|
|
|
|
|
| | are women playing GOD when they become pregnantPage 15 of 54 (14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54) |
All men are REALLY asking for, is that if we are 50% responsible, that we get 50% of the decision after conception. If you say it takes two to make a baby, why is it only one that get's to decide the outcome of a pregnancy?
If he wants 50% of the decision, is he willing to take on 50% of the effects & risks? If they decide on abortion, is he willing to arrive at the facility and undergo a similar a procedure as hers? Is he willing to endure the possible side effects of abortion, including the possiblity of permanent sterilization? Is he willing to pay 50% of any counselling she may need to deal with abortion, as well as attend counselling with her. Yeah, lots of women have no problem with abortions - 1/2 day or whatever out of their life, and they go on, but some do - so these risks are a possibility.
If they decide to take the pregnancy to term, is he willing to accept morning sickness, gaining 25 lbs, stretch marks and other physical changes, gestational diabetes, etc. Is he willing to take the risk that a delivery will need to be done via ceaserian, and - in order to keep things "fair" have his abdomen cut into? Is he willing to help her through the months after, including post-partum depression if she is subject to that? Again, many (if not most) women have trouble-free pregnancies - but it's not guaranteed.
When the man is able and willing to take the same risks involved with pregnancy/abortion as the woman takes - well, maybe there would be some basis to allow him more rights over deciding which choice should be made.
The world is not fair, and this is the sort of issue where fairness is impossible. Either the men prevail over the women, or the women win over the men, and both outcomes involve some unfairness somewhere.
Well said! And from a man! Thank you! | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 9:27:48 AM | NO ONE here argued that men should have say over a womans choice. What was said, and what women WON'T acknowledge is that men understand and are OK with women making that decision, but it's the financial ramifications of a woman making a choice against his will that we are against.
If THEY decide on a abortion, it's with both of them in agreement that the risks and consequences are worth it, if the woman isn't game, the abortion doesn't happen. That being said she can't impose her will on him financially after the fact.
If THEY decide to take the pregnancy to term, it's with the woman's FULL consent and understanding that she is going to shoulder the burden of the stretch marks and post partum depression.
The DIFFERENCE is we aren't FORCING you to deal with it, YOU have a choice. The analogy you made implies that women aren't a part of the choice, which is silly. If she chooses to move forward, it's with full knowledge that she is going to bear that child and deal with those consequences.
The world is not fair, and this is the sort of issue where fairness is impossible. Either the men prevail over the women, or the women win over the men, and both outcomes involve some unfairness somewhere.
As for this nonsense. Let's use that to justify rape, or domestic abuse, or racism, or sexism. Hey, the world isn't fair, fairness isn't possible since women are weaker. Outcomes will always be unfair right? So let's taking that ability to vote away, oh yeah no more property rights either. And marital rape, thats ok again.
After all, the world isn't fair right? | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 9:29:20 AM | I do realize that protection does fail but if you really don't want children do have sex!! That same argument could be applied women who decide to keep their babies and seek legal recourse of a man's financial assets: "If she didn't want to take on the responsibility and if she didn't want to have an abortion, she should not have had sex!"
In the same principle, to suggest that man should deprive themselves all together of a basic human need over the chance of pregnancy is fallacious. Should women lock themselves up permanently in order to avoid contact with men? Should women spend their whole lives behind hijabs in order to avoid interactions that could lead to sexual intercourse with men? Should women purposely seek unhealthy lifestyles in an effort to remain unattractive to the opposite sex? Should women refrain from having sex altogether, with or without protection, to eliminate the risk of pregnancy? Should everyone just stop drinking water and eating food altogether because they might run the risk of consuming harmful substances in the process? Should everyone just stop breathing if they don't want to run the risk of smelling toxic fumes?
The answer to all of these is no. Absolutely not. People should take reasonable precautions to protect themselves from harm but accidents will still always happen; and to suggest that men should simply deprive themselves of a basic human need(something every single living creature on earth is subconsciously programmed to seek) as a precaution is, at the very least, absurd and apathetic and, at worst, hateful and oppressive. (Not to mention naive and unrealistic, abstinence programs have and will continue to fail time and time again throughout the entire globe)
If he wants 50% of the decision, is he willing to take on 50% of the effects & risks? If they decide on abortion, is he willing to arrive at the facility and undergo a similar a procedure as hers? Is he willing to endure the possible side effects of abortion, including the possiblity of permanent sterilization? The decision to undergo abortion is still her decision alone to make since, again, no one is suggesting that abortions be forced or refused on women by men. Should they both agree that abortion is the route to take than do believe that the average man would offer his support throughout the ordeal as well. Still, this is also off-topic since we are referring to cases where the father and mother do now agree.
