Support NeoGAF

[Skiptastic]

I wasn't discussing a private contract (which you might have noted by my use of the phrase "presenting to the court") but a court sanctioned Affadavit of Waiver of Parental Rights, which most states allow. I'd be happy to cite the relevant code for my state, if you need it.)

Ah, that explains the discrepancy. Thanks.

 

[J-Rod]

I'd be closer to supporting the opposite, which would be the man could opt to take full responsibilty of the child and the woman could be relieved of all responsibility in exchange for not aborting the child, given the right circumstances.

I could not support the male opting out with a clean conscious, because I believe it would encourage abortions. No matter if the man was deceived or tricked, or it was an accident on somebody's part, he took a risk in which all the potential consequences he had full knowledge of beforehand, and therefore he should not be able to opt out of taking any responsibility for something he is indeed at least partially responsible for.

 

[Shanadeus]

1) How the hell did you not figure out I was being sarcastic? Everything was there but a huge banner popping out of your screen with a "SARCASM ->" on it. I was joking after your trolling (or at least I hope it was trolling) in the body hair thread.
2) I will say this again. As a male, you have the option to use condoms or go through a vasectomy. If you don't want a child, you have means to prevent having a child. By going bareback with a woman you are not sure would be willing to go through an abortion, you are risking it. It might not be fair that you would have to pay for a child you aren't raising, but it's even less fair for a child to be born to a poor family without a father. If you don't want a child, prevent the pregnancy. Abortion is not something a man should decide himself, but the man has the option to not get a woman pregnant.
The man should never have the last word in a procedure someone else has to take. If you got a woman pregnant without wanting to, you already did your mistake. The ball is in someone else's hands now. Deal with it.

I was facetious in my response to your sarcasm, just had to answer it seriously in case someone actually took it serious :lol

You are talking about how things are today, I'm talking about how things should be. It's the same discussion you had before abortion was made legal in the US. Same stuff about taking responsibility for your actions. I totally agree with you anyway, as the law is now you should definitely take some great care if you don't want to end up with a babbymother.

I'd recommend a vasectomy to someone that doesn't want a child, but I'd also want a reform of the system so that you don't have to risk your fertility merely because you want the same rights a woman has.

And as we cannot force a woman to abort a child, even if you've agreed to an abortion beforehand and she changes her mind, then there should be some failsafes in place that upholds the man's right to decide whether or not he want to be a father just as an abortion is a failsafe for the female which gives her the power to decide whether or not she want to be a mother.

I'm just a feminist, and I honestly don't see why it's wrong to wish for more equality. I don't want to remove any rights, I just want to add some.

 

[msv]

If you don't want a child, prevent the pregnancy. Abortion is not something a man should decide himself, but the man has the option to not get a woman pregnant.
The man should never have the last word in a procedure someone else has to take. If you got a woman pregnant without wanting to, you already did your mistake. The ball is in someone else's hands now. Deal with it.

Irrelevant. For one, it can be an accident. Second, you're again ignoring the position of the woman. She has just as much responsibility in preventing pregnancy. The woman has many more options in this regard. If the male's preventative measures fail (either condoms or an agreement for the woman to take the pill), the woman still has the option of a morning after pill or abortion. In this situation, the male would be at the mercy of the female.

 

[oneHeero]

So the child suffers because you don't want to support your biological child? How, exactly, is that more fair? The child is the only one who isn't responsible for the situation, but allowing fathers to skip off into the world without a care leaves that child in a more precarious financial position through no fault of its own.
That's why the laws are the way they are, because the state cares more about the rights of the innocent child than it does about either parent. Until the state (whatever state) is willing to allow the child to be punished for its parents irresponsibility, the law isn't going to change. States with truly effective social services sometimes allow the father to walk away because they can be sure the state itself will provide for the child. This certainly isn't true in the U.S., though.


While not exactly common, it does happen. Generally the mother has to be a real wreck, or she's abandoned the child. Judges do set child support for women, though. We just finished a case that featured it.

(I'm not a lawyer, either, but I'm a paralegal for a lawyer who practices family law)

So now we're going from it being unfair to the mother to raise the child on her own to the fact that its not fair to the child?
Let me keep going in circles with you.
Why isnt the mother putting the child's feelings into her decision to have it than? Why should the child suffer a fatherless life because the mother decided to still have a baby even though the father stated that he wasnt ready for children(BEFORE she is ever pregnant).

