I'm not saying men should just be allowed to demand abortions at the drop of a hat, but if it is their child then it should be as much up to them as it is the mother if the pregnancy goes through or not.
But that is pretty much the way it is now.
What you are suggesting is that each should have a 50/50% decision so what happens when one says yes to a abortion and the other says no who should have the final decision.
Even if that was made into law (and only the worlds biggest idiot would pass that law) there would be ways around it all she would have to say is there is another possible father so then anything he said wouldn't matter anyway.
Of course the argument about paying for it would come up but she wouldn't say he wasn't the father just might not be so then a DNA test would happen and he would have to pay though if he was that much of a prat he would force a abortion I wouldn't want a penny off him.
Since 23 weeks is still legal I'm guessing you would say its ok for a man to change his mind at that gestation and force an abortion... Which opens the can of worms of a man deciding he doesn't want the baby based on the baby's gender. Would you really be ok with that?
I've already posted my stance and that is that the man should be allowed to have a pregnancy terminated in the same way that a woman can. A pregnancy is a product of two people, it's just unfortunate that the majority of it happens in one person's body.
Your comment earlier about a dad working cash in hand to avoid paying CSA for a child he did not want makes me think the mother tried to get CSA out of him, otherwise that wouldn't be necessary. This is exactly what has led to my reasoning. Everything about that situation is the woman forcing things on a man and I don't think it should be a one-way street.
Exactly... It is very easy for men to walk away and not have to pay a single penny.
A woman can do the same after child birth...
After giving birth she can either give the child up for adoption, or in some cases, ditch the child with the father or other relative and then bugger off.
It's about time society stopped putting most of the blame for the upkeep of children from unwanted pregnancies on men, contraceptive doesn't just come in the form of condoms, and nor is it the responsibility of just the male to take precautions.
No, but that's because they are nothing to do with her. If they were creating something that would severely impact her life whether she likes it or not, then it would only make sense for her to have a say. Although I'm not really sure if that's relevant since an abortion is not the same as cutting out a womb.
A man making a woman have an abortion is not saying he doesn't want her to ever have childen, just that he doesn't want her to have his child. It's quite a difference.
You say a man should have a say in this, and should be able to force an abortion, but you are happy to take away the woman's say/and right to keep it?
On the one hand yes, I think so. It's called taking responsibility for your actions. If you don't want children, use contraception.
On the other hand it does seem like men get the raw end of the deal in these scenarios. If the woman decides to abort, he has to live with that whether he likes it or not. If she decides to keep the baby, it's "tough luck" if he doesn't want to be a father. In other words it's put up and shut up. Yet it is just as much the woman's responsibility as it is the man's.
And speaking from my own experience if the father wants no part perhaps the child is better off without him altogether.
I've already posted my stance and that is that the man should be allowed to have a pregnancy terminated in the same way that a woman can. A pregnancy is a product of two people, it's just unfortunate that the majority of it happens in one person's body.
Your comment earlier about a dad working cash in hand to avoid paying CSA for a child he did not want makes me think the mother tried to get CSA out of him, otherwise that wouldn't be necessary. This is exactly what has led to my reasoning. Everything about that situation is the woman forcing things on a man and I don't think it should be a one-way street.
So you basically think that a man should be able to change his mind at any point and the woman should just have to fall into line... What about if the man changes his mind once the baby is born? Should the woman be forced to give the baby up for adoption if he wants her to? Is it ok for the CSA to get involved and (try to) force him to pay at that point?
A woman can do the same after child birth...
After giving birth she can either give the child up for adoption, or in some cases, ditch the child with the father or other relative and then bugger off.
It's about time society stopped putting most of the blame for the upkeep of children from unwanted pregnancies on men, contraceptive doesn't just come in the form of condoms, and nor is it the responsibility of just the male to take precautions.
Exactly... Responsibility for taking precautions falls on BOTH parties, so responsibility for the consequences should fall on BOTH parties.
What you are suggesting is that each should have a 50/50% decision so what happens when one says yes to a abortion and the other says no who should have the final decision.
Even if that was made into law (and only the worlds biggest idiot would pass that law) there would be ways around it all she would have to say is there is another possible father so then anything he said wouldn't matter anyway.
Of course the argument about paying for it would come up but she wouldn't say he wasn't the father just might not be so then a DNA test would happen and he would have to pay though if he was that much of a prat he would force a abortion I wouldn't want a penny off him.
What I'm suggesting is that everyone involved in the pregnancy should want it to happen. In a 50/50 situation, someone does not want it to go ahead and therefore it shouldn't.
If the woman does say there's another potential father then I'm not sure the man would have to provide for the child even with the law as it is now, so there wouldn't be a problem whether he wanted the child or not.
The problems arise when men are required to pay for children they may not want. If that weren't the case and they could legally move on from their lives as if nothing happened, then I wouldn't care who gets the final say.
On the one hand yes, I think so. It's called taking responsibility for your actions. If you don't want children, use contraception.
On the other hand it does seem like men get the raw end of the deal in these scenarios. If the woman decides to abort, he has to live with that whether he likes it or not. If she decides to keep the baby, it's "tough luck" if he doesn't want to be a father. In other words it's put up and shut up. Yet it is just as much the woman's responsibility as it is the man's.
And speaking from my own experience if the father wants no part perhaps the child is better off without him altogether.
Missed this - 100% agree.
I wouldn't force any child of mine on a deadbeat f'witt.
No father at all is better than a resentful bastard who could deny his own flesh and blood.
I wouldn't force any child of mine on a deadbeat f'witt.
No father at all is better than a resentful bastard who could deny his own flesh and blood.
I'm going to agree with you again!
I want my kids to be surrounded by people who love and appreciate them, not people who have to be coerced into it.
I've always allowed my kid's dads to see them on the (very) rare occasions that they have asked to, but one thing I don't do is chase them and try to force them to see their kids.
What if the man does take responsibility and wear a condom and a baby still results that he doesn't want, that's why he took responsibility in wearing a condom, but the women insists she keeps the baby?
Seems that the woman has 100% of the say and the man has none, but is expected to pay for it.
What I'm suggesting is that everyone involved in the pregnancy should want it to happen. In a 50/50 situation, someone does not want it to go ahead and therefore it shouldn't.
If the woman does say there's another potential father then I'm not sure the man would have to provide for the child even with the law as it is now, so there wouldn't be a problem whether he wanted the child or not.
The problems arise when men are required to pay for children they may not want. If that weren't the case and they could legally move on from their lives as if nothing happened, then I wouldn't care who gets the final say.
So his ruling would over rule hers and he would force a medical procedure to happen again that never will and only a complete idiot would pass a law like that end of the day it should always be the mothers choice.
If she said there was another potential father he would have to pay after a DNA test proved that he was she could say there was 30 possibilities before and indeed if there was more than one it would be on the head of the one who it was proven to be the father who would have to pay.
What if the man does take responsibility and wear a condom and a baby still results that he doesn't want, that's why he took responsibility in wearing a condom, but the women insists she keeps the baby?
Seems that the woman has 100% of the say and the man has none, but is expected to pay for it.
Not unheard of for women to use the contents of a used condom to self-inseminate.
Human rights violation IMO but virtually impossible to prove I would guess?
What if the man does take responsibility and wear a condom and a baby still results that he doesn't want, that's why he took responsibility in wearing a condom, but the women insists she keeps the baby?
Seems that the woman has 100% of the say and the man has none, but is expected to pay for it.
You make it sound like there are only disadvantages here. The man has helped create a new human being, one that will hopefully grow into a worthy adult. He can be a part of that. Worth a few bob a week surely.
Well if you had sex with the mutual understanding that pregnancy is not what's intended, then it does seem unequal that the woman can unilaterally decide on carrying the pregnancy to term and rope the man into financing it. But, allowing the man an unconditional opt-out seems a little too exploitable for the scumbags among us. If her reproductive choice becomes your financial responsibility I guess you'll just have to shoulder the burden. It's not exactly desirable, but I think more grotesque situations flow from giving the guy the get-out - all he has to do is say "I never agreed! She says I did, but where's the contract?! She can't prove nothin!" Really does anybody want to see such a spectacle. If the man can pay, he should pay. If not, then the state foots the bill. Not that the state should underwrite your ability to endlessly multiply. If it starts looking like you're recklessly shunting sprog after sprog upon society then you should be conveyed to a medical centre and sterilized.
Both of those read to me as saying that if a single mother is struggling financially then its her fault for not having an abortion.
That's not my point at all, but I can see how my post might have come across that way. I was just saying that if you choose to have children, then really you ought to make sure you can support them. I know that can be easier said than done however and not everybody's circumstances are the same.
