Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Dont know if this question has been asked....
- Thread starter Werd
- Start date
Longhorn85
New member
Werd said:
Does he? No. Should he? IF THEY ARE MARRIED, I think that his consent should be required for an abortion. If this is not the case, then how can a woman ever demand child support from a man, ever, if he has no say in if the child is born or not?
Word.MAX 300 said:
Werd
New member
You mean to tell me that you all support a woman forcing a man to pay childsupport even though he flat out tells the woman that he WANTS NOTHING to do with the baby? But he does NOT have the right to tell that same woman carry and give me the child even though SHE WANTS NOTHING to do with the baby after it is born?
Where is the logic here?
Where is the logic here?
MAX 300
New member
Werd said:
Hold up a moment.
If a woman is pregnant only one person can ultimately decide whether or not she goes through with the pregnancy or not.
Who should make that decision? The pregnant woman, or the man who got her pregnant?
If you let the man decide then you are taking the woman's right to determine over her own future, whether or not she has a child, her own body away from her. That's unfathomable to me. Any woman must always retain the right to decide whether or not she is having a child.
If the man does not want the child then he should have been responsible enough to use appropriate contraception and not get the woman pregnant in the first place. He must also be held responsible for supporting the child, including supporting the child financially - regardless of whether he wanted the child or not.
Werd
New member
MAX 300 said:
Birth control fails all the time. How many of us would not be here if it did not?
A woman has the right to determine HER future but a man does not have the same right?
A woman carries and gives birth to a baby and yields to the man who will support, nuture, love, etc that baby till it dies. Her investment? 9 months. A woman carries and give birth to that same baby only the scenario here is that the man doesn't want thing one to do with it but now he is financially responsible for the next 18 years?!
Please explain the logic.
MAX 300
New member
I have to disect this a bit/
So?
A woman has the right to determine here future and a man has the right to determine his.
This doesn't give the man the right to force the woman to do anything. He has neither the right to force her to have an abortion nor to force her to give birth. Impeding on that right would make women subject of men they have become pregnant by and thus take away their fundamental right of self-determination.
9 months?!?!?!?????? Where is your logic here, once a mother gives birth her job is done?
The mother has to care for the child until the child is fully grown, why should she alone have to bear the financial burden of raising the child?
By logic the father and the mother should both have to provide for the child. Just because the man didn't want the child doesn't give him the right to walk away without any responsibility. Why should women be solely responsible for the financial support and upbringing of their children? How is that logical?
And how does a mans' responsibility to provide for his children grant him the right to force a woman that he impregnates to either give birth or have an abortion according to his wishes?
Please explain that logic?
Werd said:
So?
Werd said:
A woman has the right to determine here future and a man has the right to determine his.
This doesn't give the man the right to force the woman to do anything. He has neither the right to force her to have an abortion nor to force her to give birth. Impeding on that right would make women subject of men they have become pregnant by and thus take away their fundamental right of self-determination.
Werd said:
9 months?!?!?!?????? Where is your logic here, once a mother gives birth her job is done?
The mother has to care for the child until the child is fully grown, why should she alone have to bear the financial burden of raising the child?
By logic the father and the mother should both have to provide for the child. Just because the man didn't want the child doesn't give him the right to walk away without any responsibility. Why should women be solely responsible for the financial support and upbringing of their children? How is that logical?
And how does a mans' responsibility to provide for his children grant him the right to force a woman that he impregnates to either give birth or have an abortion according to his wishes?
Please explain that logic?
Longhorn85
New member
MAX 300 said:
She should consider this when she opens her legs.
MAX 300
New member
Ok, they both should consider it.
But once the child is born, both mother and father are responsible for supporting that child financially.
The mother has to carry and give birth if she chooses so, from then on she must support and look after that child. Why should the father be able to get off free without responsibility for support?
I never said the father should be the sole parent responsible for financially supporting the child.
But once the child is born, both mother and father are responsible for supporting that child financially.
The mother has to carry and give birth if she chooses so, from then on she must support and look after that child. Why should the father be able to get off free without responsibility for support?
I never said the father should be the sole parent responsible for financially supporting the child.
Werd
New member
First off let us all relax. Not ALL sex acts were intended by both willing participants to culminate in a pregnancy so can we please get off that train? Even in the case of marriage, should the wife become pregnant, if she does not want the pregnancy she has every legal right to terminate without the knowledge or consent of her husband.
The burden of responsibility is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS more on the part of the woman as SHE will be the one to carry and give birth should a pregnancy result from the actions of BOTH her and the man.
ALL WOMEN NEED TO BE EDUCATED ABOUT THIS REALITY BEFORE THEY BECOME SEXUALLY ACTIVE - PERIOD.
Having said that....
I argue that this responsibility should continue to fall ON HER should she decide to continue a pregnancy when the man has unequivically stated that he does NOT want to become a father as he has no right to force her to become a mother should she not want to.
Two mutually consenting adults have sex. Neither wanting a pregnancy, both just wanting sex. They use birth control. Unfortunately (as often is the case) the birth control fails and a pregnancy results. TWO RESULTS:
1. The woman wants the pregnancy and a child will be born that the father has ZERO legal right to decide his own future and will be strapped with child support payments till that child is 18 regardless of the fact that he wants nothing to do with that child OR it's mother.
2. The woman does NOT want the pregnancy and terminates. Again, leaving the father with ZERO legal right. Regardless of how badly he wants that child, he can not make her carry and give birth to the child and turn it over to him.
If the woman decides ON HER OWN to continue a pregnancy that the man DOES NOT WANT then why should he be responsible AT ALL....? Just as in the converse situation where the woman decides ON HER OWN to terminate the pregnancy stripping the man of any say.
How is the way the current system set up fair OR logical?
The burden of responsibility is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS more on the part of the woman as SHE will be the one to carry and give birth should a pregnancy result from the actions of BOTH her and the man.
ALL WOMEN NEED TO BE EDUCATED ABOUT THIS REALITY BEFORE THEY BECOME SEXUALLY ACTIVE - PERIOD.
Having said that....
I argue that this responsibility should continue to fall ON HER should she decide to continue a pregnancy when the man has unequivically stated that he does NOT want to become a father as he has no right to force her to become a mother should she not want to.
Two mutually consenting adults have sex. Neither wanting a pregnancy, both just wanting sex. They use birth control. Unfortunately (as often is the case) the birth control fails and a pregnancy results. TWO RESULTS:
1. The woman wants the pregnancy and a child will be born that the father has ZERO legal right to decide his own future and will be strapped with child support payments till that child is 18 regardless of the fact that he wants nothing to do with that child OR it's mother.
2. The woman does NOT want the pregnancy and terminates. Again, leaving the father with ZERO legal right. Regardless of how badly he wants that child, he can not make her carry and give birth to the child and turn it over to him.
If the woman decides ON HER OWN to continue a pregnancy that the man DOES NOT WANT then why should he be responsible AT ALL....? Just as in the converse situation where the woman decides ON HER OWN to terminate the pregnancy stripping the man of any say.
How is the way the current system set up fair OR logical?
HS Lifter
New member
What if the condom breaks?
Just because I want to bone some chick(with a condom) does not mean I want to pay for some bastard child for 18 years.
I wish there was some kind of waiver that you can get the chick to sign: "Not responcible for anything that starts growing inside of you". Would make things a lot easier.
Or is there some type of male birth control, where as long as you take pills, your semen is sterile and becomes fertile once you stop taking it?
Having sex is worse then gambling at a casino.
Just because I want to bone some chick(with a condom) does not mean I want to pay for some bastard child for 18 years.
I wish there was some kind of waiver that you can get the chick to sign: "Not responcible for anything that starts growing inside of you". Would make things a lot easier.
Or is there some type of male birth control, where as long as you take pills, your semen is sterile and becomes fertile once you stop taking it?
Having sex is worse then gambling at a casino.
I think the current laws regarding child custody are a reaction to a time when guys could impregnate a woman and run out on her, free and clear -- abandoning her and leaving her with the burden of motherhood to deal with alone. Obviously that's something that we want to protect against.
However I feel we've moved to the opposite extreme. In protecting women we've come to only consider what's important to them.
I like what werd is hinting at. Right now the woman can choose whether or not she wants to have the child. The man can only choose whether or not he wants to have sex. (which by the way I find insulting to men)
I say extend the choice to men of whether or not to support the baby, but make them make the choice immediately, and they can't reneg on it. If they choose not to sign it automatically counts as a yes. This leads to four possibilities:
-both want baby. Have the baby. Yay.
-both don't want baby. Don't have the baby. Hurrah.
-woman wants baby, man doesn't. She can rightfully decide to have it, but she will do so knowing she doesn't have his support.
-man wants baby, woman doesn't. He can't force anything; no baby.
(fifth possibility: man doesn't play fair and bolts before legally agreeing to anything. He's still on the line because he's a dick)
None of these situations is unfair to either parties. By contrast, current law allows a situation in which by deceipt a man can be made to finance an undesired baby. The whole point of the law is to protect against and punish injustice. Instead it is rewarded. I think this needs to change.
However I feel we've moved to the opposite extreme. In protecting women we've come to only consider what's important to them.
I like what werd is hinting at. Right now the woman can choose whether or not she wants to have the child. The man can only choose whether or not he wants to have sex. (which by the way I find insulting to men)
I say extend the choice to men of whether or not to support the baby, but make them make the choice immediately, and they can't reneg on it. If they choose not to sign it automatically counts as a yes. This leads to four possibilities:
-both want baby. Have the baby. Yay.
