The big abortion rant thread.

Remove all ads!

DR - I understand. I just thought that you were holding out the possibility that there was a way in which this could be equal to all sides. I just don't see it either. I'm pretty much in agreement with you. I just think that for guys that may have a concern, they may want to discuss this fully with their partners before partaking. It might be better to reach an agreement beforehand, regarding any unforseen consquences.

 

At least before the abortion goes through (or the pregnancy) the situation should be heard by a neutral third party. That way both sides can be heard and a possibility of some sort of compromise could be reached. If not, I am fully aware that sinc ethe lions share of the risk lies with the woman, the lion's share of the decision should remain with her.*

Of course, all this sort of thing would be moot if people reserved sexual activity for the bonds of matrimony, but I know very well that that isn't very bloody likely.

* with this caveat. If it is the guy who does not want the baby for whatever reasons, and he offers to pay for an abortion or otherwise makes it clear that he wants no part of the whole issue (ie: he advocates giving the baby up for adoption), it shouldn't be solely up to the woman to put a future garnishee on his resources for the next 18 years. She should be told in no uncertain terms something like this:

"You have several options that do not negatively impact on the father. He has been responsible and showed up here like a mature adult seeking to resolve this situation. You may take one of several options. But it having been made clear that you have the option to avoid this problem, you do NOT have the option to ruin this man's life, given that he also does not have the option to ruin yours. Should you choose to keep this child, the law will not require him to pay you support. You must meet him halfway -- if he wishes the child to be aborted and you for whatever reason do not feel good about that, fine. Option two is to have the baby and adopt it out. If you are bound and determined to be obstinate and uncaring about his rights regarding the disposition of the child, then have the child and keep it. But that will be 100% your choice, one made with no regard whatsoever for the other party involved. You will do it alone. And don't come whining to the government because you are single parent. If you choose to be a single parent after having been given other choices, then it is your choice, therefore your responsibilty, and you will have to deal with it"

If she's given a "get out of jail free" card, then he should get one, too.

I realize that this is not a popular position. But all I ever hear is that "men have responsibilities" but no one ever looks at the correlating rights that go along with that. I should know. I pay my child support on time every single frigging month, despite the fact that I never wanted the divorce in the first place. Yet when I try to assert my rights, I'm told that they are irrelevant. The entire bloody system is designed to punish, humiliate, degrade and marginalize all men, regardless of their actual guilt. I know there's a lot of deadbeat dads who take no responsibility but for those of us who do take that responsibility and still get steamrolled by the system it is extremely frustrating.

 

So what you are saying is that a man, by stating he doesn't want the woman to keep the child, should be able to force the mother to put her child up for adoption? Whoa.

 

The guy has realize any potential consequences of engaging in sex as well. If the woman is going to have to carry a baby to term because the guy wants her to, then the guy should have to pay child support if the mother wants it. I feel that you are going way too soft on the guys contribution here, LKD.

New gem... liked the old one more.

 

Oh, yes, at the least. Also, he should pay all medical costs, all her time off from work, and any loss of income as well. He should also compenstate her for her pain and suffering.

 

Couldn't agree more... and it would certainly be hypocritical of me to disagree after stating that the man should have some rights too.

 

Actually, if you had been paying attention, you'd know that the man is not off the hook either. I did argue that the woman should not have to go through this on their own. I've always been of the opinion that the man should support the children he sires. Hell, Barmy gave me **** for suggesting that if a man was not prepared for the consequences of his actions he shouldn't be having sex.

Killing someone is not the objective of driving home when you're drunk, but it can happen. Should you then be able to weasel out of the consequences of a poor decision? Not bloody likely...

I understand that if I get laid and she gets knocked up, I'm on the hook. If I'm not prepared for that, I should stick with "the first option" that was presented. But by the same token, I wouldn't be comfortable being intimate with a woman who would kill a child because it's inconvenient...

Evidently Common sense is politically incorrect or something...

No arguement here, but as Barmy pointed out, it's not realistic.

