• 98 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Edited by batpala (342 posts) - - Show Bio

@durakken: Wow you are really, really bitter about something. I don't live in the US so I don't know how much child support is over there but in Australia it's only around $100-200 a month, so that isn't exactly that much, maybe if you work seven hours a day for minimum [AU] wage you would lose maybe four days pay, but that is very little within a month and that is basing it off what I earnt and I get less than a man does [how shocking]. So obviously you're definitely blowing it out of proportion, so calm down.

Also do you know how hard it can be to get back into the workforce after pregnancy? It's quite ridiculous, not to mention child care and paying a baby sitter and then school fees [which are rising year by year worldwide]. You have to consider a lot. It's not just a grudge match between the parents. There's a CHILD here, but obviously that doesn't matter to you because from what I can tell from how you've replied here women are so very evil that they are daughters of satan. [this last part is sarcasm because you are pushing my buttons and offending me at the exact same time]

@mrdecepticonleader My mother would have never been able to afford to have me then and then I would have lost both my mother and father as I would have been picked up by child services. Funny thing is he never paid the entire amount anyway, only the bare minimum.

#52 Edited by Jonny_Anonymous (39486 posts) - - Show Bio

@mitran said:

@betatesthighlander1 said:

@mitran said:

You could have said "impregnator" or something, if you wanted to be soo sensitive.

that word didn't come to mind, sorry

It's not a big deal, not sure why I wrote it so snobbish.

Impregnator sounds like the Terminators dodgy cousin

#53 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (19246 posts) - - Show Bio

@batpala said:

@mrdecepticonleader My mother would have never been able to afford to have me then and then I would have lost both my mother and father as I would have been picked up by child services. Funny thing is he never paid the entire amount anyway, only the bare minimum.

I do agree that is something that needs to be taken into consideration. But then if the farther is forced to have to pay something they should also have rights to that child as well.

#54 Edited by batpala (342 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrdecepticonleader: My father did; he just refused to see me completely at the behest of his wife, so. Generally the men do have a right to see the child unless there is something legal barring the way [for example abuse, the male being violent, ect, court orders at not being allowed to see the child], but they just choose not to.

#55 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (19246 posts) - - Show Bio

@batpala said:

@mrdecepticonleader: My father did; he just refused to see me completely at the behest of his wife, so. Generally the men do have a right to see the child unless there is something legal barring the way [for example abuse, the male being violent, ect, court orders at not being allowed to see the child], but they just choose not to.

But then should it not be the farthers rights to choose? I mean if they want nothing to do with that child then why should they be forced to pay towards them. ?

#56 Edited by batpala (342 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrdecepticonleader: Because he had sex with my mother, she got pregnant and that wasn't going to change even if he ran back to his wife and pretended my mother never existed and she had every right to want money if he was going to be a coward and not man up. It's not like he ever paid the full amount of money. He has responsibility towards myself and me to not leave us in the gutter penniless. It doesn't work like that and the government should enforce this because otherwise the already busy child services would have thousands more children to deal with because the childrens fathers are cowards who can't bother to man up to when they're needed.

#57 Posted by RazzaTazz (11939 posts) - - Show Bio
#58 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (19246 posts) - - Show Bio

@batpala said:

@mrdecepticonleader: Because he fucked my mother, she got pregnant and that wasn't going to change even if he ran back to his wife and pretended my mother never existed and she had every right to want money if he was going to be a coward and not man up. It's not like he ever paid the full amount of money. He has responsibility towards myself and me to not leave us in the gutter penniless. It doesn't work like that and the government should enforce this because otherwise the already busy child services would have thousands more children to deal with because the childrens fathers are cowards who can't bother to man up to when they're needed.

So then what the mother got pregnant and then decided to have an abortion and didn't tell the farther? Is that right? Does the farther not have a right to know? Or if a woman decides she is going to have an abortion and the man has no say whatsoever in that matter is that fair? If a woman has that right then surely it would be fair for the man to walk away and having nothing to do with that child.

I am just trying to look at this from all angles as all.

#59 Edited by Durakken (1930 posts) - - Show Bio

@batpala said:

@durakken: Wow you are really, really bitter about something. I don't live in the US so I don't know how much child support is over there but in Australia it's only around $100-200 a month, so that isn't exactly that much, maybe if you work seven hours a day for minimum [AU] wage you would lose maybe four days pay, but that is very little within a month and that is basing it off what I earnt and I get less than a man does [how shocking]. So obviously you're definitely blowing it out of proportion, so calm down.

Also do you know how hard it can be to get back into the workforce after pregnancy? It's quite ridiculous, not to mention child care and paying a baby sitter and then school fees [which are rising year by year worldwide]. You have to consider a lot. It's not just a grudge match between the parents. There's a CHILD here, bto you because from what I can tell from how you've replied here women are so very evil that they are daughters of satan. [this last part is sarcasm because you are pushing my buttons and offending me at the exact same time]

It changes based on the pay of the person... and often times it can be well over 50% of your earnings. Just do a quick google search and there are countless reports. And in a society where it's harder to get a job for all and many people are struggling to get by without alone, let alone with a child. You making the comment that it is "only x amount" is callous and shows a lack of understanding of the situation. That's ignoring the fact that women are flooding the market and affirmative action and quotas makes it so companies must hire women, regardless of skill, over men.

If you don't get the same pay as a guy you are you either aren't considering various factors, like trying to compare someone who took a year off of work to be pregnant to someone who didn't OR boss is doing something illegal. IT is illegal in the states to have pay discrepancies like that. Either way you are the one who took the break OR you haven't pressed the issue, though I don't condone that shit you still have the responsibility to bring it to the proper authorities.

Yes I do know how hard it is to get back into the workforce after pregnancy... It Is not hard at all in the US, because the US actually requires that the company hold the position open, indefinitely and if that woman decides to just keep on leave for several years and then decides to come back she can, ousting out her replacement.

And how dare you say that "there is a child involved here" You are the person that brought the child into the world. Not the man. Not the child. YOU. And yeah there is a child involved here so instead of having a child with an unwilling male perhaps you should have considered that before hand instead of thrusting the child into such a shitty situation.

Even if this all wasn't true, you'd STILL be in the wrong as it is immoral to put anyone into any type of slavery what-so-ever even if they wish it upon themself or are too stupid to understand it as that is what they are doing and It is wrong to hold someone, anyone, responsible for the actions of another whether that be the parent being held responsible for the actions of the child, or a man being held responsible for a woman allowing herself to become pregnant. To be a single mother in this day and age with all our ability to prevent unwanted children and knowledge about how single parent homes affect children shows so many levels of immaturity and irresponsiblness that I would go so far as to argue that bringing a child into the world without a home with 2 committed parents is grounds for that child to be taken away from that parent by way of child abuse laws. The only reason I wouldn't suggest it currently is because the foster system is broke too and it wouldn't help the child unfortunately.