Is he willing to pay 50% of any counselling she may need to deal with abortion, as well as attend counselling with her. Yeah, lots of women have no problem with abortions - 1/2 day or whatever out of their life, and they go on, but some do - so these risks are a possibility. Would a woman be responsible to pay 50% of his counseling bills should he deem them necessary? Why would you make the assumption that the concepts of abortion and fatherhood not be just as equally psychologically arduous to a man? Why would anyone be responsible for the mental vulnerabilities of another.
If they decide to take the pregnancy to term, is he willing to accept morning sickness, gaining 25 lbs, stretch marks and other physical changes, gestational diabetes, etc. Is he willing to take the risk that a delivery will need to be done via ceaserian, and - in order to keep things "fair" have his abdomen cut into? Is he willing to help her through the months after, including post-partum depression if she is subject to that? Again, many (if not most) women have trouble-free pregnancies - but it's not guaranteed. Should they both make that choice to commit to the baby than, yes, I assume the average man would do his best to remain supportive throughout the entire ordeal; however, this is not what we're talking about. You are going completely off-topic.
| |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 9:47:42 AM |
WON'T acknowledge is that men understand and are OK with women making that decision, but it's the financial ramifications of a woman making
I, for one, understand that for men it's about the money. Men are very keen to ensure they get to keep their money; everyone and everything else be damned, including their kids. When men don't want to pay alimony, even for a woman they've supported for decades, and then left high and dry - well, that's sad and speaks to his character, but still ... she's an adult and made choices there as well.
When it comes to kids and the way men simply use any reason possible to avoid being responsible for them - well, I, for one, have no sympathy. If you don't want to risk being financially liable for kids, wear a condom that you've brought with you and use spermacide every time you have sex with a woman, regardless of her claim of birth control use, or get a vasectomy. Push the drug companies to come up with a reliable hormonal birth control for men. Take some presonal responsibility for YOUR decision not to have children. And if it does happen despite your care (and hers) - damn right you should have some responsibility there. The kid should not have to suffer any more than necessary, period. Surely men who support men's rights when it comes to visitation/access would be able to understand that! It's a cornerstone of their argument - the kids should not be deprived of an interested and loving father, regardless of the vindictiveness of the mother. Nor should they be deprived of financial support from their father, regardless of how unplanned the pregnancy was.
As for the option only women have for abortion - this is not a get-out-of-jail free card for men that women are obligated to use to save his financial azz.
But most of all, stop leaving the responsibility for preventing YOUR children on the woman and expecting her to take all the physical and financial hits for your lack of pesronal responsibility. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 9:59:48 AM | I'm confused.
By allowing her a choice, how am i expecting her to take all the physical and financial hits for MY lack of personal responsibility? If she doesn't want to take on the financial burden of raising children, I will never force her to.
Do you have no sympathy for welfare moms? If they didn't want to risk being financially liable, they should have used a condom and spermicide, OR gotten a tubal ligation.
If two men rob a bank, and one man in the process decides to shoot 6 people, does the other go to jail for murder? After all, he KNEW a murder could take place, he knew there were risks. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 10:01:22 AM |
The answer to all of these is no. Absolutely not. People should take reasonable precautions to protect themselves from harm but accidents will still always happen; and to suggest that men should simply deprive themselves of a basic human need(something every single living creature on earth is subconsciously programmed to seek) as a precaution is, at the very least, absurd and apathetic and, at worst, hateful and oppressive. (Not to mention naive and unrealistic, abstinence programs have and will continue to fail time and time again throughout the entire globe)
What is considered reasonable? To me reasonable would be taking control of your sperm ie: a condom, spermicide, a vasectomy, or abstinence. What is not reasonable is allowing someone else to have control of your sperm willingly and then crying foul when there is a pregnancy or proclaiming that all of the above is simply not an option for some bizzarre reason. Or somehow justifying that attitude with the argument that women can get abortions. As another poster stated, abortion is not a get of jail free card for men that dont want to be responsible with their sexuality...
I guess it is quite telling that women will be way more critical with a woman having unwanted pregnancies and be horrified at the idea, while apparently most men just shrug their shoulders and go on their merry way when a man walks away from his child.... | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 10:05:05 AM |
I guess it is quite telling that women will be way more critical with a woman having unwanted pregnancies and be horrified at the idea, while apparently most men just shrug their shoulders and go on their merry way when a man walks away from his child....
Uhhhm huh? Did you read what i think durandal posted?
A man that doesn't want to be a father is a deadbeat.
A woman that doesn't want to be a mother is pro choice.
You don't think thats telling? | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 10:19:13 AM |
By allowing her a choice, how am i expecting her to take all the physical and financial hits for MY lack of personal responsibility? If she doesn't want to take on the financial burden of raising children, I will never force her to.