-both don't want baby. Don't have the baby. Hurrah.
-woman wants baby, man doesn't. She can rightfully decide to have it, but she will do so knowing she doesn't have his support.
-man wants baby, woman doesn't. He can't force anything; no baby.
(fifth possibility: man doesn't play fair and bolts before legally agreeing to anything. He's still on the line because he's a dick)
None of these situations is unfair to either parties. By contrast, current law allows a situation in which by deceipt a man can be made to finance an undesired baby. The whole point of the law is to protect against and punish injustice. Instead it is rewarded. I think this needs to change.
Werd
New member
Whoduthink such a thread could come from such a nazi-feminist man-hater.... eh?
It just isn't fair to THE CHILDREN.
It takes TWO to create life but the greater burden of responsibility will ALWAYS fall on the women. It is decided by biology and this is why the woman is ALWAYS expected to be the better parent - it can be viewed as a curse OR a gift.
It is far too easy to say, "Then dont have sex." once the pregnancy is a reality. That is just a totally unrealistic statement as it has ALWAYS BEEN. So let us not even go there.
Use birthcontrol to protect one's self from not only pregnancy but STD's as well.
HOWEVER
The only 100% effective form of birth control is:
ABSTINENCE.
(We've already discussed this. I wonder how greatly the human population would be decreased if this were REAL?! LOL)
The way that custody/support laws are being manipulated today makes my stomach turn as NONE OF THEM PROTECTS CHILDREN.... but only feeds the selfish greedy bitches and bastards out there.
If a woman becomes pregnant and the man does not want the baby she has a choice to make. I think that this choice whether it be adoption or termination should always be safe and reliable. I would even go so far as to say that there should be some way that the man would be able to keep the baby even in the event that the mother did NOT.... I realize that this is a strange concept but if a man can be forced to support a child that he does not want then why is it such a far stretch to say that the flip-side of the arguement should also be entertained as a viable alternative?
If the mother can force fatherhood on the man, then why can the man not conceivably force motherhood on the woman? Her life would only be affected for about 9 months while the man's life in the equivalent but opposite situation will be affected for 18 years!!!
Please comment.....
It just isn't fair to THE CHILDREN.
It takes TWO to create life but the greater burden of responsibility will ALWAYS fall on the women. It is decided by biology and this is why the woman is ALWAYS expected to be the better parent - it can be viewed as a curse OR a gift.
It is far too easy to say, "Then dont have sex." once the pregnancy is a reality. That is just a totally unrealistic statement as it has ALWAYS BEEN. So let us not even go there.
Use birthcontrol to protect one's self from not only pregnancy but STD's as well.
HOWEVER
The only 100% effective form of birth control is:
ABSTINENCE.
(We've already discussed this. I wonder how greatly the human population would be decreased if this were REAL?! LOL)
The way that custody/support laws are being manipulated today makes my stomach turn as NONE OF THEM PROTECTS CHILDREN.... but only feeds the selfish greedy bitches and bastards out there.
If a woman becomes pregnant and the man does not want the baby she has a choice to make. I think that this choice whether it be adoption or termination should always be safe and reliable. I would even go so far as to say that there should be some way that the man would be able to keep the baby even in the event that the mother did NOT.... I realize that this is a strange concept but if a man can be forced to support a child that he does not want then why is it such a far stretch to say that the flip-side of the arguement should also be entertained as a viable alternative?
If the mother can force fatherhood on the man, then why can the man not conceivably force motherhood on the woman? Her life would only be affected for about 9 months while the man's life in the equivalent but opposite situation will be affected for 18 years!!!
Please comment.....
MAX 300
New member
Werd said:
Not fair including 'all' of us in that. A few people's posts were a lot more heated than others.
Werd said:
Yes, but that doesn't mean the man should be able to walk away from the situation.
Werd said:
All women and all men.
Werd said:
Ok, if the woman decides on her own and against the mans wishes to continue the pregnancy then:
She alone is responsible for raising, nurturing, caring, educating, loving, and feeding the child.
The father cannot be expected to love and nurture a child that he did not want.
That doesn't mean he has no obligations at all. The financial cost of raising the child must be shared between the father and the mother.
My point(s) are, if a woman becomes pregnant involuntarily.
The choice whether or not to have an abortion or to continue the pregnancy must be hers alone.
If she continues the pregnancy against the mans wishes, he can't be made to love or care for the child emotionally.
But he still must pay half the financial cost of raising the child.
Pushing the economic burden and responsibility of raising our children on women alone is totally unjust. Men must do their part in providing for children, if they cannot do it with love and emotional support, they must at least do it financially.
If you think this is illogical, then please explain how.