That however contrasted by if a father says "yeah I'm good with it" and then bails. He should have to pay child support or turn over his rights to someone who can. See the problem with the system is not that it is "looking out for the child" because it's not but tries to say it is. The problem is that it doesn't do that, but also punishes someone who did everything right and is a good person. And when you get punished for being a good person there is no more reason for being a good person. The fact is you are making this woman's issue while trying to saying "won't we think about the children" when it is clear that the system as it exists today and the women that abuse and use this bullshit are not thinking about the children. If they were this situation wouldn't occur.

And you claim I'm bitter. Yes, I'm bitter. This is called being angry at evil. It is the proper response to people who insist that slavery is right. It is the proper response to people who think male circumcision is peachy keen because girls like dicks that are circumcised. I get angry when I hear about people being mistreated all over the world, but I get especially pissed when I listen and watch people in the western world that have their head so far up their asses thinking their culture is superior while they do the exact same injustices on people that they feel so proud about denouncing yet truly do nothing about while parading around trying to censor everyone and everything by way of claiming that they're offended and their a victim. They shout out that Islam so brutal and violent while in their own works and in popular media they glorify those self same actions.

I'm sure you or someone is going to take offense to something in this. I don't care. It's the truth of the situation and it'll only get worse as time goes on because what I just posted is soon to be illegal in some nations and the fact that I offended someone is already illegal in some places. And it all stems from the same messed up source and groups that are pushing for it all over the world.

#60 Edited by FadeToBlackBolt (23390 posts) - - Show Bio

The man gets zero rights with the abortion process, which is how it should be.

The grey area really lies in what happens if a man is raped and his sperm stolen. No jury would ever convict a pregnant woman to prison time, so effectively that crime goes without punishment, which is wrong. However, no child should suffer for the sins of their parents, so then paying child support should be a requirement, even though the idea of giving money to a rapist makes me want to puke.

The major issue that I have more than any other is that men have virtually zero rights in terms of custody. You can be raped, you can pay for the child for their entire lives, you can give money to a junkie or some other such thing, but you still might only get to see your kid once a month. Disgraceful.

But all in all, the abortion aspect is entirely the mother's decision and that's how it should be, except I believe a father (when possible) should always be told if they are aware of the child's existence.

#61 Posted by Durakken (1930 posts) - - Show Bio

@batpala said:

@mrdecepticonleader: My father did; he just refused to see me completely at the behest of his wife, so. Generally the men do have a right to see the child unless there is something legal barring the way [for example abuse, the male being violent, ect, court orders at not being allowed to see the child], but they just choose not to.

It should be noted that a lot of the legal barring are almost always lies. Not always but almost always. It's an easy way to win those cases. And while the law does say that the father is supposed to have the right, mothers will often deny those rights. Legally she should be put in jail or fined, but her being in jail is considered not the best interest of the children (not like father could take them v.v) and the fine is also considered such and also kinda dumb because then the money given to the child is given to the courts.

The courts are set up in terms of parental rights during a divorce so that it "appears" equal, but fuzzy terminology has and culture kicks it towards being in favor of women and the father is screwed either way. You see if the father works all day he's not the primary care giver and so it's in the best interest of the children to be with their mother... And if the father is a stay at home dad, well he's not the provider and since the house goes to the wife or it's split and there is alimony well he couldn't take care of the children...so again... the children go to the Mother.

There is also quite a bit of men not knowing they are fathers and men being told flat out that they aren't valuable to be in their children's life. And after being told that so often from every corner of the world that men are just another burden for women, a lot of of men have acquiesced.

So no, it's not men just "choosing" not to see their children and in the cases that it is it is a lot deeper usually... like for example, the guy didn't want a child and the woman did and went ahead, purposely got pregnant, and had the child anyways. There's is also this vile hatred that women seem to have against their ex's a lot of times so yeah... there's not wanting to put up with that too.

#62 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (19246 posts) - - Show Bio

The man gets zero rights with the abortion process, which is how it should be.

The grey area really lies in what happens if a man is raped and his sperm stolen. No jury would ever convict a pregnant woman to prison time, so effectively that crime goes without punishment, which is wrong. However, no child should suffer for the sins of their parents, so then paying child support should be a requirement, even though the idea of giving money to a rapist makes me want to puke.

The major issue that I have more than any other is that men have virtually zero rights in terms of custody. You can be raped, you can pay for the child for their entire lives, you can give money to a junkie or some other such thing, but you still might only get to see your kid once a month. Disgraceful.

But all in all, the abortion aspect is entirely the mother's decision and that's how it should be, except I believe a father (when possible) should always be told if they are aware of the child's existence.

Since you are addressing it here I am gonna clear that up before I start getting flak for it. I agree that it should be a woman's decision to have an abortion (I was just posing the question really). I agree as well that the man should know.

I agree that is just plain disgraceful in regards to equal custody. I think there are alot of issues that need sorting out/redefining in this area.

#63 Posted by Durakken (1930 posts) - - Show Bio

Oh btw..I misread 3... Men can't be raped silly... At least not in the US in a way that will cause pregnancy...

#64 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (19246 posts) - - Show Bio

@durakken said:

Oh btw..I misread 3... Men can't be raped silly... At least not in the US in a way that will cause pregnancy...

Men can't get pregnant but can be raped.

#65 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23390 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@durakken said:

Oh btw..I misread 3... Men can't be raped silly... At least not in the US in a way that will cause pregnancy...

Men can't get pregnant but can be raped.

He's being facetious :P Saying that the law and society just looks the other way when men are raped.

#66 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (19246 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@durakken said:

Oh btw..I misread 3... Men can't be raped silly... At least not in the US in a way that will cause pregnancy...

Men can't get pregnant but can be raped.

He's being facetious :P Saying that the law and society just looks the other way when men are raped.

Oh right. Silly me :p

#67 Posted by OptimusPalm (1871 posts) - - Show Bio

I realize that trans women can get people pregnant, and trans men can get pregnant, so I guess it was titled like that to be inclusive.

I guess that, while people have rights to their own bodies, I feel like people should have at least some rights to their lineages, even if they cannot carry a baby

1) How much say should the sperm-giver have in deciding whether or not to keep it?

2) Should said sperm-giver have to pay support for a child s/he did not want to be born?

3) Should a sperm giver have more say in the pregnancy if s/he was raped/deceived?

I guess are my initial questions

1, He should have no say, but the lady should be prepared to listen to his views. Its ultimately the woman's choice.

2, Yes

3, If i understand the question correctly, NO.

#68 Posted by JetiiMitra (9205 posts) - - Show Bio

@durakken said:

@mitran said:

@Durakken: Good job putting words into people's mouths.

You're naming adoption and abandonment as birth and pregnancy prevention. I'm fairly certain your trolling, considering common sense. I'm going to address your other points anyway.

If a man has sex with a woman, it is absolutely his fault it's she gets pregnant. There is always the chance of pregnancy. And besides, if he's trusting her rather than checking for himself, then he's being dumb. Period. It's his fault, knowing a woman could be lying and trusting her. And you're suggesting the woman wants to get pregnant maliciously. How the hell does that even make sense?

The third part is part of responsibility. You want to engage in an act meant for reproduction? Don't be surprised if you reproduce. Duh. Take care of that kid you made.

Your last point doesn't mean anything and your last couple of sentences are flat out wrong.

You're also neglecting the needs of the child. Even if the mother came up with some plan to maliciously get pregnant and have to deal with a child, that's not the kid's fault. You're honestly saying that a kid should have to grow up without a stable father figure, just because of... what? Some misplaced sense of male rights? That's completely immoral. That attitude is selfish and immature, and unfair to that kid.

I'm done. For now, at least. If you post something really dumb, I might come back tomorrow.

I Adoption and abandonment has to do with the actual issue. The ability to Relinquish responsibility which a woman has at any time for any reason without threat.

Women get pregnant for all sorts of reasons, hormones, to "save" a relationship, a pay check, are all things that are done, but not only that women also cheat and lie about who the father is.

Again. Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood. A male's ability to consent does not exist in what you are saying. As I said, if you think that sex is consent for parenthood then adoption, abortion, birth control, and abandonment should all be illegal. They aren't and you wouldn't think of doing such so you're hypocritical and sexist.

It means a lot that 1 in 10 children think the wrong person is their father, especially with what you are advocating, which is 18 years of enslavement, if not more due to the ability to sue for back child support. Forcing someone to work so that you can take their produce for your benefit is the definition of slavery. And that 1 in 10 number makes that just a bit more messed up.

You don't get to enslave someone for anyone else's benefit, whether they be child or woman or man. And you are beyond clueless if you think that forcing a man to pay child support is creating a "stable" father figure. You don't get stable relationships based on lies, resentment, threats, aggression, and so many other trespasses and that's assuming best case scenario. In the worst case scenario it's a full rejection of any rights that this father has to the child while still forcing him to take responsibility for something that he has no control over.

You have a mistaken urge to say that a man has responsibility because for thousands of years we had no birth control and children were in the care of their fathers as that is the actual agreement that marriage represents. Man protects and provides for women in exchange for woman providing children for the men and sex was a service the woman owed the man. With the dissolution of marriage via no fault divorce and "in the best interest of the child" turning into "in the best interest of the mother" and the collapse of mores and the invention of birth control Men no longer have any of that responsibility because the no longer have any of the control over reproduction or the offspring and sex is not risking becoming a mother for a woman. a woman can ONLY give birth and become a mother in the modern world if she so desires. The same, cannot be said of a man.

And instead of calling me a troll, because I don't buy into crap that has no basis in reality, well then that is just you trying to justify your willful ignorance and prejudice without taking to heart or thinking about what is being said.

Depending on the culture or beliefs of the woman, or her own personal issues, she may not be able to get an abortion. I didn't touch adoption except to ridicule it as a method of birth prevention - something you stated.

Fair enough. But investigations are done to be sure the father is who the mother says.

Consent to sex runs the risk of parenthood. It's that simple. There is always the chance. The couple may not want that chance, but pretending it doesn't exist doesn't make it go away. I do believe abortion should be illegal. Besides, a male could get a vasectomy, if it means that much. Over 99% effective and the responsibility is solely on him. Being hypocritical and sexist would mean I don't think the man should be able to buy condoms and get a vasectomy. I don't agree with abortion. And you're not addressing my point that the man should always be absolutely sure the woman has taken precautions.

This is not enslavement, and honestly it's tiring that you keep coming back to that word. There's a huge difference between a person owning up to their mistakes and being forced to work unjustly (which is the type of slavery you're talking about). I wasn't talking so much about child support as being there for the child. I am of the firm opinion that if you help bring a kid into the world, the least you could do is care.

I'm not sure where you get this idea. Maybe culturally sex was a transaction, but biologically it exists for reproduction. Engaging in it, again, runs the risk of reproduction. There's really no pure 100% proven way to get around that. Other than not having sex. Like I said previously, a woman may not be able to get rid of the baby for culture, belief, or personal issues. That's neither of the parents fault, but all their fault the kid exists in the first place. So it's only reasonable to expect both of them to have to contribute to raising the child.

As for your last "point," get over yourself. You have been demonizing women and vilifying responsibility, while I have been arguing from the perspective that the couple is sensible but got unlucky. And you're calling me willfully ignorant and prejudiced?

#69 Posted by Durakken (1930 posts) - - Show Bio

@mitran: When you are discussing law and how things run you discuss from a position of if you were in any position in that system would you find it "fair". Trying to argue from a couple existing is a wrong place to start. And no I'm not demonizing responsibility. I am placing it where it belongs. On the person who ultimately makes the choice in the matter and that is the woman.

It is very easy to understand

Woman has child: Can give up responsibility for child at any time for any reason, in multiple ways.

Man has child: Can't give up responsibility for child for any reason, even if child is provably not his and/or didn't want child.

If you don't see the problem with that you have a serious problem.

#70 Posted by Betatesthighlander1 (7721 posts) - - Show Bio

@mitran said:

@durakken said:

@aiden_cross said:

2) yes. If you don't want a child you should've abstained from sex or used protection. If the child is there you man up and take care of the child to the best of your ability.

That is a bullshit way of thinking about this. If that's how you feel then you should be against abortion. "Sorry honey, you had sex, so it's your problem now." There is no "manning up" because "manning up" means to take responsibility. The life of a child is in no way a man's responsibility. This is even more the case when you consider they have no choice in the matter and no, sex does not equate to "Yes I want kids". It means "Yes I want sex". Just because a guy is foolish enough to trust a woman about her time of them month or her being on the pill or that the condom isn't messed with if she gave it to him or that she take the morning after pill or get an abortion... That doesn't make it right to enslave someone for 18 years. That's what it is. Slavery. You have no choice in the matter, the product of your work is forcefully taken from you, and if you do not produce you are thrown in jail, debtors prison to be exact which was abolished 100+ years ago because it was pointed out that it was slavery, but it still is acceptable for this.

Sex is not a choice to be a parent

If women can have abortions and abandon children and men can't complain then they certainly do not owe anyone anything. It's not their choice. it is not their responsibility. And if you think you can have responsibility without the choice in a matter well then we should just start randomly allowing crimes and putting punishment on any person we so choose. That wouldn't be moral or just and it isn't when you suggest it in this situation either.

"I just wanted to play in the rain, I didn't want to get wet!"

You realize that applies to both parties, yes?

#71 Posted by JetiiMitra (9205 posts) - - Show Bio

@mitran said:

@durakken said:

@aiden_cross said:

2) yes. If you don't want a child you should've abstained from sex or used protection. If the child is there you man up and take care of the child to the best of your ability.

That is a bullshit way of thinking about this. If that's how you feel then you should be against abortion. "Sorry honey, you had sex, so it's your problem now." There is no "manning up" because "manning up" means to take responsibility. The life of a child is in no way a man's responsibility. This is even more the case when you consider they have no choice in the matter and no, sex does not equate to "Yes I want kids". It means "Yes I want sex". Just because a guy is foolish enough to trust a woman about her time of them month or her being on the pill or that the condom isn't messed with if she gave it to him or that she take the morning after pill or get an abortion... That doesn't make it right to enslave someone for 18 years. That's what it is. Slavery. You have no choice in the matter, the product of your work is forcefully taken from you, and if you do not produce you are thrown in jail, debtors prison to be exact which was abolished 100+ years ago because it was pointed out that it was slavery, but it still is acceptable for this.

Sex is not a choice to be a parent

If women can have abortions and abandon children and men can't complain then they certainly do not owe anyone anything. It's not their choice. it is not their responsibility. And if you think you can have responsibility without the choice in a matter well then we should just start randomly allowing crimes and putting punishment on any person we so choose. That wouldn't be moral or just and it isn't when you suggest it in this situation either.

"I just wanted to play in the rain, I didn't want to get wet!"

You realize that applies to both parties, yes?

Of course I do. I'm not the one arguing only one party should pay for an unlucky mistake.

#72 Posted by Betatesthighlander1 (7721 posts) - - Show Bio

@mitran said:

@betatesthighlander1 said:

@mitran said:

@durakken said:

@aiden_cross said:

2) yes. If you don't want a child you should've abstained from sex or used protection. If the child is there you man up and take care of the child to the best of your ability.

That is a bullshit way of thinking about this. If that's how you feel then you should be against abortion. "Sorry honey, you had sex, so it's your problem now." There is no "manning up" because "manning up" means to take responsibility. The life of a child is in no way a man's responsibility. This is even more the case when you consider they have no choice in the matter and no, sex does not equate to "Yes I want kids". It means "Yes I want sex". Just because a guy is foolish enough to trust a woman about her time of them month or her being on the pill or that the condom isn't messed with if she gave it to him or that she take the morning after pill or get an abortion... That doesn't make it right to enslave someone for 18 years. That's what it is. Slavery. You have no choice in the matter, the product of your work is forcefully taken from you, and if you do not produce you are thrown in jail, debtors prison to be exact which was abolished 100+ years ago because it was pointed out that it was slavery, but it still is acceptable for this.

Sex is not a choice to be a parent

If women can have abortions and abandon children and men can't complain then they certainly do not owe anyone anything. It's not their choice. it is not their responsibility. And if you think you can have responsibility without the choice in a matter well then we should just start randomly allowing crimes and putting punishment on any person we so choose. That wouldn't be moral or just and it isn't when you suggest it in this situation either.

"I just wanted to play in the rain, I didn't want to get wet!"

You realize that applies to both parties, yes?

Of course I do. I'm not the one arguing only one party should pay for an unlucky mistake.

True enough I guess

#73 Posted by JetiiMitra (9205 posts) - - Show Bio

@durakken said:

@mitran: When you are discussing law and how things run you discuss from a position of if you were in any position in that system would you find it "fair". Trying to argue from a couple existing is a wrong place to start. And no I'm not demonizing responsibility. I am placing it where it belongs. On the person who ultimately makes the choice in the matter and that is the woman.

It is very easy to understand

Woman has child: Can give up responsibility for child at any time for any reason, in multiple ways.

Man has child: Can't give up responsibility for child for any reason, even if child is provably not his and/or didn't want child.

If you don't see the problem with that you have a serious problem.

Okay, last one and done.

This is about morality. Based on opinion. When an opinion doesn't make sense, there is no reason to understand it.

A woman may not be able to give up the child for any number of reasons.

If you'll look all the way up to my first post on this thread, you'll see that I said they should have equal say in whether to not to keep a baby.

That equal say has to take into account all problems. If neither wants the child but they can't give it up for some reason, then the woman should not be the only one to have to pay for it.

My only problem is you thinking that men have some entitlement to stick it wherever they want without consequence. And yes, I am a man.

#74 Posted by JetiiMitra (9205 posts) - - Show Bio

@durakken: Also, just as an aside, you never addressed the points about a vasectomy or the man making absolutely sure the woman has taken precautions. Those are purely his responsibilities if he really doesn't want a child.

#75 Posted by Durakken (1930 posts) - - Show Bio

@mitran said:

Okay, last one and done.

This is about morality. Based on opinion. When an opinion doesn't make sense, there is no reason to understand it.

A woman may not be able to give up the child for any number of reasons.

If you'll look all the way up to my first post on this thread, you'll see that I said they should have equal say in whether to not to keep a baby.

That equal say has to take into account all problems. If neither wants the child but they can't give it up for some reason, then the woman should not be the only one to have to pay for it.

My only problem is you thinking that men have some entitlement to stick it wherever they want without consequence. And yes, I am a man.

Mitran... I don't want to say you're an idiot... but what you are saying is quite so.

There is literally no situation where a woman can't give up all her responsibility for the child... and further some courts have even supported a woman regaining rights after abandoning the child. So the legal system has made it so a woman can take and reject responsibility at will. You are saying something completely stupid because the situation in which you are trying to argue about doesn't exist in any way, shape, or form, anywhere at any time, nor will it ever.

@mitran said:

@durakken: Also, just as an aside, you never addressed the points about a vasectomy or the man making absolutely sure the woman has taken precautions. Those are purely his responsibilities if he really doesn't want a child.

Because why would I respond to something absurd? Not wishing to have children at the moment doesn't mean not wanting to have children ever. Vasectomies are for the most permanent... yes they can be "reversed" but at high cost and it often doesn't work. They can also be failures in which case pregnancy when you think you're safe can still occur. OH and not to mention they are extremely unhealthy as 60 to 70% ends up with causing health issues because men are supposed to ejaculate about every 3 days at the minimum and if they don't old sperm can cause problems and Vasectomies makes it so you can't ejaculate but still produce sperm. So to ask a guy to get a Vasectomy is ignorant and malicious on many levels.

As to "making absolutely sure" a woman is taking precautions. Well, men figure that women are honest, intelligent, and responsible because it is beaten into us, and questioning that women are lying is often looked down upon so a lot of men just don't because, you know, respecting women as equals and expecting them to do the same. Of course a guy could force her to take the day after pill or any of the other stuff, but we look down on that to...Remember her choice?

As far as "sticking it anywhere without consequences"... There are no consequences in terms of children unless the woman is irresponsible with their birth control or decide to have the child. You are acting like there is no choice in this when there clearly is and it's the woman's to make... thus she takes the responsibility. Not someone who has no say in the choice.

#76 Edited by mrdecepticonleader (19246 posts) - - Show Bio

@mitran said:

@durakken: Also, just as an aside, you never addressed the points about a vasectomy or the man making absolutely sure the woman has taken precautions. Those are purely his responsibilities if he really doesn't want a child.

It should be up to both people who are having sex to make sure they take precautions. Its not difficult to understand.

A vasectomy is not just a simple means of contraception, its not temporary is it? Once a man has one they are never able to have a child. You viewing as a means of contraception in that regard is just naive.

#77 Posted by JetiiMitra (9205 posts) - - Show Bio

@mitran said:

@durakken: Also, just as an aside, you never addressed the points about a vasectomy or the man making absolutely sure the woman has taken precautions. Those are purely his responsibilities if he really doesn't want a child.

It should be up to both people who are having sex to make sure they take precautions. Its not difficult to understand.

A vasectomy is not just a simple means of contraception, its not temporary is it? Once a man has one they are never able to have a child. You viewing as a means of contraception in that regard is just naive.

I'm going to one extreme as Durakken goes to another. Of course it's the responsibility of both to use contraceptives; he's going off of some assumption that a woman wants to get pregnant with malicious intent. So I pointed out that if it's that huge a problem, men just shouldn't trust women and should make sure the woman takes birth control or some other such precaution. A vasectomy can be undone for like 10x the cost, but that wasn't really a serious point to begin with. I just brought it up as Durakken continued to ignore it. Like I said before, I am only arguing that women and men are on equal grounds when it comes to preventing a pregnancy.

@durakken said:

@mitran said:

Okay, last one and done.

This is about morality. Based on opinion. When an opinion doesn't make sense, there is no reason to understand it.

A woman may not be able to give up the child for any number of reasons.

If you'll look all the way up to my first post on this thread, you'll see that I said they should have equal say in whether to not to keep a baby.

That equal say has to take into account all problems. If neither wants the child but they can't give it up for some reason, then the woman should not be the only one to have to pay for it.

My only problem is you thinking that men have some entitlement to stick it wherever they want without consequence. And yes, I am a man.

Mitran... I don't want to say you're an idiot... but what you are saying is quite so.

There is literally no situation where a woman can't give up all her responsibility for the child... and further some courts have even supported a woman regaining rights after abandoning the child. So the legal system has made it so a woman can take and reject responsibility at will. You are saying something completely stupid because the situation in which you are trying to argue about doesn't exist in any way, shape, or form, anywhere at any time, nor will it ever.

@mitran said:

@durakken: Also, just as an aside, you never addressed the points about a vasectomy or the man making absolutely sure the woman has taken precautions. Those are purely his responsibilities if he really doesn't want a child.

Because why would I respond to something absurd? Not wishing to have children at the moment doesn't mean not wanting to have children ever. Vasectomies are for the most permanent... yes they can be "reversed" but at high cost and it often doesn't work. They can also be failures in which case pregnancy when you think you're safe can still occur. OH and not to mention they are extremely unhealthy as 60 to 70% ends up with causing health issues because men are supposed to ejaculate about every 3 days at the minimum and if they don't old sperm can cause problems and Vasectomies makes it so you can't ejaculate but still produce sperm. So to ask a guy to get a Vasectomy is ignorant and malicious on many levels.

As to "making absolutely sure" a woman is taking precautions. Well, men figure that women are honest, intelligent, and responsible because it is beaten into us, and questioning that women are lying is often looked down upon so a lot of men just don't because, you know, respecting women as equals and expecting them to do the same. Of course a guy could force her to take the day after pill or any of the other stuff, but we look down on that to...Remember her choice?

As far as "sticking it anywhere without consequences"... There are no consequences in terms of children unless the woman is irresponsible with their birth control or decide to have the child. You are acting like there is no choice in this when there clearly is and it's the woman's to make... thus she takes the responsibility. Not someone who has no say in the choice.

Religious, cultural, or personal beliefs would all prevent a woman from giving up responsibilities to a child. All of which I have mentioned before. And you are ignoring the rest of my post, just like you've been doing for a while now. So please, refrain from insults until you know what you are talking about.

A vasectomy wasn't a serious point, but I brought it up as you continued to ignore it. You can literally google "male contraceptives" and find a mess of easier, temporary contraceptives that are up to the male to take. Which is in direct contradiction to your argument that the woman should take all responsibility for getting pregnant. A vasectomy was the simplest example to use because it was the most extreme measure of prevention I could think of for the male to undergo.

If a man isn't sure that a woman isn't taking contraceptives, and doesn't want a child, then the sensible thing to do would be to not have sex. Or take male contraceptives and use a condom. It's that easy.

Blaming the woman alone is wrong when she can't get pregnant without a partner. I don't see how this is difficult for you to understand. And I'll say it again, I believe both should have equal say in whether or not to keep a child.

I'm just about done here. I've said all I believe I can say regarding this topic, and it looks like you aren't going to even give thought to my point of view. I'm just going to ask that you discontinue the insults and remember that your opinion is no more valid than mine. Because it's just opinion.

#78 Edited by Durakken (1930 posts) - - Show Bio
@mitran said:

Religious, cultural, or personal beliefs would all prevent a woman from giving up responsibilities to a child. All of which I have mentioned before. And you are ignoring the rest of my post, just like you've been doing for a while now.

And in the real world all of that is irrelevant when determining the law.

You have the choice. You have the responsibility. Period.

Whether you believe in a religion or not it still is YOUR CHOICE.

We're talking law and reality. Not fantasy and delusions that people use to validate their wrong doings.

#79 Posted by Betatesthighlander1 (7721 posts) - - Show Bio

@mitran: But having a functional uterus does not mean someone is being honest

are you suggesting that anyone with a sperm-count should always be ultra-suspicious of their partners so they can be absolutely sure at all times?

#80 Posted by JetiiMitra (9205 posts) - - Show Bio

@durakken said:
@mitran said:

Religious, cultural, or personal beliefs would all prevent a woman from giving up responsibilities to a child. All of which I have mentioned before. And you are ignoring the rest of my post, just like you've been doing for a while now.

And in the real world all of that is irrelevant when determining the law.

You have the choice. You have the responsibility. Period.

Whether you believe in a religion or not it still is YOUR CHOICE.

We're talking law and reality. Not fantasy and delusions that people use to validate their wrong doings.

Law is determined by religious and cultural beliefs, and if a person is loud and influential enough, personal beliefs as well. As for the rest, it's clear we aren't going to agree. I'm done. I would appreciate if you didn't act like your opinion was the only one that mattered.

#81 Edited by JetiiMitra (9205 posts) - - Show Bio

@mitran: But having a functional uterus does not mean someone is being honest

are you suggesting that anyone with a sperm-count should always be ultra-suspicious of their partners so they can be absolutely sure at all times?

I'm not sure where you think I argued the first sentence. I don't think I so much as mentioned it, but it's true I guess. As or the second sentence, I think if a man is in the situation Durakken suggests then that is a plausible course of action.

#82 Posted by Betatesthighlander1 (7721 posts) - - Show Bio

@mitran said:

@betatesthighlander1 said:

@mitran: But having a functional uterus does not mean someone is being honest

are you suggesting that anyone with a sperm-count should always be ultra-suspicious of their partners so they can be absolutely sure at all times?

I'm not sure where you think I argued the first sentence. I don't think I so much as mentioned it, but it's true I guess. As or the second sentence, I think if a man is in the situation Durakken suggests then that is a plausible course of action.

the situation is any sex with a fertile woman?

Or just with a woman capable of lying?

#83 Edited by JetiiMitra (9205 posts) - - Show Bio

@betatesthighlander1 said:

@mitran said:

@betatesthighlander1 said:

@mitran: But having a functional uterus does not mean someone is being honest

are you suggesting that anyone with a sperm-count should always be ultra-suspicious of their partners so they can be absolutely sure at all times?

I'm not sure where you think I argued the first sentence. I don't think I so much as mentioned it, but it's true I guess. As or the second sentence, I think if a man is in the situation Durakken suggests then that is a plausible course of action.

the situation is any sex with a fertile woman?

Or just with a woman capable of lying?

Loaded question is loaded. The one where a woman can't be trusted not to want to get pregnant, and male contraceptives apparently don't exist.

#84 Posted by Durakken (1930 posts) - - Show Bio

@mitran said:

Law is determined by religious and cultural beliefs, and if a person is loud and influential enough, personal beliefs as well. As for the rest, it's clear we aren't going to agree. I'm done. I would appreciate if you didn't act like your opinion was the only one that mattered.

Law is not determined by religious or cultural beliefs. That's the whole point of the 1st amendment. You have to make a secular argument for why something should be a law for it to be a law. Those "laws" that are on the books that breech this aren't technically laws. There are tons of laws like this that get passed and then are found unconstitutional, but aren't removed from the books because that takes money and since they aren't legally enforceable, ie. not laws, there is no point other than to make it so people who understand laws don't have to deal with people who don't and like to claim nutty things.

#85 Edited by JetiiMitra (9205 posts) - - Show Bio

@durakken said:

@mitran said:

Law is determined by religious and cultural beliefs, and if a person is loud and influential enough, personal beliefs as well. As for the rest, it's clear we aren't going to agree. I'm done. I would appreciate if you didn't act like your opinion was the only one that mattered.

Law is not determined by religious or cultural beliefs. That's the whole point of the 1st amendment. You have to make a secular argument for why something should be a law for it to be a law. Those "laws" that are on the books that breech this aren't technically laws. There are tons of laws like this that get passed and then are found unconstitutional, but aren't removed from the books because that takes money and since they aren't legally enforceable, ie. not laws, there is no point other than to make it so people who understand laws don't have to deal with people who don't and like to claim nutty things.

A democracy is a system of government in which whatever's popular can become law because all it really takes is a majority vote. What is constitutional or unconstitutional is determined by culture (which is influenced by religion in some but not all aspects). That's why the second amendment is under fire; at one point it was deemed acceptable and necessary by a majority and now it's believed more danger than it's worth by a sizeable percent of the population. That's also why abortion is becoming legal in more areas and official stances on same-sex marriages are being reconsidered. To deny that political and social factors are linked is ignorant, plain and simple. I have no interest in continuing this conversation.

#86 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (19246 posts) - - Show Bio

@mitran said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@mitran said:

@durakken: Also, just as an aside, you never addressed the points about a vasectomy or the man making absolutely sure the woman has taken precautions. Those are purely his responsibilities if he really doesn't want a child.

It should be up to both people who are having sex to make sure they take precautions. Its not difficult to understand.

A vasectomy is not just a simple means of contraception, its not temporary is it? Once a man has one they are never able to have a child. You viewing as a means of contraception in that regard is just naive.

I'm going to one extreme as Durakken goes to another. Of course it's the responsibility of both to use contraceptives; he's going off of some assumption that a woman wants to get pregnant with malicious intent. So I pointed out that if it's that huge a problem, men just shouldn't trust women and should make sure the woman takes birth control or some other such precaution. A vasectomy can be undone for like 10x the cost, but that wasn't really a serious point to begin with. I just brought it up as Durakken continued to ignore it. Like I said before, I am only arguing that women and men are on equal grounds when it comes to preventing a pregnancy.

Hardly. It seems to me Durak is saying that a women has rights over her own body that since it is her choice to have a child then it is fair that she must be prepared to take responsibility. If the woman has a choice of being a mother then so should the man to be a farther. I mean we are talking about when a women gets pregnant by accident, when it was unintentional when the man was not wanting to become a farther. Doesn't seem malicious from where I am standing. Just something that happens. Men are treated unfairly and unjustly when it comes to issues like this.

#87 Posted by Durakken (1930 posts) - - Show Bio

@mitran said:

A democracy is a system of government in which whatever's popular can become law because all it really takes is a majority vote.

The US is not a democracy. It is a Socialist Democratic Republic. The rest also isn't "majority rule" and as a matter of fact there are very much safe guards against majority rule in place. Of course social factors are linked, but they are not determined. There is a differences.

#88 Posted by JetiiMitra (9205 posts) - - Show Bio

@mitran said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@mitran said:

@durakken: Also, just as an aside, you never addressed the points about a vasectomy or the man making absolutely sure the woman has taken precautions. Those are purely his responsibilities if he really doesn't want a child.

It should be up to both people who are having sex to make sure they take precautions. Its not difficult to understand.

A vasectomy is not just a simple means of contraception, its not temporary is it? Once a man has one they are never able to have a child. You viewing as a means of contraception in that regard is just naive.

I'm going to one extreme as Durakken goes to another. Of course it's the responsibility of both to use contraceptives; he's going off of some assumption that a woman wants to get pregnant with malicious intent. So I pointed out that if it's that huge a problem, men just shouldn't trust women and should make sure the woman takes birth control or some other such precaution. A vasectomy can be undone for like 10x the cost, but that wasn't really a serious point to begin with. I just brought it up as Durakken continued to ignore it. Like I said before, I am only arguing that women and men are on equal grounds when it comes to preventing a pregnancy.

Hardly. It seems to me Durak is saying that a women has rights over her own body that since it is her choice to have a child then it is fair that she must be prepared to take responsibility. If the woman has a choice of being a mother then so should the man to be a farther. I mean we are talking about when a women gets pregnant by accident, when it was unintentional when the man was not wanting to become a farther. Doesn't seem malicious from where I am standing. Just something that happens. Men are treated unfairly and unjustly when it comes to issues like this.

To quote him directly, when I asked how a sort of malicious pregnancy made sense, the answer was

Women get pregnant for all sorts of reasons, hormones, to "save" a relationship, a pay check, are all things that are done, but not only that women also cheat and lie about who the father is.

This is a direct quote from Durakken. So I'm fairly certain that's what he meant. And as for the rest, for the umpteenth time, I believe men and women should have equal say in how an unwanted pregnancy should be handled. They simply have to take in every factor that goes in to that decision.

#89 Edited by JetiiMitra (9205 posts) - - Show Bio

@durakken said:

@mitran said:

A democracy is a system of government in which whatever's popular can become law because all it really takes is a majority vote.

The US is not a democracy. It is a Socialist Democratic Republic. The rest also isn't "majority rule" and as a matter of fact there are very much safe guards against majority rule in place. Of course social factors are linked, but they are not determined. There is a differences.

You read the only part that you wanted to. The rest already proved this wrong. I said I have no interest in continuing the conversation.

#90 Edited by M3th (2106 posts) - - Show Bio

Fathers get no love and I blame the dead beat dads. Because of the Dead Beat Dads that exist, society does not appreciate, love, and respect fathers.

Can the man decide on the abortion or can it be 50/50? No? If the man wants a abortion and is willing to pay instead of child support is that taken into consideration? No.

If the man doesn't want a abortion and he is willing to be a father, raise his possible child, does it matter? No!

A woman gets to decide everything. A woman has drunk sex with a stranger, that's rape. A man has drunk sex with a stranger, who cares.

The idea of a woman wanting to get pregnant so she can be supported by a man is ridiculous. And it never happens. Right?

Women take the kids, hold a grudge, raise the kids with the idea that their father is a terrible human being. Whether it's true or not.

