However since both parties are not involved in the ultimate decision on Part B, Part C is chosen for them.
It does kinda play a roll and is a good example of pro-choice being one sided. Not so much when the father wants the children and didnt use protection. More so in that sometimes even condoms fail and lets just forget this case:
http://www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/AP_Man_can_sue_sperm_theft_distress_24FEB05.aspx
A man is required for a woman to get pregnant, you know. If the man doesn't want to have any babies, then he could either wear a condom or not have sexual intercourse at all.
If a woman gets pregnant without the husband/boyfriend being involved is an entirely different issue. :|
-Jiggles-
That first sentence may be false.
[QUOTE="fbigent34"]:roll: did you here what i said? no you avoding the whole augrment of mine. WITHOUT MALES YOU WOULDNT HAVE A BABY SO YOU WOULDNT BE ABLE TO BE PRO-CHOICE/PRO-OBRITON OR AGASINT IT FOR THAT MATTER.
you wouldnt care. the fact that it takes TWO TWO TWO TWO TWO DIFFRENT SEX TWO HAVE A BABY. IT SHOULD BE THERE BTOH CHOICES LISTEN.
Intill you can conuter agurment this good day beacuse your keep going back to your old saying. and not asnwering this part of it.
Sajedene
No... did you hear what I said? It is indeed established that it takees TWO people to make a baby. As you yourself have reiterated over and over and I have never denied. When those two people choose to have sex, they have accepted the possiblity and made the decision (whether it was conscious or not) to make a baby.
Now that baby is made and done. The woman is pregnant -- but guess what? SHE AND ONLY SHE gets to carry it and give birth to it -- which is why she gets a heavier say in whether she CARRIES that baby or not!
The reason why a man has to pay child support is because when he had sex with her, he has accepted the possibility of her producing a baby for him. Since she has and has carried it to full term, will raise it, mother it and all that... but he doesnt want to do his fatherly obligations, then he pays the child support.
How much more simple do I have to make this for you?
Your argument is just saying "males are needed to pregnate a woman" well duh! So are women. Heck, without the woman to carry and birth you, you'd be non-existant either.
Two make a decison it TAKES BOTH FEMALES AND MALES. not just females i am tired of listing to your crap :|
without the male you wouldnt have A BABY.
jeeze how simpile is it? women should no its a doulbe standarda and needs to STOP!
[QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="fbigent34"]:roll: did you here what i said? no you avoding the whole augrment of mine. WITHOUT MALES YOU WOULDNT HAVE A BABY SO YOU WOULDNT BE ABLE TO BE PRO-CHOICE/PRO-OBRITON OR AGASINT IT FOR THAT MATTER.
you wouldnt care. the fact that it takes TWO TWO TWO TWO TWO DIFFRENT SEX TWO HAVE A BABY. IT SHOULD BE THERE BTOH CHOICES LISTEN.
Intill you can conuter agurment this good day beacuse your keep going back to your old saying. and not asnwering this part of it.
fbigent34
No... did you hear what I said? It is indeed established that it takees TWO people to make a baby. As you yourself have reiterated over and over and I have never denied. When those two people choose to have sex, they have accepted the possiblity and made the decision (whether it was conscious or not) to make a baby.
Now that baby is made and done. The woman is pregnant -- but guess what? SHE AND ONLY SHE gets to carry it and give birth to it -- which is why she gets a heavier say in whether she CARRIES that baby or not!
The reason why a man has to pay child support is because when he had sex with her, he has accepted the possibility of her producing a baby for him. Since she has and has carried it to full term, will raise it, mother it and all that... but he doesnt want to do his fatherly obligations, then he pays the child support.
How much more simple do I have to make this for you?
Your argument is just saying "males are needed to pregnate a woman" well duh! So are women. Heck, without the woman to carry and birth you, you'd be non-existant either.
Two make a decison it TAKES BOTH FEMALES AND MALES. not just females i am tired of listing to your crap :|
without the male you wouldnt have A BABY.
jeeze how simpile is it? women should no its a doulbe standarda and needs to STOP!
Once again, thank you for repeating what you've already said, and what I've said on the first and last paragraph of my previous post -- completely ignoring the middle part -- which is what this argument is really about.
Bravo!
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment