NationStates Jolt Archive

How should these be divided between the mother and father?

"Half and half" would be my instinctive response, but what specific matters are you talking about?

How should these be divided between the mother and father?
I'd also say "half & half", but that should also apply to ending a pregnancy as well.

If biology weren't in the way, I would say half and half.

As it is, biology has determined that a woman has pretty much all of the responsibilities in a pregnancy, and thus she should have all the rights associated with that pregnancy. After all, she is the only one who is pregnant.

Both parties have equal responsibility IMO, the biology argument not with standing.

"Half and half" would be my instinctive response, but what specific matters are you talking about?

I didn't want to make specifics, as I could not possibly mention all issues.

However, I was specifically thinking about is the rights and responsibilities of a woman and her body. I am pro-choice, and do not have any ethical problems with abortion (even late-term). However, from the other thread concerning the double standard about unwanted pregnancy, the though sprung up: Why do women have full rights to decide on matters pertaining to their body, yet do not want to accept full responsibility for what happens to their body?

For everyone responding to this, I am reasonable about this, and am not going about this through any misogynistic or religious agenda. I just have been going through a kick where I rationalise that all rights should be equal to the responsibility taken and vise versa. So please be rational and don't jump all over me.

Both parties have equal responsibility.
.
Both parties should have equal rights. Of course, the woman retains pre-eminate rights to her own body and medical care (just as the father retains the same regarding his body and medical care).

Both parties have equal responsibility IMO, the biology argument not with standing.

How do you propose we put an embryo into a man's body to develop then?

After all, that is the only way we could truly claim equal responsibility.

I didn't want to make specifics, as I could not possibly mention all issues.

However, I was specifically thinking about is the rights and responsibilities of a woman and her body. I am pro-choice, and do not have any ethical problems with abortion (even late-term). However, from the other thread concerning the double standard about unwanted pregnancy, the though sprung up: Why do women have full rights to decide on matters pertaining to their body, yet do not want to accept full responsibility for what happens to their body?

For everyone responding to this, I am reasonable about this, and am not going about this through any misogynistic or religious agenda. I just have been going through a kick where I rationalise that all rights should be equal to the responsibility taken and vise versa. So please be rational and don't jump all over me.

Women should have full rights to decide on matters pertaining to their own body. As do men.

Please explain how women "do not want to accept full responsibility for what happens to their body."

My guess is that your thinking is confused on this point, but perhaps you can correct me.

However, I was specifically thinking about is the rights and responsibilities of a woman and her body. I am pro-choice, and do not have any ethical problems with abortion (even late-term). However, from the other thread concerning the double standard about unwanted pregnancy, the though sprung up: Why do women have full rights to decide on matters pertaining to their body, yet do not want to accept full responsibility for what happens to their body?

Women have full rights to decide on matters pertaining to their body because it is their body.

Women do not have full responsibility for the pregnancy itself ocurring because both engaged in sexual conduct.

Suppose I consented to let you tatoo my body. You obviously have to give me the tatoo, thus you are partially responsible for me having a tatoo. However, I am the sole person who decides whether to leave it alone, have it removed, or have it altered.

Please explain how women "do not want to accept full responsibility for what happens to their body."
Simple: forced payment of child support. If they want to take the responsibility of having the child, then they can take the responsibility of raising the child.

This is, of course, assuming the father doesn't want the child.

Simple: forced payment of child support. If they want to take the responsibility of having the child, then they can take the responsibility of raising the child.

This is, of course, assuming the father doesn't want the child.
You will fine most of us are in full support of a “paper” abortion by the father (along with provisions to make sure he is informed and has enough time for the decision)

Simple: forced payment of child support. If they want to take the responsibility of having the child, then they can take the responsibility of raising the child.

This is, of course, assuming the father doesn't want the child.

So the question you are asking has nothing to do with the rights and responsibilties of pregnancy.

You are asking who should have rights and responsibilities to the child, should there be one.

My personal belief on this is that every woman who decides to continue a pregnancy should give a man the choice. If he states that he does not want the child - fine. He will never have to pay anything for it. He will also never have access to the child. If he attempts to contact the child without her express permission, she will do everything legal in her power to keep him away. If he does want the child - fine. He will help support that child and have partial (or, if they choose to marry, equal) custody of it.

My guess is that your thinking is confused on this point, but perhaps you can correct me.

Is the father equally responsible for the pregnancy?

I did word the original statement poorly.

Simple: forced payment of child support. If they want to take the responsibility of having the child, then they can take the responsibility of raising the child.

This is, of course, assuming the father doesn't want the child.

Simple. But wrong.

Child support is not the mother skirting responsibility for a child. To the contrary, it is simply enforcing the father's responsibility for a child.

And it can and has happened that fathers can take custody and mothers pay child support.

You will fine most of us are in full support of a “paper” abortion by the father (along with provisions to make sure he is informed and has enough time for the decision)

Exactly. And barring that, I do think the woman should straight up give the guy the choice.

You will fine most of us are in full support of a “paper” abortion by the father (along with provisions to make sure he is informed and has enough time for the decision)
I fully agree. But the double standard out there at present is just as appalling as the double standard shown on the "in this century" thread.

I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here. :)

Is the father equally responsible for the pregnancy?

He is equally responsible for the fact that there is a pregnancy.

Biology has determined that the pregnancy itself, and all the "fun" things that come along with it, are the responsibility of the mother.

Is the father equally responsible for the pregnancy?

Nonresponsive.

But, I would think so, yes. You see when a man sticks his .....

How do you propose we put an embryo into a man's body to develop then?

After all, that is the only way we could truly claim equal responsibility.

Haven't figured that out yet, but with technology advancing as fast as it is, I'd say it's only a matter of time.

As for the issue of responsibility, you seem to be defining it as the outcome/actions taken rather than the obligation/level of obligation. I can't argue with you that the mother takes on a physical privledge/consequence (depending on your perspective) for her behavior that no one else can bare for her (at lease for the time being). However, the male involved has responsiblities to the child that no one else can bare for him. The major problem is that society doesn't hold father's to that responsibility very well, which makes the situation appear very unequitable for the mother.

Suppose I consented to let you tatoo my body. You obviously have to give me the tatoo, thus you are partially responsible for me having a tatoo. However, I am the sole person who decides whether to leave it alone, have it removed, or have it altered.

In that situation the woman accepts all responsibility for the tattoo (assuming everything went as she wanted) and was granted full rights as to how to handle the tattoo.

Is that how pregnancy should work, that the woman takes full responsibility for becoming pregnant?

Women have full rights to decide on matters pertaining to their body because it is their body.

Women do not have full responsibility for the pregnancy itself ocurring because both engaged in sexual conduct.

Suppose I consented to let you tatoo my body. You obviously have to give me the tatoo, thus you are partially responsible for me having a tatoo. However, I am the sole person who decides whether to leave it alone, have it removed, or have it altered.

Yes, but the tattoo does not consist of = parts of you and me as does a child.

Simple. But wrong.

Child support is not the mother skirting responsibility for a child. To the contrary, it is simply enforcing the father's responsibility for a child.

And it can and has happened that fathers can take custody and mothers pay child support.
I'm just pointing out the current double standard.

AFAIK, a man has no say in ending a pregnancy, even if he wants the child -- the power is solely in the hands of the woman. But if a woman wants the child and the man does not, he's forced to pay child support. It's an obvious case of "having your cake and eating it, too".

So the question you are asking has nothing to do with the rights and responsibilties of pregnancy.

You are asking who should have rights and responsibilities to the child, should there be one.

My personal belief on this is that every woman who decides to continue a pregnancy should give a man the choice. If he states that he does not want the child - fine. He will never have to pay anything for it. He will also never have access to the child. If he attempts to contact the child without her express permission, she will do everything legal in her power to keep him away. If he does want the child - fine. He will help support that child and have partial (or, if they choose to marry, equal) custody of it.

:eek:

We kind of display a hodgepodge of incompatible positions don't we? That surely doesn't sound like the best solution from the child nor societies point of view now does it?

Nonresponsive.

But, I would think so, yes. You see when a man sticks his .....

It seems very unfair for a man to be given a large portion of the responsibility for the pregnancy, yet receive very few rights to the pregnancy.

And I don't want my arguments to be construed as belittling what women go through during pregnancy. My mother spent several stints in the hospital while pregnant with my brother, and I know from being around her that I have never experienced anything close to pregnancy.

I'm just pointing out the current double standard.

AFAIK, a man has no say in ending a pregnancy, even if he wants the child -- the power is solely in the hands of the woman. But if a woman wants the child and the man does not, he's forced to pay child support. It's an obvious case of "having your cake and eating it, too".

Just think of how much simpler things would be if abortion wasn't and option. Both, equally responsible parties would have to be equally responsible for their actions. Hmmm

In that situation the woman accepts all responsibility for the tattoo (assuming everything went as she wanted) and was granted full rights as to how to handle the tattoo.

Is that how pregnancy should work, that the woman takes full responsibility for becoming pregnant?

You are not making a distinction between a pregnancy and the results of the pregnancy. The man and woman are obviously both responsible for the fact that there is a pregnancy. Nothing will change that.

As for the responsibility to the child (should there be one), that is a little different. From my own moral viewpoint, I think they are equally responsible for the child and should both contribute to its upbringing, support, etc.

However, from a purely legal point of view, I think that the woman is the one who is responsible for the child, as she personally decides whether or not to bring it into the world in the first place - and also has all the rights associated with it. Should the male choose to take on responsiblity for the child, he will also get rights associated.

Like I said, should I ever get pregnant unexpectedly, the father would be given the choice. If he wants to be active in the child's life, he will obviously be expected to contribute to it. If he does not, fine, I will walk away and never look back.

How do you propose we put an embryo into a man's body to develop then?

After all, that is the only way we could truly claim equal responsibility.
Men are equally responsible for the well being of the fetus (and the woman) because men are the ones that get the women pregnant.

As for the fetus and woman, contrary to typical unscientific liberal views, the fetus is not part of the woman's body. To say it is, would be equivalent to saying that the virus or germs causing you to be sick or injured are part of your body. The mother/fetal relationship is a symbiotic one. That is both woman and child benefit greatly from the pregnancy.
The fetus gets a nourishment and a place to incubate.
In return the fetus releases feel good hormones into the mother's bloodstream. These hormonse target certain organs to make them release "feel good" and "mother child bonding" hormones. This is what makes mothers very protective of their children.
Interestingly, the fetus also releases a hormone in to the woman that is similar to stress relief hormone found in adults. In return the woman just puts up with a little bit of pain and discomfort. Though, in today's world, the stress of the outside environment could outweigh the "feel good" hormone.

I'm just pointing out the current double standard.

AFAIK, a man has no say in ending a pregnancy, even if he wants the child -- the power is solely in the hands of the woman. But if a woman wants the child and the man does not, he's forced to pay child support. It's an obvious case of "having your cake and eating it, too".

And I'm saying there is no double standard.

The child support is a duty owed to the child by those responsible for its conception -- its biological parents. (Or those who later accept legal responsibility.)

It has nothing to do with control over the woman's body.

To connect the issue of child support and abortion is illogical.

Do you support father's ability to force a woman to abort so the father does not have to bear the responsibility of child support?

No? Then the alleged "double-standard" is either poor thinking or a thinly veiled anti-choice argument.

:eek:

We kind of display a hodgepodge of incompatible positions don't we? That surely doesn't sound like the best solution from the child nor societies point of view now does it?

Actually, it is the best solution from the child's point of view. A child raised by a parent unwilling to even support them is in a very unhealthy situation. Having one loving parent is much more healthy than having one loving parent and one that resents the fact that the child was even born.

Just think of how much simpler things would be if abortion wasn't and option. Both, equally responsible parties would have to be equally responsible for their actions. Hmmm

Forcing people to accept responsibilities for mistakes when it isn't necessary does not solve anything.

Just because abortion is a complex solution, doesn't mean it isn't the best solution.

Just think of how much simpler things would be if abortion wasn't and option. Both, equally responsible parties would have to be equally responsible for their actions. Hmmm
But then the man would have only the financial responsibility … the woman would be left with both physical and financial

(or if adopted man has no responsibility and woman is left with physical)
But then the man would have only the financial responsibility … the woman would be left with both physical and financial

(or if adopted man has no responsibility and woman is left with physical)

Not only that you are limiting her freedom over her own body

I'm just pointing out the current double standard.

AFAIK, a man has no say in ending a pregnancy, even if he wants the child -- the power is solely in the hands of the woman. But if a woman wants the child and the man does not, he's forced to pay child support. It's an obvious case of "having your cake and eating it, too". That's exactly right. the reality of our physical world does not need to bother itself with 'fairness.' Legal systems and society as a whole do not have to pretend that men and woman are identical.

He had his choice. He gave up his free-choice when he banged her up. IMO though, she gave up her free choice about having a baby or not when she let him bang her up.

They should both be held accountable by the community they live in. Someone is going to raise the child, it should be the child's parents, not the community nor one of them alone.

Just think of how much simpler things would be if abortion wasn't and option. Both, equally responsible parties would have to be equally responsible for their actions. Hmmm

Wouldn't that be special. :rolleyes:

Of course, the "responsibility" of the woman would mean loss of control over her body and medical care for 9 months.

What would be the "equal" responsibility of the man? Hmmmm?

That's exactly right. the reality of our physical world does not need to bother itself with 'fairness.' Legal systems and society as a whole do not have to pretend that men and woman are identical.

He had his choice. He gave up his free-choice when he banged her up. IMO though, she gave up her free choice about having a baby or not when she let him bang her up.

They should both be held accountable by the community they live in. Someone is going to raise the child, it should be the child's parents, not the community nor one of them alone.
Forcing the parents of an unwanted baby to care for them is probably the worst thing you could do for that kid

The child support is a duty owed to the child by those responsible for its conception -- its biological parents. (Or those who later accept legal responsibility.)

It has nothing to do with control over the woman's body.

To connect the issue of child support and abortion is illogical.
How is it illogical if the woman holds all the power over whether or not to bring the child into the world...completely ignoring the father's wishes? If she holds all the power, shouldn't she hold all the responsibility?

Not only that you are limiting her freedom over her own body

Actually, I'm only limiting her freedom over the body of a child. There's a difference. As for the issue of responsibility, the father has a physical responsibility and financial responsibility to care for both the mother and the child...

Of course, the legal system being involved in marriage is part of the problem. From a Biblical perspective, if you have a sexual relationship with a woman who is unmarried, you have married her and would be responsible for the whole situation, mother, child, everything.

What would be the "equal" responsibility of the man? Hmmmm?

Please see my response to UpwardThrust...

It seems very unfair for a man to be given a large portion of the responsibility for the pregnancy, yet receive very few rights to the pregnancy.

And I don't want my arguments to be construed as belittling what women go through during pregnancy. My mother spent several stints in the hospital while pregnant with my brother, and I know from being around her that I have never experienced anything close to pregnancy.

Let us not confuse legal rights and responsibilities with possible moral rights and responsibilities.

And let us not confuse rights and responsibilites regarding the child with right and responsibilities regarding the pregnancy.

Let us also separate the word "responsibility" in terms of causation (responsible for = caused or contributed to) with duties (responsible for = owes a duty towards).

The father is equally responsible for the pregnancy in terms of causation.

Legally the father has little responsibility towards the pregnant mother. The father has little rights over the pregnancy.

Legally the father has equal rights and responsibilities towards a born child.

Men are equally responsible for the well being of the fetus (and the woman) because men are the ones that get the women pregnant.

I'm still trying to figure out how it is possible to make a man equally responsible for the well-being of the fetus. If he makes sure he gets enough folic acid, will there be a lowered chance of spina bifida? If he gets in an accident in a car alone, is there a chance of the fetus being harmed? If he gets drunk one night, will the fetus have a chance to have developmental difficulties?

As for the fetus and woman, contrary to typical unscientific liberal views, the fetus is not part of the woman's body.

That really isn't a typical liberal view, from what I've seen.

The mother/fetal relationship is a symbiotic one. That is both woman and child benefit greatly from the pregnancy.
The fetus gets a nourishment and a place to incubate.
In return the fetus releases feel good hormones into the mother's bloodstream. These hormonse target certain organs to make them release "feel good" and "mother child bonding" hormones. This is what makes mothers very protective of their children.

While I agree that there are some good effects from marriage, your argument here is not the way to go. Lots of things release "feel-good hormones". Many venoms can make you high or feel happy - that doesn't really mean that they are helping you, however. Many bacteria release hormones that hide the fact that they are there and keep the body happy for a time - doesn't make them symbiotic.

In truth, the good effects of a pregnancy only outweight the bad if the woman wants the pregnancy in the first place.

In return the woman just puts up with a little bit of pain and discomfort.

A little bit of discomfort? You mean like getting your ears pierced? Are you kidding me!!?? The woman goes through much more than a little bit of discomfort. She also has lifelong adverse changes to her body, including, but not limited to, an increased risk of osteoporosis and an increased risk of type II diabetes. This is, of course, in addition to the dangers associated with pregnancy itself.

Do not downplay the effects of pregnancy, it only makes your argument look idiotic.

As for the responsibility to the child (should there be one), that is a little different. From my own moral viewpoint, I think they are equally responsible for the child and should both contribute to its upbringing, support, etc.

However, from a purely legal point of view, I think that the woman is the one who is responsible for the child, as she personally decides whether or not to bring it into the world in the first place - and also has all the rights associated with it. Should the male choose to take on responsiblity for the child, he will also get rights associated.

Like I said, should I ever get pregnant unexpectedly, the father would be given the choice. If he wants to be active in the child's life, he will obviously be expected to contribute to it. If he does not, fine, I will walk away and never look back.

Do you think that should be the standpoint of the law as well, that the man can declare whether he wants to take responsibility for the child or the abortion, while leaving the choice up to the woman?

Forcing the parents of an unwanted baby to care for them is probably the worst thing you could do for that kid


Beats the heck out of murdering it or putting it in the current foster care system.

Actually, I'm only limiting her freedom over the body of a child. There's a difference. As for the issue of responsibility, the father has a physical responsibility and financial responsibility to care for both the mother and the child...

Of course, the legal system being involved in marriage is part of the problem. From a Biblical perspective, if you have a sexual relationship with a woman who is unmarried, you have married her and would be responsible for the whole situation, mother, child, everything.
You feel it is a “child” (and the most liberal extent of the definition of that world only extends back to the fetal stage so as long as abortions are performed before 13 weeks by the definition of child it would not be killing one)
The rest of us don’t …
That is why we are pro CHOICE

Actually, I'm only limiting her freedom over the body of a child. There's a difference.

Fine. The mother exercises her freedom over her own body. She does not want a squatter. The child is free to live and gain nourishment elsewhere.

Glad we agree.

Beats the heck out of murdering it or putting it in the current foster care system.
I think it would find way more love in a foster care situation personally I would rather be in the forster care system myself then two parents raising me for 18 years of my life that never wanted me

Beats the heck out of murdering it or putting it in the current foster care system.
Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick! Has EVERYONE completely forgotten about adoption???

You feel it is a “child” (and the most liberal extent of the definition of that world only extends back to the fetal stage so as long as abortions are performed before 13 weeks by the definition of child it would not be killing one)
The rest of us don’t …
That is why we are pro CHOICE

At least some of you don't. There are a few anti-abortionist on this site, though clearly not in the majority...

child ( P ) Pronunciation Key (chld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn)
A person between birth and puberty.

An unborn infant; a fetus.
An infant; a baby.
One who is childish or immature.
A son or daughter; an offspring.
A member of a tribe; descendant: children of Abraham

Beats the heck out of murdering it or putting it in the current foster care system.

If the money put into combatting abortion (and stupid stuff at that... like 'banning' partial birth abortions??? Which were never 'voluntary' anyway) were put into the science of sustaining very premature foetuses...

Perhaps, by now, a foetus could be 'extracted' at 20 weeks (-ish)... thus removing the NEED to abort (for the girl who doesn't want the baby), while also giving the foetus a chance to develope into a baby.

At that point - you could give men a choice in abortion... because, at that point, if they want to keep it, they can...in a jar.

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick! Has EVERYONE completely forgotten about adoption???

Yes, I'd consider that a better option than either of the other two I mentioned.

At least some of you don't. There are a few anti-abortionist on this site, though clearly not in the majority...

child ( P ) Pronunciation Key (chld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn)
A person between birth and puberty.

An unborn infant; a fetus.
An infant; a baby.
One who is childish or immature.
A son or daughter; an offspring.
A member of a tribe; descendant: children of Abraham
Exactly Fetal stage starts at 8weeks if I remember right

(edit it was 8 not 13)

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick! Has EVERYONE completely forgotten about adoption???
Yeah if there are enough adoptive parents (though there is an attempt to restrict adoptions by gay couples … so further reducing the population that wants to adopt)

If the money put into combatting abortion (and stupid stuff at that... like 'banning' partial birth abortions??? Which were never 'voluntary' anyway) were put into the science of sustaining very premature foetuses...

Perhaps, by now, a foetus could be 'extracted' at 20 weeks (-ish)... thus removing the NEED to abort (for the girl who doesn't want the baby), while also giving the foetus a chance to develope into a baby.

At that point - you could give men a choice in abortion... because, at that point, if they want to keep it, they can...in a jar.

Just for the record, I don't contribute funds to stopping abortions. I speak against it whenever appropriate... How about the money spent on defending abortion and abortions themselves... just think of what we could do with that...

Exactly Fetal stage starts at 8weeks if I remember right

(edit it was 8 not 13)

Sorry, should have stopped the bold at "Unborn infant".

At the exact instant of conception, a new human being is produced. This is scientificly proven as the egg and sperm have come together to make a completely different and unique set of DNA, never before seen in the world. Therefore, it is not part of a woman's body, even though this new human relies on her for nurishment.

Forcing the parents of an unwanted baby to care for them is probably the worst thing you could do for that kid

Really? If they are so irresponisible and incapable of raising a child in a loving environment, and yet, they conducted themselves in such a way that they brought a child into this world... fine. Take the child away and put it in an adoptive home of a loving couple that wants it. Then, force the two irresponsible people that had the child to pay restitution and if they can't afford it, throw them in prison or let them be sterilized so they don't do it again, their choice.

Sorry, should have stopped the bold at "Unborn infant".
But the definition of infant leads me to believe birth to age before walking/talking

Yeah if there are enough adoptive parents (though there is an attempt to restrict adoptions by gay couples … so further reducing the population that wants to adopt)
Actually, the last time I looked at the statistics (admittedly, it's been a while), there were tens of thousands of couples on waiting lists, waiting to adopt infants. This is not even including gay couples that want to adopt (which is a whole other topic). Most of the couples-in-waiting are even willing to pay for the pre-natal care, hospital stay and delivery costs.

Really? If they are so irresponisible and incapable of raising a child in a loving environment, and yet, they conducted themselves in such a way that they brought a child into this world... fine. Take the child away and put it in an adoptive home of a loving couple that wants it. Then, force the two irresponsible people that had the child to pay restitution and if they can't afford it, throw them in prison or let them be sterilized so they don't do it again, their choice.
Yeah what a choice … “take this baby otherwise we are going to take it away bill you for it and take away your human rights like you are a criminal” Somehow me thinks that wouldn’t work in the real world

Just for the record, I don't contribute funds to stopping abortions. I speak against it whenever appropriate... How about the money spent on defending abortion and abortions themselves... just think of what we could do with that...

The money spent defending abortion?

Defending it from what? It IS legal.... so the only thing that money would need to be spent against is.... oh yes, the campaigns to make it illegal, yes?

Regarding the money spent on abortions... it is a medical practise... and doctors like to get paid. I think they should operate for free, but I'm obviously not going to see that happen in my lifetime... people just don't seem to do things 'pro bono'.

I'm just pointing out the current double standard.

AFAIK, a man has no say in ending a pregnancy, even if he wants the child -- the power is solely in the hands of the woman. But if a woman wants the child and the man does not, he's forced to pay child support. It's an obvious case of "having your cake and eating it, too".

Considering just how many long ends of sticks we get as men, I'd just let this short end go. Pick your battles. This is one you will never win. Until that child is born, it ain't yours. Period.

You don't feed it, you don't hold it, you do absolutely zero for the child while it is in the womb, hence, you have no claim to it. Double standard? Yep, sure is. However, it's proof that while we may speak a pretty picture about equality, we'll never really be equal.

In this regard, women have the upper hand. Let 'em have it.

Do you think that should be the standpoint of the law as well, that the man can declare whether he wants to take responsibility for the child or the abortion, while leaving the choice up to the woman?

So long as he does so in the same time period in which she has access to an elective abortion or (should she not tell him until after that point) an equal time period, yes.

I doubt it will ever be law, however.

.The father is equally responsible for the pregnancy in terms of causation.

Legally the father has little responsibility towards the pregnant mother. The father has little rights over the pregnancy.

Legally the father has equal rights and responsibilities towards a born child.

The question: "Since a mother can choose whether or not to be a mother, can a father choose whether or not to be a father? Since a mother can have a pregnancy aborted against the father's wishes, can a father who wants the pregnancy aborted walk away from his responsibilities to the child?

Actually, the last time I looked at the statistics (admittedly, it's been a while), there were tens of thousands of couples on waiting lists, waiting to adopt infants. This is not even including gay couples that want to adopt (which is a whole other topic). Most of the couples-in-waiting are even willing to pay for the pre-natal care, hospital stay and delivery costs.
And, not all of those people are suitable to adopt.

And, not all of them are willing to adopt what might be 'offered'.

And, there are STILL more children that NEED adoption, than there are potential adoptive parents.

etc....

The question: "Since a mother can choose whether or not to be a mother, can a father choose whether or not to be a father? Since a mother can have a pregnancy aborted against the father's wishes, can a father who wants the pregnancy aborted walk away from his responsibilities to the child?
That’s what we were talking about earlier with “paper” abortions (with the proviso of having to inform the father in enough time to give him time to decide)

Essentially terminating ALL rights and responsibilities … NO visitation no anything essentially legally he has no kid

Really? If they are so irresponisible and incapable of raising a child in a loving environment, and yet, they conducted themselves in such a way that they brought a child into this world... fine. Take the child away and put it in an adoptive home of a loving couple that wants it. Then, force the two irresponsible people that had the child to pay restitution and if they can't afford it, throw them in prison or let them be sterilized so they don't do it again, their choice.

And you say I am quick to judge and throw stones? You might want to move that plank out of your eye, dear.

So long as he does so in the same time period in which she has access to an elective abortion or (should she not tell him until after that point) an equal time period, yes.

I doubt it will ever be law, however.

Then we are in complete agreement. I would like to see a man get equal say in whether the pregnancy is aborted, but it is completely unreasonable to ask for that.

The question: "Since a mother can choose whether or not to be a mother, can a father choose whether or not to be a father? Since a mother can have a pregnancy aborted against the father's wishes, can a father who wants the pregnancy aborted walk away from his responsibilities to the child?
That's the exact question I brought up a couple pages back. :)

If a woman holds all the power on whether to keep or abort a child, shouldn't it follow that she also hold all the responsibility?

That’s what we were talking about earlier with “paper” abortions (with the proviso of having to inform the father in enough time to give him time to decide)

Essentially terminating ALL rights and responsibilities … NO visitation no anything essentially legally he has no kid

I see.

I am at work so I do not have time to read any posts that are not direct responses and this is a very rare foray into this issue for me, so thanks for informing me.

Actually, the last time I looked at the statistics (admittedly, it's been a while), there were tens of thousands of couples on waiting lists, waiting to adopt completely healthy infants from parents who did not do drugs and had no health problems and are the same ethnicity as the parents. These people claim to want a child, but completely ignore the children already waiting for an adoptive home

Corrections in bold.

I see.

I am at work so I do not have time to read any posts that are not direct responses and this is a very rare foray into this issue for me, so thanks for informing me.
No problem :)

And, there are STILL more children that NEED adoption, than there are potential adoptive parents.
Just to be clear, we're not discussing all children (including preteens and teens) waiting to be adopted...only infants.

And your other arguments make it sound like that there are some infants that no one would ever want to adopt. I disagree.

I'm still trying to figure out how it is possible to make a man equally responsible for the well-being of the fetus. If he makes sure he gets enough folic acid, will there be a lowered chance of spina bifida? If he gets in an accident in a car alone, is there a chance of the fetus being harmed? If he gets drunk one night, will the fetus have a chance to have developmental difficulties?



That really isn't a typical liberal view, from what I've seen.



While I agree that there are some good effects from marriage, your argument here is not the way to go. Lots of things release "feel-good hormones". Many venoms can make you high or feel happy - that doesn't really mean that they are helping you, however. Many bacteria release hormones that hide the fact that they are there and keep the body happy for a time - doesn't make them symbiotic.

In truth, the good effects of a pregnancy only outweight the bad if the woman wants the pregnancy in the first place.



A little bit of discomfort? You mean like getting your ears pierced? Are you kidding me!!?? The woman goes through much more than a little bit of discomfort. She also has lifelong adverse changes to her body, including, but not limited to, an increased risk of osteoporosis and an increased risk of type II diabetes. This is, of course, in addition to the dangers associated with pregnancy itself.

Do not downplay the effects of pregnancy, it only makes your argument look idiotic.

While youre at it, don't leave out the fact that abortion has been proven to lead to cancer and heart disease. So when you look at it like that, the woman is screwed no matter what. The only option is to not get pregnant in the first place.

Corrections in bold.
Ah... so every single one of the couples on those waiting lists fit those criteria?

Thanks for clearing that up! :rolleyes:

And you say I am quick to judge and throw stones? You might want to move that plank out of your eye, dear.

Actually, I was supporting the same ancient standard. Quit making excuses for people. They are responsible and if they can't 'grow up' and do what has to be done, then they should be treated like are criminals, because they are no longer the primary concern anymore, the child is...

While youre at it, don't leave out the fact that abortion has been proven to lead to cancer and heart disease. So when you look at it like that, the woman is screwed no matter what. The only option is to not get pregnant in the first place.

Abortion has been proven to do no such thing. In fact, the "studies" that demonstrated such links were demonstrated almost immediately to be flawed.

There are, of course, health risks associated with abortions (although the two mentioned above are inaccurate). Thus, it is the mother's decision whether she will take on the health risks associated with pregnancy or those associated with abortion.

Ah... so every single one of the couples on those waiting lists fit those criteria?

Thanks for clearing that up! :rolleyes:

The vast majority do. And, you yourself restricted it only to infants.

Actually, I was supporting the same ancient standard.

In what ancient standard were people who were irresponsible in their youth sterilized?

Quit making excuses for people.

I am not. I am ensuring that human beings have the rights to make their own decisions - that society does not advocate wholesale removal of the free wil I believe God gave each and every one of us.

Just to be clear, we're not discussing all children (including preteens and teens) waiting to be adopted...only infants.

And your other arguments make it sound like that there are some infants that no one would ever want to adopt. I disagree.

So - once they get passed the infant stage, tough shit? Let them fester in an institution?

Why? Because babies are 'cute'? So - they 'deserve' better treatment?

I suspect that the numbers still follow, though. I would be surprised to find it different. I'd imagine the number of babies that NEED adoption far outstretches the number of adoptive parents, also.

Regarding the second point... some people are very picky. When we enquired about adoption, we found out that some people will not 'accept' babies of certain races.

We also found out that some adoption agencies WILL NOT allow you to adopt unless you are of a given denomination.

Both good reasons why babies are left awaiting adoption, methinks.

Finally - the fact that some children live from 'baby-hood' until a legitimate age of majority, ENTIRELY in an institution, proves that your 'disagreement' (...your other arguments make it sound like that there are some infants that no one would ever want to adopt. I disagree...) is more optimism than fact.

While youre at it, don't leave out the fact that abortion has been proven to lead to cancer and heart disease. So when you look at it like that, the woman is screwed no matter what. The only option is to not get pregnant in the first place.
That would be breast cancer.

Also, I swear that I read somewhere that there was evidence that abortions could increase the risk of cervical cancer as well as breast cancer...but I could be wrong.

/me heads off to google around

So - once they get passed the infant stage, tough shit? Let them fester in an institution?

Why? Because babies are 'cute'? So - they 'deserve' better treatment?
GOD DAMMIT! Would people PLEASE stop putting fucking words in my mouth?!?!?

I never ONCE said that it should be that way...I was just stating that's the way it presently is. Can you PLEASE get that through your fucking skull?

In what ancient standard were people who were irresponsible in their youth sterilized?



I am not. I am ensuring that human beings have the rights to make their own decisions - that society does not advocate wholesale removal of the free wil I believe God gave each and every one of us.

They had free will, the free will to get pregnant and then the free will to mistreat the child.

They are then, criminals.

GOD DAMMIT! Would people PLEASE stop putting fucking words in my mouth?!?!?

I never ONCE said that it should be that way...I was just stating that's the way it presently is. Can you PLEASE get that through your fucking skull?

Hardly putting words into your mouth.. it was, after all, you who specified that we narrow the range to infants.

The question: "Since a mother can choose whether or not to be a mother, can a father choose whether or not to be a father? Since a mother can have a pregnancy aborted against the father's wishes, can a father who wants the pregnancy aborted walk away from his responsibilities to the child?
yes that is the question pretty much

and the answer is NO

it would be nice if there were some way for a man to have a decision in abortion. he does at least have some influence over the woman who is carrying his child (in normal circumstances). the trouble is that yes and no dont come in fractions. only one person can make the decision. because of her unique position in the whole baby making business, her right to her own body trump his rights to his child.

AFTER the baby is born, its not totally a matter of his rights vs her rights. the baby has the right to support from her father and mother. the father has the right to his own child. in most places in the US, the mother can't give up the baby for adoption without the father signing away his rights too. the father can sue for physical custody of his child (not likely to happen unless the mother is utterly unfit but still a right). the mother has no right to keep the baby away from the father. he will win visitation in court unless HE is utterly unfit (regardless of his monetary support of his child in most places)

They had free will, the free will to get pregnant and then the free will to mistreat the child.

Being unable to care for a child is mistreating it? Not wanting a child long before it is born is mistreating it if it is born?

They are then, criminals.

Funny, I didn't know getting pregnant was illegal. Ill-advised? For many, certainly. Illegal? Not last time I checked.

Hardly putting words into your mouth.. it was, after all, you who specified that we narrow the range to infants.
Because we were ORIGINALLY talking about reproductive/pregnancy responsibility/rights, which got morphed to abortion alternatives... oh NEVER FUCKING MIND.

Because we were ORIGINALLY talking about reproductive/pregnancy responsibility/rights, which got morphed to abortion alternatives... oh NEVER FUCKING MIND.

That's the thing though... the sticking point in the Anti-Abortion rationale...

1) Foetus! Ah! Ah! Cute babyshaped thing! Ah! Ah! Must protect it!

2) Baby! Ah! Ah! Cute babyshaped thing! Ah! Ah! Must protect it!

3) Child of a few years... blah... not interested any more.... I'm sure they'll be fine in this shed for a few years...

4) Youth. Scum. Always causing trouble and getting pregnant... let them starve in a gutter somewhere....

Because we were ORIGINALLY talking about reproductive/pregnancy responsibility/rights, which got morphed to abortion alternatives... oh NEVER FUCKING MIND.
you are being unfairly accused, tex

those who go with adoption rather than abortion are giving up new born infants not teens or toddlers. any unfairness in the adoption system has nothing to do with that point

i WAS surprised to find, however, that there are unadopted black infants in this country. i think it was discussed on 60 minutes that many black american infants get adopted into canada.

yes that is the question pretty much

and the answer is NO

it would be nice if there were some way for a man to have a decision in abortion. he does at least have some influence over the woman who is carrying his child (in normal circumstances). the trouble is that yes and no dont come in fractions. only one person can make the decision. because of her unique position in the whole baby making business, her right to her own body trump his rights to his child.

AFTER the baby is born, its not totally a matter of his rights vs her rights. the baby has the right to support from her father and mother. the father has the right to his own child. in most places in the US, the mother can't give up the baby for adoption without the father signing away his rights too. the father can sue for physical custody of his child (not likely to happen unless the mother is utterly unfit but still a right). the mother has no right to keep the baby away from the father. he will win visitation in court unless HE is utterly unfit (regardless of his monetary support of his child in most places)

I understand that the man cannot become a father without the consent of the woman, I have no problem with that.

I don't feel that the man should be forced into fatherhood. He should have all the same rights to terminate his responsibility to the pregnancy that the woman has.

you are being unfairly accused, tex

those who go with adoption rather than abortion are giving up new born infants not teens or toddlers. any unfairness in the adoption system has nothing to do with that point

i WAS surprised to find, however, that there are unadopted black infants in this country. i think it was discussed on 60 minutes that many black american infants get adopted into canada.

Those who go with abortion aren't involved in any way with 'babies'... so there is no connection there...

Those who go with adoption are giving up babies, yes, into an overcrowded, undermanaged adoption system. Effectively, condemning their child to a good probability of several years of instituions.

And, you can't then just ignore them once they reach an unpalatable age.

If you are talking about adoption as the alternative, you can't just whitewash over all it's failings.

I understand that the man cannot become a father without the consent of the woman, I have no problem with that.

I don't feel that the man should not be forced into fatherhood. He should have all the same rights to terminate his responsibility to the pregnancy that the woman has.

Sounds fair. We'll impliment that the very moment that men start carrying foetuses around in their bodies.

Those who go with abortion aren't involved in any way with 'babies'... so there is no connection there...

Those who go with adoption are giving up babies, yes, into an overcrowded, undermanaged adoption system. Effectively, condemning their child to a good probability of several years of instituions.

And, you can't then just ignore them once they reach an unpalatable age.

If you are talking about adoption as the alternative, you can't just whitewash over all it's failings.
Exactly I we are talking about dumping an even heavier load on what is already an inadequate system (and not all because of under funding) but the fact of the number of kids already “between families” in the system and the number of qualified parents

I understand that the man cannot become a father without the consent of the woman, I have no problem with that.

I don't feel that the man should not be forced into fatherhood. He should have all the same rights to terminate his responsibility to the pregnancy that the woman has.
which would make sense if the baby that results from the pregnancy had no rights.

it is the baby's rights that keeps the father involved, not the mothers.

did you see that case where a woman got a sperm donation from a man she knew then when she fell on hard times and ended up on welfare, the state got his name and forced him to pay child support? that case demonstrates that the intention of the parents are not more important than the rights of the child that is created (or the state in not paying out more welfare than it absolutely has to)

Sounds fair. We'll impliment that the very moment that men start carrying foetuses around in their bodies.
I think he was talking about paper not physical abortion so he wouldn’t exactly need to carry it around to terminate his responsibility

(I had to read through it again to make sure that is what he ment myself)

If you are talking about adoption as the alternative, you can't just whitewash over all it's failings.
*takes a deep breath and calms down*

I never once tried to whitewash anything. I just prefer adoption to the alternative of possibly depriving the world of the next Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking. Granted, the child could be the next Stalin, Mao or Hitler...but I prefer that the chance be there as opposed to no chance.

those who go with adoption rather than abortion are giving up new born infants not teens or toddlers. any unfairness in the adoption system has nothing to do with that point

The infants given into the system who are of an "undesirable" ethnicity or are unhealthy or whose parents did drugs or a number of other "undesirable" traits very often become toddlers, and later teens, in the system.

Exactly I we are talking about dumping an even heavier load on what is already an inadequate system (and not all because of under funding) but the fact of the number of kids already “between families” in the system and the number of qualified parents

And this attempt to divorce adopting babies from the problems in adoption?

Ridiculous..

It's like saying "you could abort (but that's bad) or you could give your baby to project X...

Okay - so, we know project X grinds babies up to make Soylent Green... but we are tlking about the babies, not the protein..."

*takes a deep breath and calms down*

I never once tried to whitewash anything. I just prefer adoption to the alternative of possibly depriving the world of the next Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking. Granted, the child could be the next Stalin, Mao or Hitler...but I prefer that the chance be there as opposed to no chance.
Hey don’t get us wrong a lot of us (me included) think that adoption is a good idea but we don’t like the forcing of choices and complete dependence on that system that has its own flaws

Those who go with abortion aren't involved in any way with 'babies'... so there is no connection there...

Those who go with adoption are giving up babies, yes, into an overcrowded, undermanaged adoption system. Effectively, condemning their child to a good probability of several years of instituions.

And, you can't then just ignore them once they reach an unpalatable age.

If you are talking about adoption as the alternative, you can't just whitewash over all it's failings.
very few newborns end up in an overcrowded undermanaged adoption system. its mostly arranged before the birth with as much imput as the mother cares to have in the choosing of where her baby is placed. the exceptions being babies with problems, drug abuse or defect and, as i understand it from 60minutes, some black babies have to be adopted out of the country.

adoption isnt a great alternative to abortion for 2 reasons...

1) there arent enough willing families for 1million more babies to be adopted every year.

2) most women who put 9 months into making a baby arent willing to give it up, so they make the decision to abort it early on or they keep it.

Hey don’t get us wrong a lot of us (me included) think that adoption is a good idea but we don’t like the forcing of choices and complete dependence on that system that has its own flaws
Well, barring abortion and adoption, the alternative is foster care. I still prefer the flawed adoption system to government run foster care, which has an overwhelming tendency to treat children like numbers instead of people.

I think he was talking about paper not physical abortion so he wouldn’t exactly need to carry it around to terminate his responsibility

(I had to read through it again to make sure that is what he ment myself)

The way I see it: Men can have 'the same' rights w.r.t. pregnancy.... ONLY when they have 'the same' responsibilites.

Unfair, maybe... but a girl has to house the thing... she gets more 'say'.

which would make sense if the baby that results from the pregnancy had no rights.

it is the baby's rights that keeps the father involved, not the mothers.

did you see that case where a woman got a sperm donation from a man she knew then when she fell on hard times and ended up on welfare, the state got his name and forced him to pay child support? that case demonstrates that the intention of the parents are not more important than the rights of the child that is created (or the state in not paying out more welfare than it absolutely has to)

By circumventing the man's wishes and having the child, should the woman not take on the man's responsibility for the child. Having it any other way would create the oft referenced "double-standard" where the woman retains all of the rights, while the man still maintains half of the responsibilities.

*takes a deep breath and calms down*

I never once tried to whitewash anything. I just prefer adoption to the alternative of possibly depriving the world of the next Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking. Granted, the child could be the next Stalin, Mao or Hitler...but I prefer that the chance be there as opposed to no chance.

Again, though... adoption is no guarantee. Okay - there is a greater possibility of making it as far as BIRTH, but that's it.

And, to be honest... if Einstein had been aborted, we wouldn't miss him, would we... we wouldn't know.

I prefer to remove extra unwanted burdens from an already stretched system.

By circumventing the man's wishes and having the child, should the woman not take on the man's responsibility for the child. Having it any other way would create the oft referenced "double-standard" where the woman retains all of the rights, while the man still maintains half of the responsibilities.
i can imagine a system being set up that way but would you REALLY want a man to be able to have sex with many many women and be able to walk away from any responsibility for the children he creates with the stroke of a pen?

should his responsibility be limited to his willingness to be able to pay for half an abortion?

And, to be honest... if Einstein had been aborted, we wouldn't miss him, would we... we wouldn't know.
And what if the only person capable of creating the cure for cancer/AIDS/etc is aborted...or has already been aborted? We'd never know...but I'd *still* opt for the chance as opposed to no chance.

i can imagine a system being set up that way but would you REALLY want a man to be able to have sex with many many women and be able to walk away from any responsibility for the children he creates with the stroke of a pen?

should his responsibility be limited to his willingness to be able to pay for half an abortion?

You know... it's all beginning to make sense... I see why so many guys support this idea...

I know so many guys who would just LOVE promiscuous sex, that they could 'erase' at a later date with a signature.

Still leaving the girl 'screwed', obviously.

The way I see it: Men can have 'the same' rights w.r.t. pregnancy.... ONLY when they have 'the same' responsibilites.

Unfair, maybe... but a girl has to house the thing... she gets more 'say'.
But he is then burdened with a responsibility (financial) that the woman has the ability to opt out of.

i can imagine a system being set up that way but would you REALLY want a man to be able to have sex with many many women and be able to walk away from any responsibility for the children he creates with the stroke of a pen?
So, basically, you're assuming that every woman is a wanton whore that will sleep with any man that comes along? What ever happened to keeping your pants on?

i can imagine a system being set up that way but would you REALLY want a man to be able to have sex with many many women and be able to walk away from any responsibility for the children he creates with the stroke of a pen?

should his responsibility be limited to his willingness to be able to pay for half an abortion?

I think you are trivializing things here. While there are men who might do this, they are few and far between, just as women who have numerous abortions as a form of "birth control" are few and far between.

Giving up a child or even the possibility of a child is generally not easy for anyone, regardless of their sex.

i can imagine a system being set up that way but would you REALLY want a man to be able to have sex with many many women and be able to walk away from any responsibility for the children he creates with the stroke of a pen?

should his responsibility be limited to his willingness to be able to pay for half an abortion?
And the woman has the choice to do the same with men … kind of fair is it not

But he is then burdened with a responsibility (financial) that the woman has the ability to opt out of.
yes but she also pays a physical price for opting out that he doesnt.

but really would you want the system to be set up such that a man can always just walk away?

Sounds fair. We'll impliment that the very moment that men start carrying foetuses around in their bodies.

The woman has the only responsibility towards the welfare of the fetus and her body, so she has all right to decide whether to terminate the abortion.

However, both the mother and father have responsibility to their child, and since the mother has a say on whether she wants to accept responsibility, the father should also be able to declare whether he is willing to accept responsibility.

You know... it's all beginning to make sense... I see why so many guys support this idea...

I know so many guys who would just LOVE promiscuous sex, that they could 'erase' at a later date with a signature.

Still leaving the girl 'screwed', obviously.

You have children, right?

How well do you think you would deal with the idea that there might or might not be a child out there that you fathered, but that you will never have access to?

How easy would it have been, back when your wife was pregnant, to walk away and give up all rights to the child, if she chose to have it?

but really would you want the system to be set up such that a man can always just walk away?
The system exists right now that any woman can just "walk away", by having an abortion. Why not have a fair system?

yes but she also pays a physical price for opting out that he doesnt.

but really would you want the system to be set up such that a man can always just walk away?
If you can find a way to impose the same physical penalty on him as her let me know

As much as I am for equality (as much as we can) biological equality is not something we are yet able to manage

yes but she also pays a physical price for opting out that he doesnt.

Unfortunate isn't it? Biology is a bitch.

but really would you want the system to be set up such that a man can always just walk away?

The idea isn't that he can always walk away. He can do so in the same time period she has to decide whether or not she will abort. If he doesn't do it, he is responsible from then on out.

i can imagine a system being set up that way but would you REALLY want a man to be able to have sex with many many women and be able to walk away from any responsibility for the children he creates with the stroke of a pen?

Yes, if a woman is allowed to erase the responsibility of the mistake, so should the man.

should his responsibility be limited to his willingness to be able to pay for half an abortion?

If the man does or doesn't support the abortion, he should be required to pay for at least half.

And what if the only person capable of creating the cure for cancer/AIDS/etc is aborted...or has already been aborted? We'd never know...but I'd *still* opt for the chance as opposed to no chance.

And what if the person who creates the virus that wipes out mankind is aborted?

That's the problem with 'probability'... it isn't 'real'.

But - following your idea... a guy who could invent Cancer is born, adopted... dies in the orphanage... tough break... cancer carries on regardless.

Or... a guy who could invent Cancer is born, adopted... gets run over on his 18th birthday... tough break.... cancer carries on regardless.

Or... a guy who could invent Cancer is born, adopted, but suffers such trauma at the shifting around, and foster families etc that result.... that he never goes into the sciences... tough break.... cancer carries on regardless.

The simple act of being born guarantees nothing.

Unfortunate isn't it? Biology is a bitch.



The idea isn't that he can always walk away. He can do so in the same time period she has to decide whether or not she will abort. If he doesn't do it, he is responsible from then on out.
Exactly … and he has to inform her a reasonable time before abortions can be performed so she can decide if his non involvement changes her options

The idea isn't that he can always walk away. He can do so in the same time period she has to decide whether or not she will abort. If he doesn't do it, he is responsible from then on out.
I fully agree with this idea. But, what do we do about women who hide the pregnancy/child until later than the cutoff date and then spring it on the man, demanding child support?

But he is then burdened with a responsibility (financial) that the woman has the ability to opt out of.

Not really true, if you think about it...

If she aborts.. he isn't burdened, and neither is she.

If she doesn't abort... he IS burdened, and so is she.

Sounds equitable to me.

Not really true, if you think about it...

If she aborts.. he isn't burdened, and neither is she.

If she doesn't abort... he IS burdened, and so is she.

Sounds equitable to me.
But she holds all the cards on the decision she decides if he is financialy responsible or not

I fully agree with this idea. But, what do we do about women who hide the pregnancy/child until later than the cutoff date and then spring it on the man, demanding child support?

If she does not exercise due diligence in trying to inform him (ie. she intentionally hides it), he gets a period of approximately 3 months (essentially the amount of time she has for a fully elective abortion) from when he is informed.

The simple act of being born guarantees nothing.
Duh. That's why I said chance... not guarantee. :rolleyes:

If she does not exercise due diligence in trying to inform him (ie. she intentionally hides it), he gets a period of approximately 3 months (essentially the amount of time she has for a fully elective abortion) from when he is informed.
This, with everything else we've discussed, would definitely get my vote. Completely fair and equitable for everyone involved. *thumbs up*

You have children, right?

How well do you think you would deal with the idea that there might or might not be a child out there that you fathered, but that you will never have access to?

How easy would it have been, back when your wife was pregnant, to walk away and give up all rights to the child, if she chose to have it?

Why would I have fathered a child I wouldn't have access to?

Don't have sex with someone until you know them well enough to know what BOTH of you think about issues like that.

That isn't to say people shouldn't have sex... but common courtesy would suggest you get past first names, at least.

I would not turn my back on a child I fathered. It is my legacy.

But, if my wife wanted to abort, it's her choice.

The occasion on which I carry the baby... then I get to choose.

But she holds all the cards on the decision she decides if he is financialy responsible or not

She is also the only one who has her body redesigned and generally monkeyed-with.

Guys get off light, and it's about time we actually showed some gratitude for that.

If WE had the babies... there wouldn't be this debate. In fact - we'd have died out long ago.

Yes, if a woman is allowed to erase the responsibility of the mistake, so should the man.



If the man does or doesn't support the abortion, he should be required to pay for at least half.
well now a woman is legally allowed the sole decision for abortion and ONLY for abortion. and she is not allowed unlimited access to abortion.

this is because of her unique position in carrying fetus. a position that a man can never be in. this does make a lopsided set of rights based on biology. once that fetus is a baby (or is past the legally allowed gestation for abortion) she cant just walk away any more than HE can.

once the baby is born its no longer a matter of the rights of the parents, its the rights of the baby and they exist regardless of intent.

why should the babys rights change based on the desires of the parents?? the babys rights can only be changed by an act of the court allowing a different parent(s) to assume them (adoption) or by having the court terminate the rights of the parents due to being unfit.

Why would I have fathered a child I wouldn't have access to?

Then why do you think so many other men would choose that path?

Don't have sex with someone until you know them well enough to know what BOTH of you think about issues like that.

That isn't to say people shouldn't have sex... but common courtesy would suggest you get past first names, at least.

Oh, if only we could legislate responsibility like that. I absolutely agree. Unfortunately, that isn't really something we can legislate or regulate.

I would not turn my back on a child I fathered. It is my legacy.

Then why do you think so many other men would be able to do it flippantly? In truth, the men who would opt for such an option probably shouldn't be fathers anyways, no?

She is also the only one who has her body redesigned and generally monkeyed-with.

Guys get off light, and it's about time we actually showed some gratitude for that.

If WE had the babies... there wouldn't be this debate. In fact - we'd have died out long ago.
Hard to say that we would have died out being that if we were designed naturally to have babies we would hardly have all of the characteristics that is the average male that you think would cause us to die out :p

A+ thread so far.

An abortion thread where both sides are being reasonable. That is nearly unheard of.

If WE had the babies... there wouldn't be this debate. In fact - we'd have died out long ago.
Wrong. If WE had the babies, we and our attitudes would be different and we would be bitching about our rights/responsibilities and why women felt the need to shirk their "duties". ;)

Yes, if a woman is allowed to erase the responsibility of the mistake, so should the man.
dont you ever watch the jerrry springer show, even on accident? this "MAN" comes on with his 3 pregnant girlfriends and in the course of the show we find out he has 6 or 7 more children by as many different women. do you think a man like THAT should be able to just walk away by signing a paper saying he wanted her to have an abortion instead? i think he should be required to pay every cent he makes toward the suport of his children. (like he works, his girlfriends pay for him. women can be so stupid)


If the man does or doesn't support the abortion, he should be required to pay for at least half.
you mean you think it would be right to force a man to pay for the abortion that he bitterly opposes?

this is because of her unique position in carrying fetus. a position that a man can never be in.
*a-HEM* http://www.malepregnancy.com/

Wrong. If WE had the babies, we and our attitudes would be different and we would be bitching about our rights/responsibilities and why women felt the need to shirk their "duties". ;)
if men got pregnant they would offer abortions at the pub.

well now a woman is legally allowed the sole decision for abortion and ONLY for abortion. and she is not allowed unlimited access to abortion.

this is because of her unique position in carrying fetus. a position that a man can never be in. this does make a lopsided set of rights based on biology. once that fetus is a baby (or is past the legally allowed gestation for abortion) she cant just walk away any more than HE can.

I have no problem with the woman having final say on the abortion, I would hope she would consider the opinion of the man, and I think most would. It is her body and she decides whether she will use it to support a fetus or not.

once the baby is born its no longer a matter of the rights of the parents, its the rights of the baby and they exist regardless of intent.

why should the babys rights change based on the desires of the parents?? the babys rights can only be changed by an act of the court allowing a different parent(s) to assume them (adoption) or by having the court terminate the rights of the parents due to being unfit.

In my opinion, the parents are established at birth. The parents do have a responsibility to the child, but there is no reason that parental responsibilities have to be shared by a father and mother, other than tradition. A woman should be able to support a child on her own if she chooses to have it against the man's wishes.

If the father does not want to become a parent, he should not be forced to. Abortion is all about resolving a bad situation, and I do not see why the option should be open to the woman, yet not be to the man.

Then why do you think so many other men would choose that path?


I have no idea. Remember, I'm the guy who argued (way back) that we should chemically sterilise everyone, and you should have to get license to have a child. I (personally) don't believe in 'accidents'.


Oh, if only we could legislate responsibility like that. I absolutely agree. Unfortunately, that isn't really something we can legislate or regulate.


No - we can't legislate... and that unfortunately means that guys get the easy end of a difficult situation, and have, historically, just been able to walk out of it.


Then why do you think so many other men would be able to do it flippantly? In truth, the men who would opt for such an option probably shouldn't be fathers anyways, no?

I utterly agree.

Then why do you think so many other men would choose that path?



Oh, if only we could legislate responsibility like that. I absolutely agree. Unfortunately, that isn't really something we can legislate or regulate.



Then why do you think so many other men would be able to do it flippantly? In truth, the men who would opt for such an option probably shouldn't be fathers anyways, no?
Agreed I could not turn my back on my offspring … but I don’t like the idea of having my future being controlled by someone else’s decision
She has the complete right to decide what is going on with her future and what to do about her body but in the process she is deciding my life when I don’t have any say in the matter

Hard to say that we would have died out being that if we were designed naturally to have babies we would hardly have all of the characteristics that is the average male that you think would cause us to die out :p

I don't know... first - I didn't necessarily say it was a natural process, and we are CERTAINLY not biologically ready for childbirth... but... second - we tend to learn from pain, don't we... psychologically, guys tend not to be as empathic or resolute as women... we'd have ONE baby and say "no more! That hurt!"

Agreed I could not turn my back on my offspring … but I don’t like the idea of having my future being controlled by someone else’s decision
She has the complete right to decide what is going on with her future and what to do about her body but in the process she is deciding my life when I don’t have any say in the matter

I'm confused. Are you arguing with me? I was arguing in favor of a paper abortion.

I just think it is a purely stereotypical view that lots of men would choose the paper abortion option. I think the vast majority of men probably would not. Just as I know there are very few women out there getting pregnant and then aborting over and over again, I think there would be very few men signing a paper abortion over and over again. And I think the decision of whether or not to sign it would be a much harder decision than many make it out to be.

/me sits back and giggles while everyone goes to check the fake male pregnancy page. :D

Seriously, though. Saying that men could NEVER be in that position is ludicrous, especially since doctors seem to be really close to making it happen.

I don't know... first - I didn't necessarily say it was a natural process, and we are CERTAINLY not biologically ready for childbirth... but... second - we tend to learn from pain, don't we... psychologically, guys tend not to be as empathic or resolute as women... we'd have ONE baby and say "no more! That hurt!"
What I mean is yeah if you take the male as we are now yes … but if we had evolved to give birth it is more then likely that we would have more of the necessary feminine traits … I know you are being facetious but we would hardly be as we are now if we had evolved to give birth :p :fluffle:

dont you ever watch the jerrry springer show, even on accident? this "MAN" comes on with his 3 pregnant girlfriends and in the course of the show we find out he has 6 or 7 more children by as many different women. do you think a man like THAT should be able to just walk away by signing a paper saying he wanted her to have an abortion instead? i think he should be required to pay every cent he makes toward the suport of his children. (like he works, his girlfriends pay for him. women can be so stupid)

As long as he makes it known that he has no intention to accept the parental responsibilities of the child early in the pregnancy, the woman has more than ample time to decide whether she would like to raise the child alone.

you mean you think it would be right to force a man to pay for the abortion that he bitterly opposes?

He was as responsible for the pregnancy as the woman. So he must be responsible for its termination. When the man can support a fetus without a woman, then he can choose whether the child can be brought into the world. Until then, it is the woman's choice as to how her body is used.

To be consistent, I would even require the man to contribute half of the cost of abortion to the hospital bill if the mother actually gives birth. Maybe even half of the cost of the hospital stay.

I'm confused. Are you arguing with me? I was arguing in favor of a paper abortion.

I just think it is a purely stereotypical view that lots of men would choose the paper abortion option. I think the vast majority of men probably would not. Just as I know there are very few women out there getting pregnant and then aborting over and over again, I think there would be very few men signing a paper abortion over and over again. And I think the decision of whether or not to sign it would be a much harder decision than many make it out to be.
Sorry I ment to add on not make it sound arguementitive … just adding my reasons FOR paper abortion sorry to be confusing I got interupted in the middle of the thought at work and typed it wrong lol

I'd also say "half & half", but that should also apply to ending a pregnancy as well.

Agreed. If a father is willing to take on the responsibilities of the child himself, the woman should carry the child to term and sign over parental rights to him, if she doesn't want it.

Agreed. If a father is willing to take on the responsibilities of the child himself, the woman should carry the child to term and sign over parental rights to him, if she doesn't want it.
Except unlike him she has to go through the physical pain and risks while he doesn’t just because he wants a kid she doesn’t

Agreed. If a father is willing to take on the responsibilities of the child himself, the woman should carry the child to term and sign over parental rights to him, if she doesn't want it.

So a man automatically gets rights to do as he pleases with a woman's body after they have sex?

Interesting.

I agree that there should be a mechanism whereby a man and a woman could decide, together, to do this. If the woman does not want the child but is willing to carry it to term for the father, she should be able to sign over all rights to him. However, we can never allow him to force her to do so.

Agreed. If a father is willing to take on the responsibilities of the child himself, the woman should carry the child to term and sign over parental rights to him, if she doesn't want it.

No, a woman should not have to subject her body to the desires and wills of the man.

Until we can bring the fetus to viability without a woman's body, that option will not be a choice.

Except unlike him she has to go through the physical pain and risks while he doesn’t just because he wants a kid she doesn’t
Well.. I'd assume that he'd be paying for all the prenatal care and hosptial stay. So...while she's going to physical pain, he'll definitely be going through financial pain. ;)

So a man automatically gets rights to do as he pleases with a woman's body after they have sex?

Interesting.

I agree that there should be a mechanism whereby a man and a woman could decide, together, to do this. If the woman does not want the child but is willing to carry it to term for the father, she should be able to sign over all rights to him. However, we can never allow him to force her to do so.
I agree with your conclusion, as long as it includes not forcing the man to pay for any part of the abortion if she decides not to keep the child (see VO's above posts).

So a man automatically gets rights to do as he pleases with a woman's body after they have sex?

Interesting.

I agree that there should be a mechanism whereby a man and a woman could decide, together, to do this. If the woman does not want the child but is willing to carry it to term for the father, she should be able to sign over all rights to him. However, we can never allow him to force her to do so.

Except unlike him she has to go through the physical pain and risks while he doesn’t just because he wants a kid she doesn’t

No, a woman should not have to subject her body to the desires and wills of the man.

Until we can bring the fetus to viability without a woman's body, that option will not be a choice.

Unless there is pregnancy by an anonymous sperm donor, in which case the pregnancy would obviously be wanted by the woman, it takes two consenting partners to have a pregnancy occur. Both partners should have equal say in the matter. Yes, it's the woman's body that carries a child to term, but without consenting to have the man's genetic material inside her, and thus including him in the picture, the pregancy wouldn't exist.

She wouldn't necessarily have to carry the child to term, I suppose. There is always the option of a test-tube pregnancy, assuming the medical technology can support such a transplant...however I firmly believe that if the man involved wants the child, he should have equal say.

The genetic material she's carrying, by the whole "her body" argument, is still his property which she's allowed him to deposit, unless it becomes hers simply through "ownership is 9/10 of the law."

As long as he makes it known that he has no intention to accept the parental responsibilities of the child early in the pregnancy, the woman has more than ample time to decide whether she would like to raise the child alone.
i would agree with that if the baby had no rights. after birth, the baby's right to support has to be considered. neither parent should have the automatic right to abandon their baby


He was as responsible for the pregnancy as the woman. So he must be responsible for its termination. When the man can support a fetus without a woman, then he can choose whether the child can be brought into the world. Until then, it is the woman's choice as to how her body is used.

To be consistent, I would even require the man to contribute half of the cost of abortion to the hospital bill if the mother actually gives birth. Maybe even half of the cost of the hospital stay.

the thought of forcing a man to pay to kill the fetus he desperately wants to keep makes me shudder.

Unless there is pregnancy by an anonymous sperm donor, in which case the pregnancy would obviously be wanted by the woman, it takes two consenting partners to have a pregnancy occur. Both partners should have equal say in the matter. Yes, it's the woman's body that carries a child to term, but without consenting to have the man's genetic material inside her, and thus including him in the picture, the pregancy wouldn't exist.

She wouldn't necessarily have to carry the child to term, I suppose. There is always the option of a test-tube pregnancy...however I firmly believe that if the man involved wants the child, he should have equal say.
Which essentially gives her the rights of slave you are removing her choice to do with her body what she wants and making her pay the physical price for the mans wishes

i would agree with that if the baby had no rights. after birth, the baby's right to support has to be considered. neither parent should have the automatic right to abandon their baby



the thought of forcing a man to pay to kill the fetus he desperately wants to keep makes me shudder.
And how is he being forced to pay for that?

Unless there is pregnancy by an anonymous sperm donor, in which case the pregnancy would obviously be wanted by the woman, it takes two consenting partners to have a pregnancy occur. Both partners should have equal say in the matter. Yes, it's the woman's body that carries a child to term, but without consenting to have the man's genetic material inside her, and thus including him in the picture, the pregancy wouldn't exist.

Irrelevant. She may consent to having sex with him, but that does not remove her own rights to her own body. We don't generally advocate slavery in this day and age. And before someone jumps on me for rhetoric, that is exactly what it is. Giving one human being rights over the body and person of another against their will is slavery.

She wouldn't necessarily have to carry the child to term, I suppose. There is always the option of a test-tube pregnancy...however I firmly believe that if the man involved wants the child, he should have equal say.

There is no known way to remove an embryo from a woman and grow it in a test-tube.

Meanwhile, your ideal of equal say is nice. However, biology has determined that only women can get pregnant. Thus, they have the final say in whether or not they stay pregnant. Period. If men got pregnant, then a woman would have no say in whether or not they carried to term.

I agree with your conclusion, as long as it includes not forcing the man to pay for any part of the abortion if she decides not to keep the child (see VO's above posts).

I actually believe that the man should be required to pay for half of the abortion even if he doesn't support it. It is his responsibility to see that the pregnancy is terminated one way or the other. Unfortunately for the man, he is pretty much bound to the decision of the woman in that situation.

the thought of forcing a man to pay to kill the fetus he desperately wants to keep makes me shudder.
Yet, you're okay with forcing a man to pay for 18 years for a child he never wanted?

Unless there is pregnancy by an anonymous sperm donor, in which case the pregnancy would obviously be wanted by the woman, it takes two consenting partners to have a pregnancy occur. Both partners should have equal say in the matter. Yes, it's the woman's body that carries a child to term, but without consenting to have the man's genetic material inside her, and thus including him in the picture, the pregancy wouldn't exist.

She wouldn't necessarily have to carry the child to term, I suppose. There is always the option of a test-tube pregnancy...however I firmly believe that if the man involved wants the child, he should have equal say.
but how do you have equal say

she "i want to have the baby"
he "i want you to have an abortion"

(or vice versa)

if its equal, now what?

Which essentially gives her the rights of slave you are removing her choice to do with her body what she wants and making her pay the physical price for the mans wishes

Nonsense. She isn't a slave. She chose to have sex and therefore chose the risk of pregnancy, and the risk that the man may wish to raise the child. Granted, this rarely happens, but just because a person is in the minority, does it mean that they should have no say as to whether a possible offspring is kept?

Agreed I could not turn my back on my offspring … but I don’t like the idea of having my future being controlled by someone else’s decision
She has the complete right to decide what is going on with her future and what to do about her body but in the process she is deciding my life when I don’t have any say in the matter

You are an intelligent man, Mr Thrust. I respect you for that. You also seem a decent chap.

Both factors ead me to suspect you are not the USUAL catchment to get caught in the trap you seem to be worrying about.

If you ever get a girl pregnant, I am of the suspicion that it will be because you had both sat down and discussed the matter. :)

I think you'd be responsible enough to make sure that you both got a say in each issue.

The problem is, not everyone is THAT responsible... and I fear many guys would be overjoyed at the potential for a paper-way-out.

but how do you have equal say

she "i want to have the baby"
he "i want you to have an abortion"

(or vice versa)

if its equal, now what?

Three possible options:

1) Man and woman both want baby. Congratulations, you're a family.

2) Man wants baby and woman doesn't. Congratulations, sign the parental rights of the child to the father.

3) Woman wants baby and man doesn't. Congratulations, sign the parental rights of the child to the mother.

In the latter two examples, allow the person wishing to have the child sole responsibility of it.

You are an intelligent man, Mr Thrust. I respect you for that. You also seem a decent chap.

Both factors ead me to suspect you are not the USUAL catchment to get caught in the trap you seem to be worrying about.

If you ever get a girl pregnant, I am of the suspicion that it will be because you had both sat down and discussed the matter. :)

I think you'd be responsible enough to make sure that you both got a say in each issue.

The problem is, not everyone is THAT responsible... and I fear many guys would be overjoyed at the potential for a paper-way-out.
There could be limits imposed its not intended to be a “get out of jail free” if it can be proven that he is abusing it he should be responsible. Same if a woman uses abortion as a form of “get out of jail free” (well as close as you can get with the biological restrictions)

So a man automatically gets rights to do as he pleases with a woman's body after they have sex?

Interesting.

I agree that there should be a mechanism whereby a man and a woman could decide, together, to do this. If the woman does not want the child but is willing to carry it to term for the father, she should be able to sign over all rights to him. However, we can never allow him to force her to do so.

And, I think this should be between individuals, and should never be legislated... it is way TOO open to abuse.

As it is, the sensible and cautious will still not have the big problems, except in unusual circumstances.

Nonsense. She isn't a slave. She chose to have sex and therefore chose the risk of pregnancy
BINGO BINGO BINGO BINGO BINGO!

That's the whole point of this umpteen page discussion: personal responsibility.

Three possible options:

1) Man and woman both want baby. Congratulations, you're a family.

2) Man wants baby and woman doesn't. Congratulations, sign the parental rights of the child to the father.

3) Woman wants baby and man doesn't. Congratulations, sign the parental rights of the child to the mother.

In the latter two examples, allow the person wishing to have the child sole responsibility of it.
so in essense the only time she could have an abortion is when he agrees to it.

Three possible options:

1) Man and woman both want baby. Congratulations, you're a family.

2) Man wants baby and woman doesn't. Congratulations, sign the parental rights of the child to the father.

3) Woman wants baby and man doesn't. Congratulations, sign the parental rights of the child to the mother.

In the latter two examples, allow the person wishing to have the child sole responsibility of it.

Problem: In the second case, the man gets to control the woman's body. She does not wish to go through the physical and mental problems associated with pregnancy. That is not her choice to make for her.

It isn't just a question of whether or not they want a child. With a woman, there is the added question of whether or not she wants a pregnancy.

Three possible options:

1) Man and woman both want baby. Congratulations, you're a family.

2) Man wants baby and woman doesn't. Congratulations, sign the parental rights of the child to the father.

3) Woman wants baby and man doesn't. Congratulations, sign the parental rights of the child to the mother.

In the latter two examples, allow the person wishing to have the child sole responsibility of it.
Except for option 2 she is paying the physical price that the father is imposing on her he is deciding if the benefits justify the risks

Problem: In the second case, the man gets to control the woman's body. She does not wish to go through the physical and mental problems associated with pregnancy. That is not her choice to make for her.

In that case, the man should have the choice not to be financially responsible for the child, should he wish for it to be aborted. Otherwise, you have a double-standard, because she is given control over his property.

BINGO BINGO BINGO BINGO BINGO!

That's the whole point of this umpteen page discussion: personal responsibility.
Then the same can be said that he made the choice to be financially responsible no matter what for the kid when having sex and he has no right to disassociate himself from the pregnancy because he had the choice

Got to love legislated personal responsability :rolleyes:

In that case, the man should have the choice not to be financially responsible for the child, should he wish for it to be aborted. Otherwise, you have a double-standard, because she is given control over his property.
READ we just had like a 4 page discussion on paper abortions
Both me and depub supporting it

READ we just had like a 4 page discussion on paper abortions
Both me and depub supporting it

I read. I still say that it's the only way to be fair and equitable. Otherwise, the man has no say, so where's his choice? On the one hand, he has no say because it's her body; on the other hand, he has no say because it's his child.

However, should the technology become available to remove a viable fetus from a mother, the right of the father should be there to take control over it if he wishes.

There, did I clear that up enough?

In that case, the man should have the choice not to be financially responsible for the child, should he wish for it to be aborted. Otherwise, you have a double-standard, because she is given control over his property.
she isnt GIVEN control she has control biologically. a baby isnt property and it has its OWN rights once it is born.

And, I think this should be between individuals, and should never be legislated... it is way TOO open to abuse.

Well, without changing legislation, it could never happen. There is no current way for a woman to carry to term and then hand over the child to the father without having to pay child support, etc.

I certainly wouldn't legislate that anyone would have to do this. I just think the mechanism should be there if a couple should want it. There are women out there who may be willing to carry to term for the purpose of giving the child to the father. Surrogate mothers essentially do it already.

As it is, the sensible and cautious will still not have the big problems, except in unusual circumstances.

Absolutely. As far as I am concerned, I don't think anyone should ever have sex without being clear one what they each think they would do in the case of an unplanned pregnancy. Now, people do change their minds sometimes when it comes down to the actual occurrance, but having some idea would obviously be good.

In that case, the man should have the choice not to be financially responsible for the child, should he wish for it to be aborted. Otherwise, you have a double-standard, because she is given control over his property.

So long as he makes that choice in the same time period in which she has the choice of having an abortion, that is fine.

i would agree with that if the baby had no rights. after birth, the baby's right to support has to be considered. neither parent should have the automatic right to abandon their baby

The man is abandoning the fetus, not the baby. When a woman has an abortion, she is in effect abandoning the fetus.

the thought of forcing a man to pay to kill the fetus he desperately wants to keep makes me shudder.

The pregnancy is partly his responsibility. He has the responsibility to see it through till completion.

Then the same can be said that he made the choice to be financially responsible no matter what for the kid when having sex and he has no right to disassociate himself from the pregnancy because he had the choice

Got to love legislated personal responsability :rolleyes:

That's my point... you CAN'T legislate personal responsibility.

Those who ARE 'responsible' deal with this on their own (or should, ideally). Those who are not responsible are covered by law, right now, to at least make sure that the responsibility is shared.

If works, the system does... try to fix it, shall you not.

she isnt GIVEN control she has control biologically. a baby isnt property and it has its OWN rights once it is born.

Technically, yes. However, it doesn't have full rights, due to age, and a parent's responsibility for their child. The child isn't property persay, but we talk about parental rights to children all the time in divorce cases. Same situation.

Plus, again, his biological material is part of the process...there is no immaculate conception.

So long as he makes that choice in the same time period in which she has the choice of having an abortion, that is fine.

Agreed.

Well, without changing legislation, it could never happen. There is no current way for a woman to carry to term and then hand over the child to the father without having to pay child support, etc.

I certainly wouldn't legislate that anyone would have to do this. I just think the mechanism should be there if a couple should want it. There are women out there who may be willing to carry to term for the purpose of giving the child to the father. Surrogate mothers essentially do it already.

Absolutely. As far as I am concerned, I don't think anyone should ever have sex without being clear one what they each think they would do in the case of an unplanned pregnancy. Now, people do change their minds sometimes when it comes down to the actual occurrance, but having some idea would obviously be good.

Agreed and Agreed.

But... they already HAVE the 'option' to keep the baby and hand it over to the father... and they already have the option (although more of a paperwork wrangle, perhaps) to 'excise' the man from child support, in the reverse case... at least - so I believe... can the woman not still refuse to reveal the identity of the biological father and/or claim not to know...?

I'd also say "half & half", but that should also apply to ending a pregnancy as well.
Uh... how on earth would that work?

Plus, again, his biological material is part of the process...there is no immaculate conception.

Yes, and we all know what a terrible hardship that is... us poor men, don't we suffer?

We have to do the hard work... the difficult and timeconsuming job of.... ejaculating...

and the girls get off practically scott-free... well, apart from the morning-sickness, cravings, dietary weirdness, drained body chemicals, possibility of osteoporosis, possibility of complications, loss of figure, possible loss of job and or education, increasing physical discomfort, uncontrollable body-temperature, hormone changes that will last the rest of their lives... the reduced bladder capacity, the interefered with digestion... and the prospect of having to push an object the size of a grapefruit, through an opening the size of a lemon.

Yeah... us poor guys.

We need more recognition for our part of the deal.

The man is abandoning the fetus, not the baby. When a woman has an abortion, she is in effect abandoning the fetus.


yes but that fetus has now become a baby and neither parent can abandon it. the biological tide has turned and no matter what happened in the past, both parents have rights and responsibilities.

if the father had strongly advocated abortion and tried his best to convince her to give it up, it doesnt matter, he can still claim all rights to that baby. its not a theoretical baby anymore, its here and it has rights and (suddenly) the father has rights that he didnt have when it was just 8 weeks gestation.

Yes, and we all know what a terrible hardship that is... us poor men, don't we suffer?

We have to do the hard work... the difficult and timeconsuming job of.... ejaculating...

and the girls get off practically scott-free... well, apart from the morning-sickness, cravings, dietary weirdness, drained body chemicals, possibility of osteoporosis, possibility of complications, loss of figure, possible loss of job and or education, increasing physical discomfort, uncontrollable body-temperature, hormone changes that will last the rest of their lives... the reduced bladder capacity, the interefered with digestion... and the prospect of having to push an object the size of a grapefruit, through an opening the size of a lemon.

Yeah... us poor guys.

We need more recognition for our part of the deal.

When did I say this was a pity party? I'm talking about individual rights and responsibilities. If a father-to-be wants to accept the responsibility of his actions, why should he be denied the right to do so?

Yes, and we all know what a terrible hardship that is... us poor men, don't we suffer?

We have to do the hard work... the difficult and timeconsuming job of.... ejaculating...

Women never get just how much that takes out of us. Geez.

and the girls get off practically scott-free... well, apart from the morning-sickness, cravings, dietary weirdness, drained body chemicals, possibility of osteoporosis, possibility of complications, loss of figure, possible loss of job and or education, increasing physical discomfort, uncontrollable body-temperature, hormone changes that will last the rest of their lives... the reduced bladder capacity, the interefered with digestion... and the prospect of having to push an object the size of a grapefruit, through an opening the size of a lemon.

And who has to turn up the television when they complain? You got it, US.

When did I say this was a pity party? I'm talking about individual rights and responsibilities. If a father-to-be wants to accept the responsibility of his actions, why should he be denied the right to do so?

You are arguing that men and women should ahve equal rights and responsibilities in the pregnancy.

I agree - when men do HALF of the work, they get half of the say.

yes but that fetus has now become a baby and neither parent can abandon it. the biological tide has turned and no matter what happened in the past, both parents have rights and responsibilities.

if the father had strongly advocated abortion and tried his best to convince her to give it up, it doesnt matter, he can still claim all rights to that baby. its not a theoretical baby anymore, its here and it has rights and (suddenly) the father has rights that he didnt have when it was just 8 weeks gestation.

How do you explain away adoption? The baby is born and both parents give up rights.

When did I say this was a pity party? I'm talking about individual rights and responsibilities. If a father-to-be wants to accept the responsibility of his actions, why should he be denied the right to do so?
because his decision makes a slave of the mother.

Women never get just how much that takes out of us. Geez.

And who has to turn up the television when they complain? You got it, US.

Exactly... just inconsiderate.

If a father-to-be wants to accept the responsibility of his actions, why should he be denied the right to do so?

Because that would allow him to decide how the mother's body is being used. That is slavery.

You are arguing that men and women should ahve equal rights and responsibilities in the pregnancy.

I agree - when men do HALF of the work, they get half of the say.

I see, so despite the fact that it was a mutual decision, the man's rights ultimately get trumped because it's less physically demanding on him?

because his decision makes a slave of the mother.

Precisely.

It holds the uterus (and thus the woman) hostage to the demands of the man.

How do you explain away adoption? The baby is born and both parents give up rights.
oh i talked about that in a different post, in adoption the court allows the parents rights to be transferred to a different parent(s). because it is a legal process its not abandonment. the baby has the same right to be cared for properly and supported financially, just with different parents.

Simple: forced payment of child support. If they want to take the responsibility of having the child, then they can take the responsibility of raising the child.

This is, of course, assuming the father doesn't want the child.
I am pro choice. Meaning that I support the right of a woman to choose to have, or NOT to have an abortion. If a woman, for whatever reason, feels that an abortion is simply NOT an option, no matter whether the father of the child wants that child or not, she should not be forced to abort the child or relinquish all future claims on the father.

A paper abortion only works if the mother is morally and intellectually ready to have an abortion. Meaning...if a real abortion is simply not an option for her because of her beliefs, demanding that she have one or a paper abortion really isn't a choice. The responsibility of preventing a pregnancy belongs to BOTH parties...and if you can't be sure your girlfriend is taking the steps necessary to prevent a pregnancy, YOU take the steps. And visa versa. However, saying that a woman MUST have an abortion if the father doesn't want the child, OR ELSE only works, as I've said, if an abortion is something the woman is prepared to consider doing.

I kind of compare it to Jehovah Witnesses and blood transfusions. I can't imagine why they wouldn't just accept it if it was medically necessary, but I respect their beliefs, and do not think that they should be forced to do so. I support abortion...but it should never be forced on someone.

Then again, I'm not really as firmly set on this issue as I sound... :eek:

I see, so despite the fact that it was a mutual decision, the man's rights ultimately get trumped because it's less physically demanding on him?

No - but you cannot argue balance where there is such a clear disparity.

I'm a little confuzzled by what you are saying was a 'mutual decision'... to me, 'mutual decisions' aren't the stuff of what we have been debating.

How do you explain away adoption? The baby is born and both parents give up rights.
now i dont understand all the legal aspects of this. it is possible for a father to sign over all legal rights of his children to their mother. but it seems that this cant always be the case, (remembering that informal sperm donation case where the donor ended up having to pay support when the mother ended up on welfare). the mother of michael jacksons 2 older children signed over her maternal rights to him. so its possible. i guess it depends on who has the better lawyer and how grumpy the state is that day.

I am pro choice. Meaning that I support the right of a woman to choose to have, or NOT to have an abortion. If a woman, for whatever reason, feels that an abortion is simply NOT an option, no matter whether the father of the child wants that child or not, she should not be forced to abort the child or relinquish all future claims on the father.

A paper abortion only works if the mother is morally and intellectually ready to have an abortion. Meaning...if a real abortion is simply not an option for her because of her beliefs, demanding that she have one or a paper abortion really isn't a choice. The responsibility of preventing a pregnancy belongs to BOTH parties...and if you can't be sure your girlfriend is taking the steps necessary to prevent a pregnancy, YOU take the steps. And visa versa. However, saying that a woman MUST have an abortion if the father doesn't want the child, OR ELSE only works, as I've said, if an abortion is something the woman is prepared to consider doing.

I kind of compare it to Jehovah Witnesses and blood transfusions. I can't imagine why they wouldn't just accept it if it was medically necessary, but I respect their beliefs, and do not think that they should be forced to do so. I support abortion...but it should never be forced on someone.

Then again, I'm not really as firmly set on this issue as I sound... :eek:

You should be set on the issue, you make a great deal of sense.

oh i talked about that in a different post, in adoption the court allows the parents rights to be transferred to a different parent(s). because it is a legal process its not abandonment. the baby has the same right to be cared for properly and supported financially, just with different parents.

But if parental responsibilities are transferrable, why cannot a man who doesn't accept the responsibility transfer his to the woman?

The only thing I can imagine you backing up an opposing argument with is the traditional make up of a family.

You should be set on the issue, you make a great deal of sense.
Well, the problem is, I haven't really adressed the rights of the father in terms of a woman who is pregnant with his child and CHOOSES to have an abortion against his will. That's a bit trickier, and is where I kind of lose coherence:).

But if parental responsibilities are transferrable, why cannot a man who doesn't accept the responsibility transfer his to the woman?

The only thing I can imagine you backing up an opposing argument with is the traditional make up of a family.
he might be able to IF the woman agrees. the state sometimes claims an interest in it so it does have to go to court. if the mother is going to be on AFDC i bet the state wont allow a signing over of rights.

now this has been severely messed up by surrogate mother laws (dont get me started on THAT) but normally you dont give up rights to a child before its born.

your girlfriend tells you she missed her period you are MORE than willing for her to get an abortion or to take all responsibility for the baby. once that baby is born and you SEE it, everything could change (and quite often it does, its really hard to reject your own baby)

it isnt right to expect anyone to give up rights to a baby when it is still an embryo. what seems like a horrible burden becomes the light of your life once it becomes reality.

I am pro choice. Meaning that I support the right of a woman to choose to have, or NOT to have an abortion. If a woman, for whatever reason, feels that an abortion is simply NOT an option, no matter whether the father of the child wants that child or not, she should not be forced to abort the child or relinquish all future claims on the father.

A paper abortion only works if the mother is morally and intellectually ready to have an abortion. Meaning...if a real abortion is simply not an option for her because of her beliefs, demanding that she have one or a paper abortion really isn't a choice. The responsibility of preventing a pregnancy belongs to BOTH parties...and if you can't be sure your girlfriend is taking the steps necessary to prevent a pregnancy, YOU take the steps. And visa versa. However, saying that a woman MUST have an abortion if the father doesn't want the child, OR ELSE only works, as I've said, if an abortion is something the woman is prepared to consider doing.

I kind of compare it to Jehovah Witnesses and blood transfusions. I can't imagine why they wouldn't just accept it if it was medically necessary, but I respect their beliefs, and do not think that they should be forced to do so. I support abortion...but it should never be forced on someone.

Then again, I'm not really as firmly set on this issue as I sound... :eek:

You cannot force one person's morality onto another. Even in the instance of pregnancy.

You cannot force one person's morality onto another. Even in the instance of pregnancy.
I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me, or disagreeing.

Unwanted babies... That's a very gruesom term. That mean's the person with the responsiblity of nurturing this new life into a responsible, smart, hard-working person doesn't want to go through all that hard work and sacrifice. So, they decide to abort, or kill the fetus, therefore circumventing the responsiblity that would have been theirs. Maybe this was done because they don't like children, don't want one yet, don't have the means to support...

But all in all, since abortion is legal, why isn't it legal for parents to kill their born children when they don't really want them around anymore?

.your girlfriend tells you she missed her period you are MORE than willing for her to get an abortion or to take all responsibility for the baby. once that baby is born and you SEE it, everything could change (and quite often it does, its really hard to reject your own baby)

Personally, at this point in my life, I would strongly encourage any girl that I get pregnant to get an abortion. However, were she to keep the child, I would feel ethically bound to support the child. I would consider it unfair to force me into fatherhood simply because a woman I had sex with wanted a child.

it isnt right to expect anyone to give up rights to a baby when it is still an embryo. what seems like a horrible burden becomes the light of your life once it becomes reality.

Each side should have free choice up until the freedom of others is hindered.

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me, or disagreeing.

Disagreeing. You should not force the man to accept the child because of the woman's morality.

Disagreeing. You should not force the man to accept the child because of the woman's morality.
Ah.

But by your reasoning (and mine) it is ALSO wrong to force the woman to have an abortion simply because the man's morality allows it.

Personally, at this point in my life, I would strongly encourage any girl that I get pregnant to get an abortion. However, were she to keep the child, I would feel ethically bound to support the child. I would consider it unfair to force me into fatherhood simply because a woman I had sex with wanted a child.
Accidents happen. Even rare ones. My mother in law had a tubal, and still managed to become preganat at a time when her first born was nearly 24 years old. A woman does not always become pregnant because she WANTS a child. And choosing not to abort does not mean she wants a child...she may be choosing not to abort because abortion is simply not something she is morally able to do. Does a Jehovah Witness refusing a blood transfusion wish to die? Death is not the point. Nor, often, is giving birth. You would not necessarily be forced to be a father because of any wish for a child on the mother's part. If a pregnancy occurs, you are as culpable as she. Did YOU intend that child to be conceived? Is she now forced to be a mother because of her ethics (which reject abortion), or YOUR action? Or a bit of both (including her own culpability)?

Ah.

But by your reasoning (and mine) it is ALSO wrong to force the woman to have an abortion simply because the man's morality allows it.

Yes, morality does not come into play.

My belief is that neither side should be forced into it. It should be a reasonable decision on both sides whether to accept the responsibility. If the man decides that he will not accept the responsibility, the woman then can decide whether she will accept the responsibility on her own.

Personally, at this point in my life, I would strongly encourage any girl that I get pregnant to get an abortion. However, were she to keep the child, I would feel ethically bound to support the child. I would consider it unfair to force me into fatherhood simply because a woman I had sex with wanted a child.


yeah i would expect you to feel that way, especially if its a one-night-stand kind of thing. but what im suggesting is that once you SAW your baby, you would be happy to support it and to have it in your life.

children truly are a blessing no matter how they get here and that unfair burden (i dont dispute that its unfair, just that there is no good way around that unfairness) would end up being the best thing that ever happened to you.

and as you recognize your inferior position in the law, i would expect you to do what it takes to make sure you arent in the position of having an unwanted baby.

Accidents happen. Even rare ones. My mother in law had a tubal, and still managed to become preganat at a time when her first born was nearly 24 years old. A woman does not always become pregnant because she WANTS a child. And choosing not to abort does not mean she wants a child...she may be choosing not to abort because abortion is simply not something she is morally able to do. Does a Jehovah Witness refusing a blood transfusion wish to die? Death is not the point. Nor, often, is giving birth. You would not necessarily be forced to be a father because of any wish for a child on the mother's part. If a pregnancy occurs, you are as culpable as she. Did YOU intend that child to be conceived? Is she now forced to be a mother because of her ethics (which reject abortion), or YOUR action? Or a bit of both (including her own culpability)?

The ability to accept responsibility or deny should be equal for both the man and the woman. While I understand your argument, I am ethically opposed to someone having another person's morality imposed on them.

You mentioned it before, but how does your logic hold up when the man is morally opposed to abortion?

Yes, morality does not come into play.

My belief is that neither side should be forced into it. It should be a reasonable decision on both sides whether to accept the responsibility. If the man decides that he will not accept the responsibility, the woman then can decide whether she will accept the responsibility on her own.
Which brings me back to the crux of my argument.

You are saying there are two choices (in the case where one party does not want the child).

1) Have an abortion.
2) Don't have an abortion, and allow the other person to give up all legal rights pertaining to that child.

My argument is that the above are choices ONLY for people who consider abortion itself to be a choice. Many people are opposed to abortion and would be going against all of their belief systems in order to have one. Meaning, if one of the parents is against abortion, there IS no choice. Choosing not to abort is not making a choice in this case. For these people, there is only one outcome possible:

1) Don't have an abortion, and allow the other person to give up all legal rights pertaining to that child.

Again, when a pregnancy occurs, both parties are culpable (except in cases of rape etc). As such, if the second scenario holds true, one party is able to escape the consequences simply because of the fact that the other party can not choose abortion.

But the definition of infant leads me to believe birth to age before walking/talking

Yes, but with unborn as the modifier, that would simply refer to that which will become a born infant. Which can be said of a child at conception...

Isn't it lovely, treating children as objects of burdoning responsibility? It's not like they're sentinent human beings with rights.

You mentioned it before, but how does your logic hold up when the man is morally opposed to abortion?
Shakily at best:). I have to take into the consideration that there are rights the woman has in terms of her body that are not reflected in the case of the man. His body is not involved past the act of conception. So, let's say, the woman wants an abortion, but the man does not want her to. The man is as responsible for the conception of that child as she. The man is not as responsible biologically for the period of gestation. If the man convinces the woman to have the baby, with the promise that her legal responsibilites to that baby once it is born will be abrogated, we run into the same problem as before. Abortion simply isn't a choice in this man's belief system, in essence, forcing him to allow the woman to escape responsibility if she does not abort. Not a choice.

However, the woman has the ultimate choice about what happens with her body. Does this right supercede the man's right? I'm going to have to say, yes. It isn't fair, but I simply can not see a way around it. There is no comparison that I can examine that would see a similar situation, reversed. It's one sided, yes, but I see no way of getting around that. :(

The money spent defending abortion?

Defending it from what? It IS legal.... so the only thing that money would need to be spent against is.... oh yes, the campaigns to make it illegal, yes?

Regarding the money spent on abortions... it is a medical practise... and doctors like to get paid. I think they should operate for free, but I'm obviously not going to see that happen in my lifetime... people just don't seem to do things 'pro bono'.

Ever seen the numbers on donations to NOW and considered how much of that goes into lobbying the pro-abortion side of the debate?

Isn't it lovely, treating children as objects of burdoning responsibility? It's not like they're sentinent human beings with rights.
Is there a point to your interjections? We are speaking of specific cases of unwanted pregnancies, not of children in general. And you are no doubt quite aware of that. So rather than implying an opinion on the topic of the rights and responsibilities of pregnancy, please STATE an opinion.

Shakily at best:). I have to take into the consideration that there are rights the woman has in terms of her body that are not reflected in the case of the man. His body is not involved past the act of conception. So, let's say, the woman wants an abortion, but the man does not want her to. The man is as responsible for the conception of that child as she. The man is not as responsible biologically for the period of gestation. If the man convinces the woman to have the baby, with the promise that her legal responsibilites to that baby once it is born will be abrogated, we run into the same problem as before. Abortion simply isn't a choice in this man's belief system, in essence, forcing him to allow the woman to escape responsibility if she does not abort. Not a choice.

However, the woman has the ultimate choice about what happens with her body. Does this right supercede the man's right? I'm going to have to say, yes. It isn't fair, but I simply can not see a way around it. There is no comparison that I can examine that would see a similar situation, reversed. It's one sided, yes, but I see no way of getting around that. :(

I'd agree that it supercedes the man's right, however, it doesn't supercede the child's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

yeah i would expect you to feel that way, especially if its a one-night-stand kind of thing. but what im suggesting is that once you SAW your baby, you would be happy to support it and to have it in your life.

Even from a one night stand, I would feel compelled to support a child I was responsible for, even if I argued for an abortion.

children truly are a blessing no matter how they get here and that unfair burden (i dont dispute that its unfair, just that there is no good way around that unfairness) would end up being the best thing that ever happened to you.

My brother was born when I was 12, my sister when I was 14. I have loved them more than anything since I first laid eyes on them. I know what you are talking about. However, I cannot reasonably expect every man to feel that same way.

and as you recognize your inferior position in the law, i would expect you to do what it takes to make sure you arent in the position of having an unwanted baby.

Yes, I try to be as safe as possible, but I realise that no defense is perfect.

Is there a point to your interjections? We are speaking of specific cases of unwanted pregnancies, not of children in general. And you are no doubt quite aware of that. So rather than implying an opinion on the topic of the rights and responsibilities of pregnancy, please STATE an opinion.
OH! That's right. Children arn't a concern at all with pregnancies. They don't have a single say at all, because they're just children, not really humans.

Yes, I try to be as safe as possible, but I realise that no defense is perfect.

Actually, that's not true, a vasectomy is pretty effective, so is a tubal ligation, and even more effective... don't have sex with someone you aren't willing to have a baby with. It isn't rocket science... Oh, I forgot one, post menepausal women, very very rarely get pregnant.

My brother was born when I was 12, my sister when I was 14. I have loved them more than anything since I first laid eyes on them. I know what you are talking about. However, I cannot reasonably expect every man to feel that same way.


nor every woman, not that i understand how anyone can throw away their own child, i just know it happens

my niece had a baby with an old boyfriend, he denied paternity and refused support (she is after him like the wrath of god right now). the thing is, the little boy, now 6, is the cutest, sweetest, smartest little boy you would ever want. i would take him in a heartbeat. i can only imagine the agony his father felt when paternity was proven and he got a visit from this little angel and now lives too far away from him to ever see. it would tear a normal man to pieces.

OH! That's right. Children arn't a concern at all with pregnancies. They don't have a single say at all, because they're just children, not really humans.
Good job, you can make wild assumptions and use them to attack others.

The post you quoted asked you to state an actual opinion, rather than just imply one. Care to take up the challenge?

Actually, that's not true, a vasectomy is pretty effective, so is a tubal ligation, and even more effective... don't have sex with someone you aren't willing to have a baby with. It isn't rocket science... Oh, I forgot one, post menepausal women, very very rarely get pregnant.
all those things fail. not often but when they do it sucks. sometimes that perfect woman turns out to be the queen bitch from hell. its not complicated but life has a way of throwing you some severe curves.

I'd agree that it supercedes the man's right, however, it doesn't supercede the child's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Funny how someone called "Personal responsibilit" (I assume there's a y missing at the end) is in favour of transferring responsibility for pregnancies to the government. I think that the responsibility of paying for an abortion certainly covers the necessity for personal responsibility in these matters. (I'm pro-choice but against the government paying for abortions.)

Yeah, I'd like someone to justify killing a child.

all those things fail. not often but when they do it sucks. sometimes that perfect woman turns out to be the queen bitch from hell. its not complicated but life has a way of throwing you some severe curves.

There's always the completely fail safe, abstinance rout. Unless of course and immaculate conception occurs, but I'd say the odds of that happening more than once in earths history are exactly 0%.

Yeah, I'd like someone to justify killing a child.
feel free to look up any of the other 10,000 threads on the subject, jolt has a search funciton and its been thoroughly discussed

Funny how someone called "Personal responsibilit" (I assume there's a y missing at the end) is in favour of transferring responsibility for pregnancies to the government. I think that the responsibility of paying for an abortion certainly covers the necessity for personal responsibility in these matters. (I'm pro-choice but against the government paying for abortions.)

Well, I see the "taking personal responsibility" for one's actions as, anyone having sex has willing accepted the responsibility for the possibility that a child may come out of it and to provide for that child's health, safety and well being until that child is of legal age or indefinitely should said child be disabled. If you aren't willing to accept that responsibility should conception occur, you shouldn't be having sex. PERIOD.!

I'd agree that it supercedes the man's right, however, it doesn't supercede the child's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Ah. Another golem in the gearbox of my logic.

Yeah, I'd like someone to justify killing a child.
You're in the wrong thread. This isn't a debate about abortion. I'm sorry you got lost.

Oh, I forgot one, post menepausal women, very very rarely get pregnant.
Gotta love older women. ;)

MILF!!! :D

Seriously, though. It sounds like most of us (not all) are agreeing on the basic points, it's just the side arguments that are, well, sidetracking us.

So, to summarise the rights we have to take into consideration in this very sticky subject:

1) The right of the man to take, or abrogate responsibility for a child he has helped conceive.
2) The right of the woman to take, or abrogate responsibility for a child she has helped conceive.
3) The woman's right to make decisions pertaining to her body.
4) The right of the unborn child.

I used numbers just to clarify the points, not to create a hierarchy. I really can't say which rights trump the others. I think rights 1 and 2 are equal. The only concession I'll make is that I think the woman's right to make decisions about her body supercede the man's rights and responsibilities to the unborn child. I'm undecided about the rest of it. ESPECIALLY in terms of women who abuse drugs or alcohol, or in other ways (aside from abortion) affect the development of their unborn children.

feel free to look up any of the other 10,000 threads on the subject, jolt has a search funciton and its been thoroughly discussed
*raps everyone's knuckles with a ruler*

STOP feeding the trolls! :)

If you aren't willing to accept that responsibility should conception occur, you shouldn't be having sex. PERIOD.!
I am saying that people should accept the responsibility for conception (and thus pregnancy) in the form of either giving birth to the child, or in the form of an abortion bill.

Well, I see the "taking personal responsibility" for one's actions as, anyone having sex has willing accepted the responsibility for the possibility that a child may come out of it and to provide for that child's health, safety and well being until that child is of legal age or indefinitely should said child be disabled. If you aren't willing to accept that responsibility should conception occur, you shouldn't be having sex. PERIOD.!
"Taking personal responsibility" means taking responsibility for one's own actions, whatever those actions may be. The concept, in and of itself, does not dictate that certain actions follow; rather, it indicates acceptance on the part of the individual for the consequences of their actions. Period.

So, to summarise the rights we have to take into consideration in this very sticky subject:

1) The right of the man to take, or abrogate responsibility for a child he has helped conceive.
2) The right of the woman to take, or abrogate responsibility for a child she has helped conceive.
3) The woman's right to make decisions pertaining to her body.
4) The right of the unborn child.

I used numbers just to clarify the points, not to create a hierarchy. I really can't say which rights trump the others. I think rights 1 and 2 are equal. The only concession I'll make is that I think the woman's right to make decisions about her body supercede the man's rights and responsibilities to the unborn child. I'm undecided about the rest of it. ESPECIALLY in terms of women who abuse drugs or alcohol, or in other ways (aside from abortion) affect the development of their unborn children.

Okay, I'll create the hierarchy... ;) (yes, I know that almost no one will agree)

1. The right of the unborn child to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
2. The woman's right to make decisions pertaining to her body
3. The right of the man and woman to take and, never abrogate responsibility for a child that he or she has helped conceive. Although, occasionally, taking responsibilty may mean giving a child up for adoption if the parents lack the capacity to provide for the child.

That's my position and I'm sticking to it.

I am saying that people should accept the responsibility for conception (and thus pregnancy) in the form of either giving birth to the child, or in the form of an abortion bill.

That would work, accept the child's right to life turns that into a one option response and the rest follows from there...

*raps everyone's knuckles with a ruler*

STOP feeding the trolls! :)
OUCH

yes sir.

Okay, I'll create the hierarchy... ;) (yes, I know that almost no one will agree)

1. The right of the unborn child to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
2. The woman's right to make decisions pertaining to her body
3. The right of the man and woman to take and, never abrogate responsibility for a child that he or she has helped conceive. Although, occasionally, taking responsibilty may mean giving a child up for adoption if the parents lack the capacity to provide for the child.

That's my position and I'm sticking to it.
ok ok let me throw this far off topic.....

what about the unused frozen embryos from couples who conceived babies through invitro fertilization?

Okay, I'll create the hierarchy... ;) (yes, I know that almost no one will agree)

1. The right of the unborn child to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
2. The woman's right to make decisions pertaining to her body
3. The right of the man and woman to take and, never abrogate responsibility for a child that he or she has helped conceive. Although, occasionally, taking responsibilty may mean giving a child up for adoption if the parents lack the capacity to provide for the child.

That's my position and I'm sticking to it.
Ok, so abortion is out of the picture. I disagree, but I'll work with what you've got:)

Therefore, the second right doesn't really apply to this issue, and can be taken out.

And regardless of who raises the child (mother, father, both or neither), the people who conceived the child have a responsibility to and for that child no matter what.

Okay...your position is clear! Anyone else?

"Taking personal responsibility" means taking responsibility for one's own actions, whatever those actions may be. The concept, in and of itself, does not dictate that certain actions follow; rather, it indicates acceptance on the part of the individual for the consequences of their actions. Period.

Said consequences are the provision for the care and well-being of the child conceived.

I don't know where the idea that sex without the permenant responsibility for the child conceived there-by came from but it is among the biggest bains to all of humanity. Sure sex is a wonderful, beautiful, fun, amazing thing, but you have to be willing to take on a child if one is conceived if you intend to claim any shread of moral decancy, and if you have none, you should volunteer to be sterilized so you don't create an undue burdon on anyone else. That is personal responsibility.

ok ok let me throw this far off topic.....

what about the unused frozen embryos from couples who conceived babies through invitro fertilization?

IMO, they should never be made embryos if they aren't intended to be children. Keep the sperm and egg seperate until that commitment is made.

Ok, so abortion is out of the picture. I disagree, but I'll work with what you've got:)

Therefore, the second right doesn't really apply to this issue, and can be taken out.

And regardless of who raises the child (mother, father, both or neither), the people who conceived the child have a responsibility to and for that child no matter what.

Okay...your position is clear! Anyone else?

Hurrah, someone understands. :D I knew you'd disagree, but that is okay. If we all agreed about everything what would there be to talk about...

That would work, accept the child's right to life turns that into a one option response and the rest follows from there...
Oh, you're one of those people.

Simple: forced payment of child support. If they want to take the responsibility of having the child, then they can take the responsibility of raising the child.

This is, of course, assuming the father doesn't want the child.

As a child of seperated parents, I must say that my opinion on this matter is very genuinely biased. However, I must say that, yes, child support laws should be enforced, causing the better-off parent to pay it. (Not just the father, the mother is included here, too.)
I was born in the 80's, to a teenaged mother who had no choice, but to have me. Period. My mom having to live with her parents (who are devout Catholics and believe in nothing so much as almost anything that can be termed politically "conservative") at the time of her pregnancy simply made that choice impossible for her.
My father didn't so much want me, but he still should have some responsibility in the matter. I needed support from his side of the family, since my mom was working three jobs, getting minimum wage at the most, and going to college at the same time. Without the measly little 27 bucks a week that he contributed, I would most likely have been MUCH worse for the wear.
My mom has since dropped child support (about 5 years ago) to allow him extra funds to help him build a house. A house that was supposed to be finished that year, but has yet to be inhabitable.
Seems to me that yes, irresponsible fathers should help. Deadbeat dads have no place in my world...I had far too much of an experience with my half-brother's father and it left me a bit prejudiced.

Oh, you're one of those people.

Why yes, thank you for noticing :) ;) I realize I'm not in the majority here, but I believe that is just another area that people abrogate personal responsibility in favor of personal gratification without consequences.

Ok, so abortion is out of the picture. I disagree, but I'll work with what you've got:)

Therefore, the second right doesn't really apply to this issue, and can be taken out.

And regardless of who raises the child (mother, father, both or neither), the people who conceived the child have a responsibility to and for that child no matter what.

Okay...your position is clear! Anyone else?
I'm working from the position of distribution of responsibility and within the current system (where abortion is legal).

My position is that:

1) Currently, a woman holds all the cards when it comes to the options of carrying a child to term or having an abortion. Men have no rights in the decision.

2) Since the woman has that power, she should also bear the responsiblity.

3) If a woman chooses to have an abortion and the father (who currently has no rights in the matter) wants to keep the child, he's S.O.L.

4) Therefore, if a woman chooses to have the child and the father does not want the child, the father should not be forced to pay child support for a child he does not want. Also, since he does not want the child, he would give up any and all rights in regards to the child. If he does not want the responsibility of being a father, he deserves none of the benefits/rewards (emotional or otherwise) of being a father.

Personally, I'm for arranged adoptions as opposed to abortions (except in cases of medical distress, rape or incest).

I hope that's clear enough. :)

However, the woman has the ultimate choice about what happens with her body. Does this right supercede the man's right? I'm going to have to say, yes. It isn't fair, but I simply can not see a way around it. There is no comparison that I can examine that would see a similar situation, reversed. It's one sided, yes, but I see no way of getting around that. :(

I will say that the man can neither force the woman to have an abortion, nor force the woman to give birth to the child. But to offer equal rights and responsibilities, I believe that the woman should not force the man to take responsibility for the child either.

The only problem with this system is that the man cannot have a child without a woman's consent, with the advancement of science, there will be a day when he can.

If you want to see my arguments for that, look at previous pages. To counter your argument that the man must support the child if the woman is morally opposed to abortion, I say that no one should be forced to accept someone else's morality (I have never had any respect for morality, and have railed against it many times on here). If the woman wants the child and the man doesn't, she must be prepared to raise it on her own.

Said consequences are the provision for the care and well-being of the child conceived.

I don't know where the idea that sex without the permenant responsibility for the child conceived there-by came from but it is among the biggest bains to all of humanity. Sure sex is a wonderful, beautiful, fun, amazing thing, but you have to be willing to take on a child if one is conceived if you intend to claim any shread of moral decancy, and if you have none, you should volunteer to be sterilized so you don't create an undue burdon on anyone else. That is personal responsibility.
It would seem that "personal responsibility" means accepting your version of the desired outcome for one's actions.

I'm working from the position of distribution of responsibility and within the current system (where abortion is legal).

My position is that:

1) Currently, a woman holds all the cards when it comes to the options of carrying a child to term or having an abortion. Men have no rights in the decision.

2) Since the woman has that power, she should also bear the responsiblity.

3) If a woman chooses to have an abortion and the father (who currently has no rights in the matter) wants to keep the child, he's S.O.L.

4) Therefore, if a woman chooses to have the child and the father does not want the child, the father should not be forced to pay child support for a child he does not want. Also, since he does not want the child, he would give up any and all rights in regards to the child. If he does not want the responsibility of being a father, he deserves none of the benefits/rewards (emotional or otherwise) of being a father.

Personally, I'm for arranged adoptions as opposed to abortions (except in cases of medical distress, rape or incest).

I hope that's clear enough. :)

Clear and well said. I'd disagree on a few of the finer points, but find this a fairly reasonable position, given the current legal situation. My position is more of an ideal rather than working within the framework of current legal positions.

It would seem that "personal responsibility" means accepting your version of the desired outcome for one's actions.

These responsibilities are both moral, historical and in most cases cross cultural, particularly when the sex occurs between consenting adults.

These responsibilities are both moral, historical and in most cases cross cultural, particularly when the sex occurs between consenting adults.
And that is social or cultural responsibility, not personal responsibility.