You guys are trying to argue that we are trying to give a men a way out after the pregnancy is confirmed. We are stating that if in the begining of a relationship a agreement is reached where both are not wanting a child and both have decided on protection but the protection fails. If the girl than changes her mind and wants the baby and the guy still doesnt, he should have the right to not have to support the girl or child since it was previously agreed on. At this present time he does not have the right, he has to take responsibility regardless of what was agreed on.

 

[LCGeek]

I'm touchy on this but I tend to side with women mostly except when deception is involved than I feel the woman has given up her right to carry a child the person never intended. I love life but growing up without parents who care for each other let alone the child involved rarely produces good results. Most have a good point though which is men should own up to the possibility of a child or simply don't have sex. Seems most of the time this argument comes it's because they just want the sex and not the possibility.

 

[Skiptastic]

And as we cannot force a woman to abort a child, even if you've agreed to an abortion beforehand and she changes her mind, then there should be some failsafes in place that upholds the man's right to decide whether or not he want to be a father just as an abortion is a failsafe for the female which gives her the power to decide whether or not she want to be a mother.

If you've got the womb, you've got the power.

 

[Shanadeus]

How'd you jump to that conclusion?

Are you saying that men should be able to call the shots on abortions now too? If so, this thread truly is a joke...

Read all my posts again, I've stated several times that nothing supersedes the womans right to her body - which include the decision of whether or not to have an abortion. I believe we'd have more abortions as I think fewer women would go through with a pregnancy if they know that they won't get any child support or support from the guy (I believe less guys would stay out of obligation or a feeling of getting their moneys worth if we make fatherhood into the choice it'd be under a new system)

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Just as a woman can get birth control before having someone dive balls deep inside of her.
Would you tell a woman to man up and just care for any potential child just because she has unprotected sex?

That's just silly, it's probably what people told women before they got the right to abortions.
"You're pregnant? Just deal with it, it's a consequence of having sex"

And just as people gave women the power to decide whether or not they want to be mothers through abortions, we should give men an equal power to decide whether or not they want to be fathers.

Men and women are not equal in pregnancy. Never have ben never will be. There are a lot of things wrong with our current child support system, forcing fathers to be financially involved isn't one of them, at least in principle.

Factually, children from single parent homes struggle more than children from dual parent households, with money being one of the larger factors. At the very least, forcing deadbeat dads to bear the financial burden is in our mutual best interest. Arguing the opposite is like arguing we shouldn't pay taxes if we don't want to, ill gladly take the current system so your kid doesnt grow up and rob me in 15 years.

 

[MikeOfTheLivingDead]

I'm thinking Shanadeus should have been aborted.

If you don't want a kid don't have sex.
I you really don't want a kid and want to have sex, go get yourself snipped or put it in her ass.

All this talk of "what about the woman's responsibility" is childish. Take responsibility for your goddamn self.

 

[Shanadeus]

If you've got the womb, you've got the power.

Quite, and before there were abortions she didn't have the power. And now I want to give men an equal power over their future, just as we once gave women power over their own future.

 

[Futureman]

We are stating that if in the begining of a relationship a agreement is reached where both are not wanting a child and both have decided on protection but the protection fails. If the girl than changes her mind and wants the baby and the guy still doesnt, he should have the right to not have to support the girl or child since it was previously agreed on. At this present time he does not have the right, he has to take responsibility regardless of what was agreed on.

Wouldn't this technically be an option now if a couple were to sign a contract?

 

[DY_nasty]

Irrelevant. For one, it can be an accident. Second, you're again ignoring the position of the woman. She has just as much responsibility in preventing pregnancy. The woman has many more options in this regard. If the male's preventative measures fail (either condoms or an agreement for the woman to take the pill), the woman still has the option of a morning after pill or abortion. In this situation, the male would be at the mercy of the female.

Accidents don't happen nearly as often as people would like to believe...

Screw this thread, I'm out.

 

[oneHeero]

Read all my posts again, I've stated several times that nothing supersedes the womans right to her body - which include the decision of whether or not to have an abortion. I believe we'd have more abortions as I think fewer women would go through with a pregnancy if they know that they won't get any child support or support from the guy (I believe less guys would stay out of obligation or a feeling of getting their moneys worth if we make fatherhood into the choice it'd be under a new system)

Which is not neccessarily a good thing, but would having tons of single mother's possibly depending on gov assistance(in low income areas) be better? Or the fact that the children suffer father less(like now) be a better option?

No one is saying to give the man the right to up and leave when the decision to be preganant was already made. We are talking about a decision being made to not have kids yet prior to the pregnancy. If a accident happens even tho birth control was used, why should the father bear responsiblity when it was previously agreed that there wasnt a interest in having a child at this time. The women will always have the right to have the child, but why should she be given the decision to control the guys decision after she flip flopped on the previous agreement?

EDIT:Shaddeus, my reply isnt at you directly, just quoted you.

Wouldn't this technically be an option now if a couple were to sign a contract?

If it is, I'm not aware of it. But than again, who makes a contract in a bf/gf relationship?

 

[hiro4]

Wouldn't this technically be an option now if a couple were to sign a contract?

Depending on where you live, you have to sign a contract to become the 'father' of the child.

 

[Skiptastic]

Quite, and before there were abortions she didn't have the power. And now I want to give men an equal power over their future, just as we once gave women power over their own future.

Women have always had the power. Abortions just gave them the ability to be more reckless with that power.

 

[Shanadeus]

I'm thinking Shanadeus should have been aborted.

If you don't want a kid don't have sex.
I you really don't want a kid and want to have sex, go get yourself snipped or put it in her ass.

All this talk of "what about the woman's responsibility" is childish. Take responsibility for your goddamn self.

I'm thinking that you're not seeing my point.
The following would have been said by someone arguing against abortions before they were legal:

"If you don't want a kid don't have sex.
If you really don't want a kid, get your ovaries tied.
All this talk of "what about the woman's right" is childish. Take responsibility for your goddamn self"

Do you see the similarity in your argument and the argument of someone against abortions half a century ago?

 

[besada]

So now we're going from it being unfair to the mother to raise the child on her own to the fact that its not fair to the child?
Let me keep going in circles with you.
Why isnt the mother putting the child's feelings into her decision to have it than? Why should the child suffer a fatherless life because the mother decided to still have a baby even though the father stated that he wasnt ready for children(BEFORE she is ever pregnant).

I had a vasectomy at 30 and have no children, so I literally have no dog in this hunt. I'm simply explaining the reasoning of the existing courts. They care more about the child than they do about either parent.

The court cares about protecting the child, and will gladly fuck both the mother and father in that process. Since the mother routinely is the one taking care of the child, it's the father that routinely gets fucked, but it works the other way, too. If a mom wakes up one morning and decides she doesn't want to have kids anymore and abandons her family, you can bet a judge will have no problem with hitting her with serious child support. I've seen that exact scenario play out, where a single father of two successfully sued for child support and not only got it, but got it at a higher rate than your average dad has to pay.

Again, Family Courts have an extremely dim view of parents attempting to jettison their biological (and sometimes even non-biological) children.

 

[Shanadeus]

Depending on where you live, you have to sign a contract to become the 'father' of the child.

Was this in the Netherlands?
Sounds like a good system, and if you enter a marriage or a civil partnership then part of the contract is that you accept any child as your own.

Is both just and fair, can't see why people would oppose such a system.

Women have always had the power. Abortions just gave them the ability to be more reckless with that power.

Did they now?
I believe you could be charged for it if you induced an abortion before it was legal, are you counting lawbreaking as a power?
Then you shouldn't mind guys breaking the law by running to another state if they don't want a kid. Or we could just be sensible and update the law just like we did when we made abortions legal.

 

[Futureman]

If it is, I'm not aware of it. But than again, who makes a contract in a bf/gf relationship?

So what are you babbling about? You said in your post "if in the begining of a relationship a agreement is reached where both are not wanting a child"... If this whole thing is to work, a contract would have to be signed.

 

[MikeOfTheLivingDead]

Quite, and before there were abortions she didn't have the power. And now I want to give men an equal power over their future, just as we once gave women power over their own future.

How about this knucklehead... You have unprotected sex, you get HIV, the clap some other shit. Do you think you should have the option to just refuse the STD? You didn't want it right?

Consider a child a disease. A disease you will have for the next 18 years that you are going to spend half of your income and lots of your time dealing with.

 

[oneHeero]

I had a vasectomy at 30 and have no children, so I literally have no dog in this hunt. I'm simply explaining the reasoning of the existing courts. They care more about the child than they do about either parent.

The court cares about protecting the child, and will gladly fuck both the mother and father in that process. Since the mother routinely is the one taking care of the child, it's the father that routinely gets fucked, but it works the other way, too. If a mom wakes up one morning and decides she doesn't want to have kids anymore and abandons her family, you can bet a judge will have no problem with hitting her with serious child support. I've seen that exact scenario play out, where a single father of two successfully sued for child support and not only got it, but got it at a higher rate than your average dad has to pay.

Again, Family Courts have an extremely dim view of parents attempting to jettison their biological (and sometimes even non-biological) children.

I didnt mean to make it seem like I was talking in circles with you specifically, so thanks for not responding in a way like that.

I agree in what your saying, but the basis of this thread is on the agreement prior to any pregnancy taking place. We are talking bout a women being pregnant and than the guy states he wants out. We are talking bout if the agreement prior to any pregnancy was that they would not have a child and than the girl gets pregnant and she changes her mom but the guy doesnt. He's still locked in.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

I'm thinking that you're not seeing my point.
The following would have been said by someone arguing against abortions before they were legal:

"If you don't want a kid don't have sex.
If you really don't want a kid, get your ovaries tied.
All this talk of "what about the woman's right" is childish. Take responsibility for your goddamn self"

Do you see the similarity in your argument and the argument of someone against abortions half a century ago?

You don't see how the system your proposing is just trying to wrestle the "right to choose" away from women again? That's the much more frightening comparison. You're making their choice more difficult.

If this zany plan of yours went through, you'd see a corresponding rise in women opting for abortions, even if they didn't want it. You'd see pro athletes leaving trails of children everywhere, and being even LESS cautious about wrapping it up to protect from STDs, because hey, they don't have to worry about baby mamas anymore.

How about this knucklehead... You have unprotected sex, you get HIV, the clap some other shit. Do you think you should have the option to just refuse the STD? You didn't want it right?

Consider a child a disease. A disease you will have for the next 18 years that you are going to spend half of your income and lots of your time dealing with.

:lol

Mike wins girl-age again.

 

[oneHeero]

How about this knucklehead... You have unprotected sex, you get HIV, the clap some other shit. Do you think you should have the option to just refuse the STD? You didn't want it right?

Consider a child a disease. A disease you will have for the next 18 years that you are going to spend half of your income and lots of your time dealing with.

Obviously your the knucklehead, read the thread fully before making such a stupid reply.

So what are you babbling about? You said in your post "if in the begining of a relationship a agreement is reached where both are not wanting a child"... If this whole thing is to work, a contract would have to be signed.

I'm talking about a verbal agreement.
How often do people in a 3 month old relationship decide to sign contracts regarding a possible pregnancy?
vs
How often do people talk about what they would do if they got prenant etc. That convo can usually come out early in a relationship, so you basically know what the other is thinking.

 

[Shanadeus]

How about this knucklehead... You have unprotected sex, you get HIV, the clap some other shit. Do you think you should have the option to just refuse the STD? You didn't want it right?

Consider a child a disease. A disease you will have for the next 18 years that you are going to spend half of your income and lots of your time dealing with.

Except I won't consider a child a disease because that's just nonsense. A woman can absolve herself of any motherhood responsibilities before a child is born, a man should also be able to absolve himself of any fatherhood responsibilities before a child is born.

That is all.

 

[oneHeero]

Except I won't consider a child a disease because that's just nonsense. A woman can absolve herself of any motherhood responsibilities before a child is born, a man should also be able to absolve himself of any fatherhood responsibilities before a child is born.

That is all.

The problem with the people this debate is happening with is that they just look at it in a social aspect of "your a man, man up" regardless of whether its fair or not. I mean we have so many people fighting for rights, yet a man needs to man up in this area.

 

[hiro4]

Was this in the Netherlands?
Sounds like a good system, and if you enter a marriage or a civil partnership then part of the contract is that you accept any child as your own.

Is both just and fair, can't see why people would oppose such a system.

Yup the Netherlands.
Like I said before, I'm not 100% sure about the legal rules about this.
I'm no lawyer, but I do know that I had to acknowledge my child before I was noted as the "father" of my then unborn child.

 

[Futureman]

The problem with the people this debate is happening with is that they just look at it in a social aspect of "your a man, man up" regardless of whether its fair or not. I mean we have so many people fighting for rights, yet a man needs to man up in this area.

Stop talking about fairness. The way things are set up now is to put the most fairness in the child's court. It's not perfect but that's what it is.

And are you serious about a verbal agreement before? Guys would be lying left and right to get out of child support. Courts would be tangled up. Wouldn't work.

 

[Shanadeus]

You don't see how the system your proposing is just trying to wrestle the "right to choose" away from women again? That's the much more frightening comparison. You're making their choice more difficult.

If this zany plan of yours went through, you'd see a corresponding rise in women opting for abortions, even if they didn't want it. You'd see pro athletes leaving trails of children everywhere, and being even LESS cautious about wrapping it up to protect from STDs, because hey, they don't have to worry about baby mamas anymore.

Or you'd have more women refusing sex with pro athletes out of fear of becoming pregnant, or the potential baby mamas would just make sure they're on birth control. Or just get an abortion as they can no longer rely on getting money from the pro athlete - which is what being a baby mama is all about if I'm not wrong. But I'm not stupid, I know that an immediate change in just one area might be very troublesome.

Any implementation of such a system should anyway come coupled with other changes to public health. I propose that women should get access to cheap or free birth control from the state so that theyually act do have a choice of becoming a mother or not - and don't have to resort to abortion (which should be free as well).

So again, how am I removing a right or a choice from the woman by giving men a deserved right?

 

[Skiptastic]

Did they now?

Yes, you control your destiny by either allowing a man to cum inside you without protection or not allowing that to happen. That control is the power that women have, outside of the realm of abortions. (waits for the rape argument)

 

[oneHeero]

Stop talking about fairness. The way things are set up now is to put the most fairness in the child's court. It's not perfect but that's what it is.

And are you serious about a verbal agreement before? Guys would be lying left and right to get out of child support. Courts would be tangled up. Wouldn't work.

Well obviously a verbal agreement wouldnt work, thats the purpose of this thread, to discuss the possiblities.

 

[Shanadeus]

Stop talking about fairness. The way things are set up now is to put the most fairness in the child's court. It's not perfect but that's what it is.

And are you serious about a verbal agreement before? Guys would be lying left and right to get out of child support. Courts would be tangled up. Wouldn't work.

Implement the system they have in the Netherlands, women wouldn't even get child support until the man agrees to it. But there should be more failsafes just to be sure and avoid a situation where a man tells a woman that he'll support the child and then changes his mind.

A woman should for example contact the social services and inform them that she is pregnant, and who the potential father is, whom they'll then contact to confirm whether or not he will take responsibility and become the legally recognized father of the child. If he says no then they'll directly contact the mother and inform her of his choice, and she can either try to discuss with the guy or just get an abortion.

 

[Shanadeus]

Yes, you control your destiny by either allowing a man to cum inside you without protection or not allowing that to happen. That control is the power that women have, outside of the realm of abortions. (waits for the rape argument)

Rape is not relevant to this discussion.

So the control the woman used to have before abortions were made legal is the one that the man possess today?
And the woman achieved a better control over her destiny by being legally allowed to abort, and now you're arguing against a similar measure being put in place so that the man can enjoy an equal control over his life.

Are you really arguing against this?

 

[Pandaman]

take some responsibility for yourself and get snipped after a few generous donations to a freezer, otherwise the law is going to fuck you over whether its 'fair' or not.

 

[Interfectum]

Except I won't consider a child a disease because that's just nonsense. A woman can absolve herself of any motherhood responsibilities before a child is born, a man should also be able to absolve himself of any fatherhood responsibilities before a child is born.

That is all.

So basically you want a society of fatherless children and no personal responsibility.

And before you go spouting about equal rights between men and women (which is fucking hilarious btw but that's for another thread), there are so many aspects to this you are completely ignoring.

Lets say that your law gets passed and men have to sign some sort of contract to be legally responsible for their own kid lol)

- Besides STDs what's the motivation for a man to ever use a condom again? What's to stop a man from fucking a different girl every night without fear or consequence? This essentially makes birth control 100% on the woman.
- What if a women gets pregnant and cant afford the abortion? Are you legally bound to pay for it or is she fucked? If you don't help her and she has the kid, are you responsible for it? You didn't sign a contract.
- What if a women gets pregnant and outside influences force her to have the child? You have no responsibility to help her through the pregnancy? What about medical bills?
- When a woman gets pregnant she is shackled to that fetus until birth or termination. How will the law equalize that for men (since you want to be equal and all).

Basically... what responsibility does a man have at all at that point?

 

[Skiptastic]

And the woman achieved a better control over her destiny by being legally allowed to abort, and now you're arguing against a similar measure being put in place so that the man can enjoy an equal control over his life.

I don't fully agree with a woman's right to abort. You think I'd jump on board with a man gaining similar "rights"?

And yes, because the woman is put in a completely different situation before, during, and after a pregnancy, I'm arguing that they be treated differently than a man.

 

[The Take Out Bandit]

So basically you want a society of fatherless children and no personal responsibility.

He could just move to Cleveland or Detroit for that.

 

[bill0527]

Except I won't consider a child a disease because that's just nonsense. A woman can absolve herself of any motherhood responsibilities before a child is born, a man should also be able to absolve himself of any fatherhood responsibilities before a child is born.

That is all.

So you want ME, the taxpayer, to financially support the child you created, until that child reaches adulthood, because YOU don't want to accept financial responsibility for it?

FUCK YOU.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Or you'd have more women refusing sex with pro athletes out of fear of becoming pregnant, or the potential baby mamas would just make sure they're on birth control. Or just get an abortion as they can no longer rely on getting money from the pro athlete - which is what being a baby mama is all about if I'm not wrong. But I'm not stupid, I know that a immediate change in just one area might be very troublesome.

Unlikely. They'd just have the kid and drag your name through the mud. Same PR effect.

Any implementation of such a system should anyway come coupled with other changes to public health. I propose that women should get access to cheap or free birth control from the state so that they actually do have a choice of becoming a mother or not - and don't have to resort to abortion (which should be free as well).

So you're further absolving both men and women from personal responsibility for pregnancy and putting the burden on the state? We should be pushing people to more responsible, not less. Giving handouts just promotes dependency. Education is the key, not "get shit for free" cards in every scenario.

So again, how am I removing a right or a choice from the woman by giving men a deserved right?

You're keeping the choice, but making it a horrible one. The choice choice changes from

abortion vs. unwanted pregnancy with male financial support (which is really, the minimum support you can offer to a god damned baby carrying your genes)

to

abortion vs. unwanted pregnancy with no financial support

So you've kept the illusion of choice, only you're making one of the options horrible to skew the results in the way that you want them.

As an African American man I've seen what the plague of single parenthood as a 'lifestyle choice' has done to my people. It's not good, for the fathers, mothers, the children, or the community. It's a net negative any way you measure it, just so a few guys can get their rocks off guilt free. What you're proposing will encourage this kind of irresponsible hedonism across the entire nation, and I can't support that. It's not worth it, and I don't see it as fair.

 

[Always-honest]

It's her body.

It's not his.

The man has the freedom not to get his partner pregnant.

If he does, then he better man up and be responsible.

and if SHE gets pregnant, SHE better be responsible to.
Together

 

[Interfectum]

As an African American man I've seen what the plague of single parenthood as a 'lifestyle choice' has done to my people. It's not good, for the fathers, mothers, the children, or the community. It's a net negative any way you measure it, just so a few guys can get their rocks off guilt free. What you're proposing will encourage this kind of irresponsible hedonism across the entire nation, and I can't support that. It's not worth it, and I don't see it as fair.

This can't be quoted enough.

 

[oneHeero]

and if SHE gets pregnant, SHE better be responsible to.
Together

In this thread, apparently thats not the correct way. Its either the guy takes responsibility or he doesnt. But the girl gets to chose what responsibility she takes. Whether she gives up the child in abortion, adoption, keep it away from the father, or simply still have it regardless of the fathers decision.

That's it, for everything else, its basically man up or let the courts handle it. Which is how itr currently is and it sucks.

 

[jonnybryce]

It's her body.

It's not his.

The man has the freedom not to get his partner pregnant.

If he does, then he better man up and be responsible.

Yeah, because accidents or sabotage never happens. My friend is here because her mom told her dad she was on birth control when she wasn't, and she admits to poking holes in the condoms. She's a nutjob.

In the bigger picture: Even if it is "her" body, it's not just her child. The whole concept of the woman being the be all end all and deciding if the baby gets to be birthed or gets aborted and the man's life having to go along with whatever decision she makes is just silly. It may be her body, but its his life and child, too. She's given too much power.

I'm all for a dad having to support the child, just like I'm all for life. But I can see how there are gray areas, or how my beliefs shouldn't be for everyone becuase it's what I believe.

 

[Interfectum]

In this thread, apparently thats not the correct way. Its either the guy takes responsibility or he doesnt. But the girl gets to chose what responsibility she takes. Whether she gives up the child in abortion, adoption, keep it away from the father, or simply still have it regardless of the fathers decision.