It may or may not be sad but it is true. It is a bit of a double standard but I am a honest sexist. I think double standards should exist. Because at the end of the day men and women are not equal. A man can never give birth. A woman cannot create life by herself.

I think J.Cole said it the best. He made a song about this issue and I truly believe what he said is true.

A man should have a input if the woman chooses. A woman has the last word 51%. A man should man up and raise the child he created. Yes it is a double standard but that's how it is. Women deal with their own double standard because again women and men are not created equal.

I have seen this issue so many times, I find it crazy. The reality of the situation. What I think is worse is society. The idea about sex. How you should have sex as soon as possible. How if you don't have sex then you're weird and made fun of.

The idea of appreciating a woman solely for her physical attributes. The idea that a woman is only beautiful if she meets the normal standard of a woman's physique. The idea of marriage is basically a tax break.

The general public is not waiting for marriage at all. The idea of "I been with her/him long enough so we don't use a condom." But then are surprised, scared that she got pregnant.

I'm just a grown ass kid living in a mad world. All I know is what I know and that The Smartest man in the world knows, He doesn't know $#!%.

[×]√

#91 Edited by mrdecepticonleader (19246 posts) - - Show Bio

@mitran said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@mitran said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@mitran said:

@durakken: Also, just as an aside, you never addressed the points about a vasectomy or the man making absolutely sure the woman has taken precautions. Those are purely his responsibilities if he really doesn't want a child.

It should be up to both people who are having sex to make sure they take precautions. Its not difficult to understand.

A vasectomy is not just a simple means of contraception, its not temporary is it? Once a man has one they are never able to have a child. You viewing as a means of contraception in that regard is just naive.

I'm going to one extreme as Durakken goes to another. Of course it's the responsibility of both to use contraceptives; he's going off of some assumption that a woman wants to get pregnant with malicious intent. So I pointed out that if it's that huge a problem, men just shouldn't trust women and should make sure the woman takes birth control or some other such precaution. A vasectomy can be undone for like 10x the cost, but that wasn't really a serious point to begin with. I just brought it up as Durakken continued to ignore it. Like I said before, I am only arguing that women and men are on equal grounds when it comes to preventing a pregnancy.

Hardly. It seems to me Durak is saying that a women has rights over her own body that since it is her choice to have a child then it is fair that she must be prepared to take responsibility. If the woman has a choice of being a mother then so should the man to be a farther. I mean we are talking about when a women gets pregnant by accident, when it was unintentional when the man was not wanting to become a farther. Doesn't seem malicious from where I am standing. Just something that happens. Men are treated unfairly and unjustly when it comes to issues like this.

To quote him directly, when I asked how a sort of malicious pregnancy made sense, the answer was

Women get pregnant for all sorts of reasons, hormones, to "save" a relationship, a pay check, are all things that are done, but not only that women also cheat and lie about who the father is.

This is a direct quote from Durakken. So I'm fairly certain that's what he meant. And as for the rest, for the umpteenth time, I believe men and women should have equal say in how an unwanted pregnancy should be handled. They simply have to take in every factor that goes in to that decision.

I wasn't even talking about malicious pregnancy or whatever. It should not be the man's responsibility to make sure a woman takes contraception at the end of the day that is her choice. I explained above why such situations usually aren't malicious. And women do of course cheat and lie about who the farther maybe for her own gain, which is malicious, that is not so hard to believe is it?

As I have said I say it is up to the woman what she does with her body in regards to having a baby and becoming a mother and I think the farther should have the same right. That simple. A farther should not be forced to pay for a child they never intended having and that the mother independently chose to have.

#92 Posted by The_Good_Loser (236 posts) - - Show Bio

I just took a deep thought and came up with my solution.

Talk about it beforehand, if you don't want an abortion as a "spermgiver" (Y eat yer heart out), then don't commit to the act with that person.

#93 Edited by Durakken (1930 posts) - - Show Bio

@mitran said:

To quote him directly, when I asked how a sort of malicious pregnancy made sense, the answer was

Women get pregnant for all sorts of reasons, hormones, to "save" a relationship, a pay check, are all things that are done, but not only that women also cheat and lie about who the father is.

This is a direct quote from Durakken. So I'm fairly certain that's what he meant. And as for the rest, for the umpteenth time, I believe men and women should have equal say in how an unwanted pregnancy should be handled. They simply have to take in every factor that goes in to that decision.

Women get pregnant maliciously all the time. If I remember right it is a fairly high statistic, but I can't name it off the top of my head nor do I care to look it up right now, but even that it is done is enough to show that it is unreasonable to hold a biological father responsible.

Again whether you "believe" it should be handled a certain way or not, the reality is that it is not due to all those things that I have mentioned multiple times. With all those things labeling as unwanted is idiotic. If a child is unwanted it is only unwanted by the father, because the mother always has the option to not have it. When a child is unwanted by the mother it "was" wanted and then the mother decided to abandon the child.

#94 Edited by JetiiMitra (9205 posts) - - Show Bio

@durakken said:

@mitran said:

To quote him directly, when I asked how a sort of malicious pregnancy made sense, the answer was

Women get pregnant for all sorts of reasons, hormones, to "save" a relationship, a pay check, are all things that are done, but not only that women also cheat and lie about who the father is.

This is a direct quote from Durakken. So I'm fairly certain that's what he meant. And as for the rest, for the umpteenth time, I believe men and women should have equal say in how an unwanted pregnancy should be handled. They simply have to take in every factor that goes in to that decision.

Women get pregnant maliciously all the time. If I remember right it is a fairly high statistic, but I can't name it off the top of my head nor do I care to look it up right now, but even that it is done is enough to show that it is unreasonable to hold a biological father responsible.

Again whether you "believe" it should be handled a certain way or not, the reality is that it is not due to all those things that I have mentioned multiple times. With all those things labeling as unwanted is idiotic. If a child is unwanted it is only unwanted by the father, because the mother always has the option to not have it. When a child is unwanted by the mother it "was" wanted and then the mother decided to abandon the child.

Since it wasn't clear before, I don't care what you have to say anymore regarding this topic.

@mitran said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@mitran said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@mitran said:

@durakken: Also, just as an aside, you never addressed the points about a vasectomy or the man making absolutely sure the woman has taken precautions. Those are purely his responsibilities if he really doesn't want a child.

It should be up to both people who are having sex to make sure they take precautions. Its not difficult to understand.

A vasectomy is not just a simple means of contraception, its not temporary is it? Once a man has one they are never able to have a child. You viewing as a means of contraception in that regard is just naive.

I'm going to one extreme as Durakken goes to another. Of course it's the responsibility of both to use contraceptives; he's going off of some assumption that a woman wants to get pregnant with malicious intent. So I pointed out that if it's that huge a problem, men just shouldn't trust women and should make sure the woman takes birth control or some other such precaution. A vasectomy can be undone for like 10x the cost, but that wasn't really a serious point to begin with. I just brought it up as Durakken continued to ignore it. Like I said before, I am only arguing that women and men are on equal grounds when it comes to preventing a pregnancy.

