Reproductive Rights for Men...

[TexKan]

Originally Posted by wordsmythe

And the woman pay child support for 18+ years for something they both did.

There are plenty of men that raise thier children and women that pay for it. That's not such a new idea - it happens.

[Tee]

I agree with you 100% wordy.

Keep in mind, if the child is born BOTH parties have already overlooked their shared responsibilities for using birth control so how dare anyone even bring up the condom point.

I feel for the men who want a child, yet the women's sole choice decides whether the child will live or die.

And in cases where the man does not want it and the women does.... Women seem to want it both ways...all the say at birth, then forced financial responsibility afterwards.

Sure a woman's life may be affected for the next 9 months, but a mans will change for at least 18-21 years.

From a mans perspective, it does not seem right at all.

I have this crazy notion (and I know I will get blasted for this) that a woman should be forced to deliver an unwanted child and give it to the childs father, instead of killing it, if the father wants to raise the child. I think that killing a kid just because the woman is uninterested or unable to raise it is a ludicris reason for ending a life. Then again, I am an oddball because of the way I value life. I don't mind though.

Ask a woman how she'd feel if the decision was the mans....she starts that "grow a uterus crap"....that's a cop out.

[Tee]

Originally Posted by TexKan

There are plenty of men that raise thier children and women that pay for it. That's not such a new idea - it happens.

Well I would hope so!


The point I think wordy is making is its the womens sole choice to deliver or halt the birth...either way. A mans sayhas no say in the matter, yet half the responsibility.

[TexKan]

If he was proactive rather than reactive he wouldn't be in the mess to begin with. Are you also saying that if a woman get preg of her own doing by a non proactive man that she should be forced to abort? I see your point but the battle of the sexes will never be won by either side.

I see and agree if a woman chooses to get preg by some idiot that isn't smart enough to protect himself then she shouldn't go after him. Altho most women who do this go to sperm banks anyhow. The independent woman looking to have a family without a man isn't going to want a man that could be an issue.

The child support often results from the guy who is so proud of himself for being a stud then ditches the responsibility after the child is born.

I don't think men should be trapped into being fathers there are too many men out there that would be happy to be fathers to children that aren't thiers. The men that feel trapped will never be fathers that a child could be proud of anyway. Who needs em?

On the other hand men need to take responsibility for thier ability to reproduce........... so yep condoms do come into the conversation. But don't worry I think and hope an alternative is just around the corner. I think men would be more than happy to eliminate thier sperm count if they were guarunteed that it wasn't a permanent thing. In the meantime there are ways they can be responsible sex partners and not worry bout little ones.

[Tee]

Originally Posted by TexKan

If he was proactive rather than reactive he wouldn't be in the mess to begin with.

That is so extremely sexist!!

You are shifting responsibility for birth control to the man.
You are blaming a man for a womans pregnancy.

If a woman gets pregnant, it's equally the man and the womans fault for not taking precations. Yet, the woman gets all the say in the decision of a child that the courts say is half the mans financial responsibility.

That's not right.






Let's say I get my girlfriend Jane, pregnant. Neither of us took precautions. I want a kid and Jane does not. Jane is pro-choice and I am pro-life. Jane decides she does not want to have the kid even though I want to have one. I have no other kids and I am willing to raise the child and release her of any financial or moral liability, still Jane wants to take the simple way out and kill the child rather than have it and hand it over to the father. Jane can do whatever the hell she wants to the detriment of the child and the father, for the benifit of herself.

Now...lets go the other way. Lets say I don't want a child because I don't make much money and fear the commitment of paying child support for 20 years. I don't want it and Jane decides to have it. I have no say. Jane has the baby and sticks me for 800-1000 dollars child support for the next two decades of my life. Jane had the baby even though I did not want it.

Jane has all the say.....
I have NO SAY in the matter.


If you say the man should have used a rubber one more time it will prove you are being sexist, denying that the woman has any responsibility to use birth control during the act.

[Flying Dutchman]

I'll throw some fuel in here also.........

A man and woman both consent to unprotected sex knowing the risk. Both accept the risk, both consent to having a child if that happens. Woman gets pregnant and changes her mind. Man has no recourse even though said child is half his. If the woman has the child and the man changes his mind, he still is responsible for the child. Stacked deck.

Most women it seems have the "tough shit" attitude. While I have my own opinion (which may surprise you) as to the answer, I wonder just truly what are some of the ladies answer is to this?

[lurker]

What's the name of the birds that have been known to kill storks?

[TigerEyes]

Originally Posted by lurker

What's the name of the birds that have been known to kill storks?

RU-486

[TigerEyes]

Originally Posted by Tee

Let's say I get my girlfriend Jane, pregnant. Neither of us took precautions. I want a kid and Jane does not. Jane is pro-choice and I am pro-life. Jane decides she does not want to have the kid even though I want to have one. I have no other kids and I am willing to raise the child and release her of any financial or moral liability, still Jane wants to take the simple way out and kill the child rather than have it and hand it over to the father. Jane can do whatever the hell she wants to the detriment of the child and the father, for the benifit of herself.

Then perhaps you should have used your bigger head when deciding whether or not to date Jane.

Originally Posted by Tee

Now...lets go the other way. Lets say I don't want a child because I don't make much money and fear the commitment of paying child support for 20 years. I don't want it and Jane decides to have it. I have no say. Jane has the baby and sticks me for 800-1000 dollars child support for the next two decades of my life. Jane had the baby even though I did not want it.

Then - sorry to say - shoulda put a rain jacket on Willy.

You're absolutely right - there are two parties responsible for a pregnancy. Both those parties could have elected to use birth control. It's not all about a woman and those little tiny pills.

Or, here's a shocker. Don't want to get pregnant? Don't have sex. That solves everything right there.

[lurker]

Originally Posted by TigerEyes

RU-486

Wrong......care to guess again?