 

The thing is, these days a woman will never be forced to carry the baby to term if the guy wants it. To be honest, a part of me agrees with that as I have never said she should have no say at all in the matter. The judge can recommend that she listen to him but I can't imagine him forcing her carry the baby to term -- or forcing her to abort it if that's what the man wants either. But just as she should have some choices, so should he. As it stands now, he has none, legally. If she chooses to keep the baby against his wishes, he has no choice but to pay, or he faces huge sanctions. Now I am the kind of guy who believes that he has a moral responsibility to pay just as I believe that a woman has a moral responsibility to carry the baby. But if we as a society are going to offer her the choice to not carry the baby, or to give the child up for adoption because she cannot deal with raising it, I see no reason that a similar choice should not be proffered to the man.

Chandos, your "pain and suffering" comment was for, I assume, the hypothetical scenario of the man somehow forcing her to carry the baby? Or is that in all cases? I would agree that if he somehow managed to force her against her wishes to carry the baby to term, for so doing he should be forced to pay a lot and then be prepared to take care of the baby without accessing her resources once birth occurs.

Please don't misunderstand me, Chicken -- I don't believe in going soft on the guy at all -- I just think that his position should be listened to and considered before a decision is made.

 

This whole thing about not having sex if you don't want a kid is all very well. However, people can and do get pregnant even when contraception fails. a lot of people don't realise that the pill or condoms etc aren't 100% effective. What happens then?

With my son, had i gone another couple of days without having him (10 weeks early) there is a big chance that neither of us would be here now. If i hadn't wanted him but had been forced to have him and lost my life, would that not count as man slaughter on the part of the father?? I'm not trying to start an argument, just want to know what you think!

 

Driving home drunk is illegal; sex between two consenting adults is not, despite what the "sex police" think about it. For the rest of us there is nothing to "weasel out of."

Just what do you mean by, 'go through this with her." Is he going to help? Or is he going to take the baby and raise it himself? There is a lot to go through, Gnarff, and it's all fresh in my mind, since we just had a baby. Is the guy going to vomit for her twice a day? Is he going to take-off all the extra days from work that a pregnant woman misses? Is he going to have all his internal organs moved and kicked around inside his body? is he going to go through the pain of labor for her? Is he going to have all the stretch marks and broken blood vessels on his legs from carrying around an extra 50lbs of weight? All the extra weight makes everythng twice as hard, like sleeping. And is he going to suffer the potential career set-back that a mother might?

How about the medical bills? First there are all the visits, including ultra-sounds, testing for any potential defects, bloodwork, etc. Then there is the actual child birth (I had a baby 10 weeks ago). The hospital bill was about 3500.00; that was after what the insurance paid. Then there are the follow up vists for the baby with the doctor and the state mandates all kinds of tests, which of course, you pay for.

Then there is the actual care of the baby. I take it that the guy is going to do that as well. Let's see, there is feeding the baby, changing diapers (that's lots of fun), giving him a bath, preparing the bottles, sterlizing anything the baby uses, including all the bottles, changing his outfit. Then there is getting him to sleep, something "our guy" won't be getting much of, because babies are awake evey few hours, and they cry a lot at first; all his laundry has to be done separately, and there is lots of it, blankets, towels, outfits, etc.

I'm not sure in your scenario just who is going to do all this. Or did you think the guy would just get to write a check every month? That would be "convenient" for him.

Oh, and it would be nice if you refrained a bit with all the "killing because it's conveniet" comments. All your snide remarks don't offend me much, but there are some on this board who have gone through too much in their personal lives for any of that kind of rhetorical prattle. Thanks in advance. Have a nice day.

 

I have allowed myself to be distracted from my real goal -- unless I missed someone, martaug in his quote above is the only one who answered my original question. I know we have posters here from Poland, England, some Baltic countries, Indonesia, Germany, etc. Please tell me the policies in your country regarding abortion

 

my position is simple: equal rights, which society doesnt go for, women have more rights then men.

if 2 people have sex and creat a child, at the conception they are parents.

if they both want the child, great.
if they both want an abortion, great.
if the woman wants the child and the man doesnt, he is forced to pay child support until that child is 18.
if the man wants the child and the woman doesnt, he has no rights.

tell me thats fair.

 

Ours are free on the NHS (national health service) as are all medical treatments apart from cosmetic surgery (unless it's for something that impacts your life). The only thing we pay for are prescriptions and dental treatment

 

Yes, it is, because the woman agreed to have sex, not have a baby. Like I said, if the guy's intention is to have a baby, then he should discuss that before he has sex with his partner, so she knows that that is your intention for having sex. If she agrees beforehand, then yes. But women are not "breeding objects" for males. Talk about "fair," just what part does the male play in the biology of making part of a baby, after conception?