Well if you had sex with the mutual understanding that pregnancy is not what's intended, then it does seem unequal that the woman can unilaterally decide on carrying the pregnancy to term and rope the man into financing it. But, allowing the man an unconditional opt-out seems a little too exploitable for the scumbags among us. If her reproductive choice becomes your financial responsibility I guess you'll just have to shoulder the burden. It's not exactly desirable, but I think more grotesque situations flow from giving the guy the get-out - all he has to do is say "I never agreed! She says I did, but where's the contract?! She can't prove nothin!" Really does anybody want to see such a spectacle. If the man can pay, he should pay. If not, then the state foots the bill. Not that the state should underwrite your ability to endlessly multiply. If it starts looking like you're recklessly shunting sprog after sprog upon society then you should be conveyed to a medical centre and sterilized.
There's many a great post that's ruined by the contents of the closing sentence.
Comments
So-called men.
Real men are good fathers and provide for their child/ children.
(I'll get me coat)
I wasn't arguing against your opinion, I fully understand it and actually agree with you to a degree.
But that is pretty much the way it is now.
What you are suggesting is that each should have a 50/50% decision so what happens when one says yes to a abortion and the other says no who should have the final decision.
Even if that was made into law (and only the worlds biggest idiot would pass that law) there would be ways around it all she would have to say is there is another possible father so then anything he said wouldn't matter anyway.
Of course the argument about paying for it would come up but she wouldn't say he wasn't the father just might not be so then a DNA test would happen and he would have to pay though if he was that much of a prat he would force a abortion I wouldn't want a penny off him.
I've already posted my stance and that is that the man should be allowed to have a pregnancy terminated in the same way that a woman can. A pregnancy is a product of two people, it's just unfortunate that the majority of it happens in one person's body.
Your comment earlier about a dad working cash in hand to avoid paying CSA for a child he did not want makes me think the mother tried to get CSA out of him, otherwise that wouldn't be necessary. This is exactly what has led to my reasoning. Everything about that situation is the woman forcing things on a man and I don't think it should be a one-way street.
When I say not having to pay, I mean being able to opt out regardless of their income, situation or the mother's wishes.
After giving birth she can either give the child up for adoption, or in some cases, ditch the child with the father or other relative and then bugger off.
It's about time society stopped putting most of the blame for the upkeep of children from unwanted pregnancies on men, contraceptive doesn't just come in the form of condoms, and nor is it the responsibility of just the male to take precautions.
And dad's for not meeting his responsibilities.
You say a man should have a say in this, and should be able to force an abortion, but you are happy to take away the woman's say/and right to keep it?
There's a good reason for that.
My point remains the same.
So you basically think that a man should be able to change his mind at any point and the woman should just have to fall into line... What about if the man changes his mind once the baby is born? Should the woman be forced to give the baby up for adoption if he wants her to? Is it ok for the CSA to get involved and (try to) force him to pay at that point?
Exactly... Responsibility for taking precautions falls on BOTH parties, so responsibility for the consequences should fall on BOTH parties.
What I'm suggesting is that everyone involved in the pregnancy should want it to happen. In a 50/50 situation, someone does not want it to go ahead and therefore it shouldn't.
If the woman does say there's another potential father then I'm not sure the man would have to provide for the child even with the law as it is now, so there wouldn't be a problem whether he wanted the child or not.
The problems arise when men are required to pay for children they may not want. If that weren't the case and they could legally move on from their lives as if nothing happened, then I wouldn't care who gets the final say.
I wouldn't force any child of mine on a deadbeat f'witt.
No father at all is better than a resentful bastard who could deny his own flesh and blood.
I'm going to agree with you again!
I want my kids to be surrounded by people who love and appreciate them, not people who have to be coerced into it.
I've always allowed my kid's dads to see them on the (very) rare occasions that they have asked to, but one thing I don't do is chase them and try to force them to see their kids.
Seems that the woman has 100% of the say and the man has none, but is expected to pay for it.
So his ruling would over rule hers and he would force a medical procedure to happen again that never will and only a complete idiot would pass a law like that end of the day it should always be the mothers choice.
If she said there was another potential father he would have to pay after a DNA test proved that he was she could say there was 30 possibilities before and indeed if there was more than one it would be on the head of the one who it was proven to be the father who would have to pay.
Human rights violation IMO but virtually impossible to prove I would guess?
Only get involved with real men. Not men who run scared of their responsibilities.
A lot of women seem to be really bad at making those decisions though, and are as bad as the men imo.
That's not my point at all, but I can see how my post might have come across that way. I was just saying that if you choose to have children, then really you ought to make sure you can support them. I know that can be easier said than done however and not everybody's circumstances are the same.
Granted women can sadly go for the wrong men. I'll agree with you on that.
But ideally they will avoid wasters and thus a situation of them being pregnant to a scumbag who doesn't care.