If I **** a woman, she let me **** her.

Making it sound like just by ****ing a girl that I waived all my rights is just absolute, selfish idiocy

I feel sorry for any man who deposited sperm in your vag, as you so crassly put it.

This thread is about accidental pregnancies, and condoms do not always work as intended.

I think a guy should be given a choice to opt out from responsibility for the child. By no means should he have a power to decide to abort. The child has been conceived and if she is willing to take care of it, and asking nothing of him, how could you ethically justified his decision to abort it? But no, he should not have the legal obligation to pay unless he has decided to be the father.

Abortion is not always a choice. Some people could not kill their own child.
I couldnt have an abortion if a gun were forced to my head.

"PROF. SANDEL: [W]hat percent of fertilized eggs fail to implant or are otherwise lost?

DR. OPITZ: The answer to your first question is that it is enormous. Estimates range all the way from 60 percent to 80 percent of the very earliest stages, cleavage stages, for example, that are lost."
http://www.bioethics.gov/transcripts/jan03/session1.html

In fact, the numbers of embryos lost are so huge, they make abortion pale in comparison.
Natural procreation causes more embryo loss than abortion:
"The rate of natural embryo loss after conception in unassisted human reproduction is high, some suggest as high as 80 percent,101 and the fact of natural loss is fairly well known, so that persons who engage in or permit the pursuit of conception through unassisted reproduction
are knowingly bringing about the conception of many embryos that will die.

Moreover, they suggest, the high rate of natural embryo loss should bring into question the views of those who believe that early-stage human embryos merit equal treatment with human children and adults. If so many die in the natural course of things, how do we not treat natural procreation as a great fountain of tragedy and carnage? They argue that the natural rate of embryo loss, and our response to it, should teach us something about the limited significance of human embryos in the earliest stages."
http://www.bioethics.gov/background/monitor_stem_cell.html

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT ABORTION. And yes, abortion IS a choice. I am pro-choice but I think abortion is murder.

Why am I still pro-choice? Because it's a free country and not everyone in the world should have to live by my moral code.

Anyone who posts below this line
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and still thinks this thread is about abortion is a complete friggin idiot.

ADOPTION PEOPLE! OR a mother can have the kid and not expect the father to BE a father. This thread is not about whether women should kill kids or not. It's about whether a man should have any sort of legal or social right to what happens with a baby once it is conceived.

Expecting a man to have no legal say or power in the matter and then make him cough up money for 18 years is ludicrous and unfair.

So is every woman saying here that the child is inevitable regardless?
One poster has clearly stated that women have abortions all the time of embrios but do not care for any of them? What about the extra embrios that are manufactured at an invitro clinic, should we be concerned for all of them too?
Sure it all sounds stupid but if a man has no say then don't women have MORE of a responsibility in this matter?

abortion is like your house trying to kill you

Maybe if more women knew for sure that they would be 100% alone raising a child, they either wouldn't have them or would put them up for adoption

Come to think of it, most of the married women I know with children often complain about how little their husband is involved in the care of their children, not to mention assuming a share of household responsibilities.

How about all those divorced couples with children....should they give their children up for adoption if their marriage fails? Widows? Should they also be adopting out their children and leaving parenthood because their spouse died? How do those children differ from those born out of wedlock when they are being raised in a one-parent home? Answer - They don't

Children of never-married mothers are at risk of
experiencing negative outcomes and are among those most likely to live in poverty. Roughly 69
percent of children of never-married mothers are poor, compared to 45 percent of children
brought up by divorced single mothers.21 Never-married mothers are significantly younger, have
lower incomes, have fewer years of education, and are twice as likely to be unemployed as
divorced mothers.22 While age of the mother has some effect, most of the differences between
the two groups remain even when age is taken into account.23 Regardless of the mother’s age at
birth, a child born to an unmarried mother is less likely to complete high school than a child
whose mother is married.24
www.clasp.org/publications/marriage_brief3_annotated.pdf

Well, if the parent is a good parent, those risks are mitigated. If that parent is not an addict of some type, those risks are mitigated. If that parent is not self-centred but is able to consider the needs of their child first, those risks are mitigated. If a parent instills good values and a strong work ethic in their child(ren), those risks are mitigated.

Not all unwed mothers fit neatly into the mold you try to fit us into....I wonder where Amore is .... I'm truly surprised that she hasn't commented in these threads.....