 

Yeah, but Chandos, when a baby comes a long unexpectantly you never know how you're going to react to that. It's a perspective changing event you can't really prepare for.

Sorry, should make more sense.. you can both have sex because you like each other and want to enjoy sex.. but not want a baby together. Accidents happen though, and it's impossible to prepare for emotionally.

 

And that is correct. There is no doubt that if two engage in sex, that is all they agreed to. Parenthood is something not to be entered into without a lot of forethought. Parenthood is demanding. IF the male does not want to be a dad, he should not be forced to be one. IF he does not want the child and does not agree, to the support the baby, he should be able to sign an agreement and let out of the relationship. That said, after the woman rasied the baby without any support he should not be able to come back later and say he wants his rights to the baby.

 

On the same token, you'll get a lot of scum who will impregnate women, either as an accident or through stupid carelessness and not be interested in supporting the child. Then leave all the emotional and financial stress to the mother. The only way she can avoid that stress and financial trouble is to abort the pregnancy. What a massive pile of hot potatoes!

Mmm.... hot potatoes covered in baked beans and cheese.

 

Yeah, Barmy, I've got three kids, all 6 or under. It's a lot. One would be just an absolute piece of cake at the point. But think about what kind of dad scum like that would be. Aren't there enough crappy parents in the world already? We can debate that, but I think both the mom and kid are better off without him. But if he wants to pay support, he should have his rights. If not, there's the one-way door....

 

Like I said, if you are not prepared for the consequences of your actions, you shouldn't take those actions in the first place. The principle is accountability. Nobody wants to be accountable for what they do anymore, and that's one of the biggest problems this world faces. It doesn't change my opinion--if you aren't prepared for the possibility of having a kid, then don't have sex.

Your life was in grave danger. In that case, the abortion should be available without some dipshit screaming obscenities at you. In that case, the father's right to his offspring ends when the mother's life is gravely threatened.

You missed my point. The point is that once the decision to act is made, the consequences are locked in. Both activities carry some risk. To deny that risk is stupid.

In whatever way he can. And not just him either. They have the right to ask family and friends for help during the pregnancy and period of time after the birth. A few answers will be given as your poits were raised.

Not usually, but he can help out with the housework so that she doesn't have to fix his breakfast or clean up afterwards when she likely needs to rest. From my own experience of vomitting, after I was done, the last thing I wanted to do was clean it up. Since the woman was gracious enough to let him get his rocks off, he should have the decency to clean up after ther and get his own damned breakfast.

Up to the limits of any leave his employer grants him for paternity, but if he needs to be working to pay the bills, they should be able to ask family or friends to help out with doctor's appointments and the like.

He should be able to accommodate her while she goes through this. If she needs her rest, he can cook, clean and do whatever needs to be done. It's called sacrifice.

In a normal pregnancy, that shouldn't happen. But if something like that does happen he should be there to work on the plan to deal with that.

In Canada, we have Free Healthcare. Something that any nation that wants to look after its people really should look into. But in the US, there has to be ways to deal with that added expense.

Yes, the man should help out with this to the best of his ability. Family and friends should be available for occasional help too. I'm assuming that you've done much of what I've listed above, but may not have thought of it that way. If any man is not prepared for that, he should not be having sex.

Actually, I've heard that wasn't exactly convenient, and should only be used in cases where the couple can't work together on these responsibilities. The point is that the right thing to do is not usually convenient...

It is still killing an innocent. I don't seek to be snide, just honest. And honesty is not always pleasant. I try to step off the soap box and look for a solution that will make the decision against an abortion easier to make only to find that nobody cares, why should I give a damn about this either? It almost becomes easier to be one of those dipshits that stands in front of an abortion clinic screaming obscenities at these women...

Quite frankly, I find your pro-choice position to be very hypocritical in light of your respect for Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that people have the inalienable right to life.

Again, you insist of seperating the action from the consequences. That is a recipe for disaster...

Mostly because of the attitude you seem to defend--denying the consequences of their actions. They refuse to be accountable for the results of what they did. They don't care about the consequences, as long as they get what they want.