PIGEON-RAT
New member
MAX 300 said:
It's illogical because if she can't foot the bill, she shouldn't have the kid. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
The woman does NOT have to take the economic responsibility if she aborts the fetus.
Our individual rights are defined by our ability to choose. If you take away one's ability to choose, you take away one's right. One's responsibilities are derived from one's rights. If you take away the right you take away the responsibility.
Refusing to give the man a choice over the future of his biological child denies him any rights regarding the child, and therefore exempts him from any responsibilities concerning the child.
The Red Dragon
New member
Women win either way...not fair at all.
Burning_Inside
Elite Mentor
Werd said:
Well fatherhood and financial support are 2 different things. You *can*seperate them.
In my state, a man can be bound to pay child support even if the mother and father decided previously he does not have to pay support for whatever reasons.
However, that "contract" is void because it's not the place of the parents to bargain the financial well being of the child, it's the child's *right* to be financially taken care of.
MAX 300 said:
What if the woman was deliberately trying to get pregnant, and talked the man into doing it without a condom? I know several men who have been "trapped" into fatherhood by this method. I was almost one of them, last fall, but fortunately I refused to fuck the ovulating girl who was throwing herself at me, so she conned someone else into doing it that night, and got knocked up. Now she's gonna have the baby she wanted, and the money.
Ive persuaded someone to have an abortion and then paid for it. She would not have done it otherwise. Thats probably not the situation you were talking about but I think its relevant pertaining to the "father having a say" subject. She is better off now than if I didnt step in and handle the situation.broley said:
MAX 300
New member
Mr. dB said:
Some years ago my girlfriend tried to trick me into getting her pregnant. She got on the pill, showed me the pack and told me she was taking it every day. 2 months later I found the pack, with only the very first pill missing and all the remaining ones untaken. I confronted her over it, and she told me then that she wanted to have a baby. Ended our sexual relationship real quick. She missed a period as well, but never got pregnant.
In any case if she would have had a child I would still have been responsible for the child. I have since learned to be more wary of lying girls.
Subzeero
New member
Dude, clean and simple, its the woman's child and its her belly the baby is going to grow in so obviously she will reserve all rights regarding her child. Why are ya all so confused. Child support comes along as a compensation of a man fucking a woman and causing a baby either because he was too stupid a fuck to have protected sex or he had a baby with the wrong woman. On the other hand, if he does have a planned baby, then the mofo has to pay child support atleast, if not emotional or caring support. Thats it. End of this story.
Longhorn85
New member
Werd said:
You couldn't be more wrong. Or more selfish. Once she becomes pregnant, especially in a marriage, she is already a mother, and the parents are responsible for the life of that child. She doesn't have the right to kill it out of convienience, as you're suggesting here. Also, the father doesn't have to sit idly by while the mom kills their young.
I would like to think that most people discuss this with there partner before they end up in the sac. I do when discussing the whole birth control issue. I am not ready for a baby at this point in my life and I make this clear. I also use condoms etc to help prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Luckly I have never had to make the discission on wether or not to have an abortion.
PIGEON-RAT
New member
Longhorn85 said:
I don't think she was saying she's a proponent for that. I think she was just saying what is actually the case. She seems to be against it in her other posts.
Werd
New member
MAX 300 said:
But they have and can. Unless there is a paternity test no man can ever know for sure. You can have a thousand fathers but only ONE mother. PERIOD.
Darlin' you argue the "perfect world" scenario and it is noble but far from the real world.
MAX 300 said:
Again "perfect world" scenario.
MAX 300 said:
If a woman can commit this type of extortion than the men should have an equal say.
If a man wants a child that the woman does not then he should be able to also commit equivalent extortion by forcing her to carry and give birth to the child, then hand it over to him. She need not love it, only bring it to the world; a much smaller investment than the man's.
Think about how the next 18 years of a man's life is FUCKED because the condom tore. He gets some broad that he hardly knows pregnant when he is say 18, she has the right to come after you for more money every 2 years until that child is 18 and there is not a damned thing the man can do about it. Think about how this will affect him paying for college, marrying a decent woman and fathering children that TWO people actually want.
Two people can talk and talk and talk about neither of them wants a baby before they get into the sack. Once the birthcontrol has failed and she is pregnant that man's entire life is in HER hands.
All I am saying is that he should have the right to have as much say over his future as does she over hers.
Werd
New member
superqt4u2nv said:
WERD
It isn't for lack of discussion or even responsibility that many of these circumstances occur.
We are not arguing prevention here. THAT IS A GIVEN.
We are now debating after conception.
My opinion of abortion has always been this:
IF ONE IS AGAINST IT, THEN THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE ONE.
I am arguing FOR children.
Any woman that would bring a child here that the man does NOT WANT, then who uses that child to hold that man financial hostage for the next 18 years is as low as the men that use their children to fuck with their children's mothers.
LEGAL EXTORTION.