Hardly. It seems to me Durak is saying that a women has rights over her own body that since it is her choice to have a child then it is fair that she must be prepared to take responsibility. If the woman has a choice of being a mother then so should the man to be a farther. I mean we are talking about when a women gets pregnant by accident, when it was unintentional when the man was not wanting to become a farther. Doesn't seem malicious from where I am standing. Just something that happens. Men are treated unfairly and unjustly when it comes to issues like this.

To quote him directly, when I asked how a sort of malicious pregnancy made sense, the answer was

Women get pregnant for all sorts of reasons, hormones, to "save" a relationship, a pay check, are all things that are done, but not only that women also cheat and lie about who the father is.

This is a direct quote from Durakken. So I'm fairly certain that's what he meant. And as for the rest, for the umpteenth time, I believe men and women should have equal say in how an unwanted pregnancy should be handled. They simply have to take in every factor that goes in to that decision.

I wasn't even talking about malicious pregnancy or whatever. It should not be the man's responsibility to make sure a woman takes contraception at the end of the day that is her choice. I explained above why such situations usually aren't malicious. And women do of course cheat and lie about who the farther maybe for her own gain, which is malicious, that is not so hard to believe is it?

As I have said I say it is up to the woman what she does with her body in regards to having a baby and becoming a mother and I think the farther should have the same right. That simple. A farther should not be forced to pay for a child they never intended having and that the mother independently chose to have.

I agree that a man should not have to make sure a woman takes contraception. If he doesn't, though, and doesn't want to get her pregnant, then there a number of things he can do to prevent a pregnancy - condoms and male contraceptives at the top of the list. I know that a woman generally isn't out to get pregnant without telling the father; in Durakken's scenario she was, and I argued against his position in that context. After he explained why women can be malicious to be pregnant, I actually ceded the point. Please read through the thread, because you're just missing a lot of old stuff.

Why do you keep saying "farther" rather than "father?"

#95 Posted by MonsterStomp (23996 posts) - - Show Bio

1) How much say should the sperm-giver have in deciding whether or not to keep it?

If we're talking about sperm-donors, they shouldn't have any say. They signed the consent form and are voluntarily donating sperm. Imagine the woman being 2 months pregnant and he changes his mind. Sad.

2) Should said sperm-giver have to pay support for a child s/he did not want to be born?

No. She want's the child. That means she's ready. They don't have to be a real couple just because she wants something and he's willing to give.

3) Should a sperm giver have more say in the pregnancy if s/he was raped/deceived?

What?

#96 Edited by SpideyPresence (1912 posts) - - Show Bio

@durakken said:

1) None, currently.

2) No. Just like that baby is not entitled to your body for 9 months, that woman and baby is not entitled to the mans body for 18 years, which is what child support is. The unwillful transfer of wealth from a man to a child and/or mother.

3) No. Rapists have no say and equally have no rights as to the child.

There are easy laws to enact that would solve all these problems.

Paternity test should be mandatory

Once biological parenthood has been established they should have the right to take, give, or reject parental rights to the child.

The giving part might be a bit complex, but that's it.

If you have parental rights you are responsible for that child. If you do not then you have no rights and likewise aren't responsible for that child.

And to the person who said "yes if sex is consensual" Sex does not mean you want children and especially in the case of the male who only has the woman's word she's on birth control and a condom that can break or that could have been tampered with.

It really does come down to simply... Her body, HER choice, HER responsibility. Where as the laws as they are now are Her Body, HER choice, HIS responsibility and that is just wrong on so many levels.

I agree with everything you have said. Alot of double standards in this thread.

#98 Posted by Betatesthighlander1 (7721 posts) - - Show Bio

I just took a deep thought and came up with my solution.

Talk about it beforehand, if you don't want an abortion as a "spermgiver" (Y eat yer heart out), then don't commit to the act with that person.

well than I guess the entire concept of contraception is unnecessary, since people only ever get pregnant on purpose and never lie about contraception

also contraception is impossible to use improperly

#99 Edited by mrdecepticonleader (19246 posts) - - Show Bio

@mitran said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@mitran said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@mitran said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@mitran said:

@durakken: Also, just as an aside, you never addressed the points about a vasectomy or the man making absolutely sure the woman has taken precautions. Those are purely his responsibilities if he really doesn't want a child.

It should be up to both people who are having sex to make sure they take precautions. Its not difficult to understand.

A vasectomy is not just a simple means of contraception, its not temporary is it? Once a man has one they are never able to have a child. You viewing as a means of contraception in that regard is just naive.

I'm going to one extreme as Durakken goes to another. Of course it's the responsibility of both to use contraceptives; he's going off of some assumption that a woman wants to get pregnant with malicious intent. So I pointed out that if it's that huge a problem, men just shouldn't trust women and should make sure the woman takes birth control or some other such precaution. A vasectomy can be undone for like 10x the cost, but that wasn't really a serious point to begin with. I just brought it up as Durakken continued to ignore it. Like I said before, I am only arguing that women and men are on equal grounds when it comes to preventing a pregnancy.

Hardly. It seems to me Durak is saying that a women has rights over her own body that since it is her choice to have a child then it is fair that she must be prepared to take responsibility. If the woman has a choice of being a mother then so should the man to be a farther. I mean we are talking about when a women gets pregnant by accident, when it was unintentional when the man was not wanting to become a farther. Doesn't seem malicious from where I am standing. Just something that happens. Men are treated unfairly and unjustly when it comes to issues like this.

To quote him directly, when I asked how a sort of malicious pregnancy made sense, the answer was

Women get pregnant for all sorts of reasons, hormones, to "save" a relationship, a pay check, are all things that are done, but not only that women also cheat and lie about who the father is.

This is a direct quote from Durakken. So I'm fairly certain that's what he meant. And as for the rest, for the umpteenth time, I believe men and women should have equal say in how an unwanted pregnancy should be handled. They simply have to take in every factor that goes in to that decision.

I wasn't even talking about malicious pregnancy or whatever. It should not be the man's responsibility to make sure a woman takes contraception at the end of the day that is her choice. I explained above why such situations usually aren't malicious. And women do of course cheat and lie about who the farther maybe for her own gain, which is malicious, that is not so hard to believe is it?

As I have said I say it is up to the woman what she does with her body in regards to having a baby and becoming a mother and I think the farther should have the same right. That simple. A farther should not be forced to pay for a child they never intended having and that the mother independently chose to have.

I agree that a man should not have to make sure a woman takes contraception. If he doesn't, though, and doesn't want to get her pregnant, then there a number of things he can do to prevent a pregnancy - condoms and male contraceptives at the top of the list. I know that a woman generally isn't out to get pregnant without telling the father; in Durakken's scenario she was, and I argued against his position in that context. After he explained why women can be malicious to be pregnant, I actually ceded the point. Please read through the thread, because you're just missing a lot of old stuff.

Why do you keep saying "farther" rather than "father?"

I have read through the thread. I just decided to give my two pence at that moment. I have said my thoughts on the matter. As I have said it is both parties responsibility at the end of the day. Regarding malicious pregnancy well yeah people can and have done that. But I was talking in line with how men should be treated more fairly than they are in this regard.

A simple typo as all the screen I was using was not that big so it was hard to see. Nothing malicious or anything :)