That's it, for everything else, its basically man up or let the courts handle it. Which is how itr currently is and it sucks.

Yeah life is so hard being a man, brah. It really does suck we cannot fuck without consequence. I mean look at the women... all she has to do is carry the baby in her belly and either have an invasive surgery to kill it, or carry it to term where she is then saddled with a massive medical bill and then massive bills for clothes, food and daycare.

As of right now the only legal responsibility a man has is to help with those bills. That's nonsense. I shouldn't have a drop a dime on that bitch unless I signed a contract (after my penis injected her with semen).

Fucking women have it so easy. Right man? :lol

 

[ItAintEasyBeinCheesy]

How about this knucklehead... You have unprotected sex, you get HIV, the clap some other shit. Do you think you should have the option to just refuse the STD? You didn't want it right?

Consider a child a disease. A disease you will have for the next 18 years that you are going to spend half of your income and lots of your time dealing with.

If someone knowingly has HIV and spreads it, it is a punishable crime. If you have some messed up chick who's actively trying to get pregnant, while concealing the fact.............

Just a counterpoint.

 

[Interfectum]

If someone knowingly has HIV and spreads it, it is a punishable crime. If you have some messed up chick who's actively trying to get pregnant, while concealing the fact.............

Yes lets change a law that would completely change American society (for the worse) because there are a few crazy bitches out there who actively try to get pregnant.

If you are really scared of this happening, don't have sex with random women. I know, I know... you want to have your fun. There's always blow up dolls. If they ever get pregnant you can always pop them.

 

[karasu]

It's her body.

It's not his.

The man has the freedom not to get his partner pregnant.

If he does, then he better man up and be responsible.

The truth has been told.

 

[Skiptastic]

It is depressing how devoid of responsibility our society would like to be.

 

[Shanadeus]

I don't fully agree with a woman's right to abort. You think I'd jump on board with a man gaining similar "rights"?

And yes, because the woman is put in a completely different situation before, during, and after a pregnancy, I'm arguing that they be treated differently than a man.

Well that's a whole other discussion, I want the man to have similar rights precisely because the woman has the right to abort.

And the woman retain more power because she is able to get an abortion contrary to the mans wishes to be a father, because she will always have the right to an abortion. And there's nothing we can do about that situation without disregarding her rights, but we can even it out a little in other regards - and we should.

So basically you want a society of fatherless children and no personal responsibility.

Nope, I want a society where people are only encouraged to have children if both parents wish for one or are able to support it economically. I strongly believe it'd decrease the number of fatherless and unwanted children.

- Besides STDs what's the motivation for a man to ever use a condom again? What's to stop a man from fucking a different girl every night without fear or consequence? This essentially makes birth control 100% on the woman.

Not getting an STD should be a strong enough motivation for a man to ever use a condom again. Or just having sex to begin with, as women would have to think more as well and deny the guy sex if he wants it unsheathed. Birth control is something both partners have to consider.

- What if a women gets pregnant and cant afford the abortion? Are you legally bound to pay for it or is she fucked? If you don't help her and she has the kid, are you responsible for it? You didn't sign a contract.

This could be dealt with in several ways, I think that the responsible man should be legally obliged to fund an abortion if she lacks the mean to pay for one. And while some of you guys are against state meddling, it could also be covered by the state. The net effect of having a reduced number of births by poor mothers and couples would probably save you more money than subsidized abortions would cost.

- What if a women gets pregnant and outside influences force her to have the child? You have no responsibility to help her through the pregnancy? What about medical bills?

If she gets raped? The responsible one for forcing her to have a child should of course pay for any medical bills or other costs that a child would bring. And if it's your girlfriend that gets raped then I don't see how the situation is any different from today, guys aren't legally bound to help their girlfriends out - and the decent boyfriends will always help the person that they love/like no matter if we have this reform or not.

- When a woman gets pregnant she is shackled to that fetus until birth or termination. How will the law equalize that for men (since you want to be equal and all).

You can only equalize what is possible. I don't see the point your making with that example, I can't turn the situation where a woman aborts a child against a guys wishes into something equal. But it doesn't stop us from turning a situation where a woman keeps a child against a guys wish into something equal.

Basically... what responsibility does a man have at all at that point?

The same responsibility a woman have?

 

[Beezy]

People are getting defensive and stupid. This isn't gonna go anywhere.