Once a woman becomes pregnant, she has NO CHOICE in deciding whether to have an abortion or carry the pregnancy to term. You think she has "two choices" ... but really, the choices are forced upon her by her situation - which the man helped to create, not undertaken willingly as a result of her actions alone. Both choices have risks associated with them, some quite serious and long-term. She is forced by circumstances to have to accept one or the other. Men, on the other hand, want the freedom to be absolved from all risks/responsiblities. How is that fair?
Do you have no sympathy for welfare moms? If they didn't want to risk being financially liable, they should have used a condom and spermicide, OR gotten a tubal ligation.
I believe accidental pregnancies occur, so if a woman finds herself in that situation and on welfare- then yeah, I have sympathy. But the father should be helping to support that child, too, and she should insist on that.
But I don't believe accidental pregnancies occur regularly with the same person (only know of one woman where I think this did happen to her - she really really didn't want kids, was married and kept getting pregnant). I despise the idea some women have that babies as a viable 'career choice', same as I despise the notion some men have that its ok to walk away from their responsibilities.
If two men rob a bank, and one man in the process decides to shoot 6 people, does the other go to jail for murder? After all, he KNEW a murder could take place, he knew there were risks.
I think yeah, if he's involved in the robbery and people were killed, by law he is held to a very similar standard of wrongdoing - perhaps not quite to the degree as the actual shooter, but still held responsible and his sentence would reflect that. I think in law it's called something like "reasonable expectation" or "reasonable standard" - someone can't claim innocence of outcomes if any reasonable person might expect such an outcome. I'm not a lawyer, though, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 10:23:23 AM |
A man that doesn't want to be a father is a deadbeat.
A woman that doesn't want to be a mother is pro choice.
It's a CARTOON, a simplistic representation of a complex and emotional topic.
As it happens, if a woman birthed a child and then walked away, she'd be just as vilifed as the deadbeat father. And, for many people, women who have abortions are no better than murderers. The cartoon misrepresents the situation. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 10:28:01 AM | Wait wait.
Once a woman becomes pregnant, she has NO CHOICE in deciding whether to have an abortion or carry the pregnancy to term.
And then
Both choices have risks associated with them, some quite serious and long-term
How can she have no choice and then have choices?
I believe accidental pregnancies occur, so if a woman finds herself in that situation and on welfare- then yeah, I have sympathy. But the father should be helping to support that child, too, and she should insist on that.
What happened to all this?
When it comes to kids and the way men simply use any reason possible to avoid being responsible for them - well, I, for one, have no sympathy. If you don't want to risk being financially liable for kids, wear a condom that you've brought with you and use spermacide every time you have sex with a woman, regardless of her claim of birth control use, or get a vasectomy.
Where is the personal accountability for her decision? Why is it that men are the ***holes and women are victems of circumstance for making poor choices? You're double standard is showing.
The man would not go to jail for murder. Even if he did, would YOU think thats justified? He has no intentions to harm anyone, someone makes a decision that he had no part of, all he wanted was to rob a bank and the OTHER person took it upon themselves to act that way. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 10:31:28 AM | It's a CARTOON, a simplistic representation of a complex and emotional topic.
As it happens, if a woman birthed a child and then walked away, she'd be just as vilifed as the deadbeat father. And, for many people, women who have abortions are no better than murderers. The cartoon misrepresents the situation.
Actually no she wouldn't. Look at Andrea Yates, she DROWNED 5 children and she became the victim.
Women who have abortions are no better than murders? Now i see your REAL issue, you don't believe in ANYONES right to choose.
Edit, you are completely right, i misread that statement pro filer, my apologies. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 10:32:59 AM | I feel it's simple. In the beginnng the person who doesn't want a child ever should prevent pregnancy for themselves (birth control, close the factory, etc). If it's both, then both should be preventative with their side of the equation.
Since a woman carries, has and usually ends up with a child she shouldn't get pregnant in the first place unless she's well prepared to go it alone as women don't have the option to back out, but men do, and some will no matter what they say.
If a woman wants to carry and have a baby that the father wants no part of - she needs to then go on without him (and get him to sign in case he decides two years later to change his mind)...and have a plan B (nest egg, work plan, adoption, etc) in place that she set up in the event that the father isn't interested in involvement.
If the father does want to be involved, it should be set in writing as well so as to prevent mind changes down the road.
If she doesn't want to carry the baby, that's her choice, unless the father wants the child and can find someone to carry it.
Most men only complain about having no choice when they don't want the child (or at least are the most vocal about that), so this should satisfy most. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 10:34:52 AM |
You are going completely off-topic.
How am I offtopic?
You say: if the man is expected to be financially responsible for a child, then he should be permitted input into the decision as to whether the child is carried to term or is aborted.
I say: You are missing the important point that regardless of whether the decision (by the woman or both of them together) is to abort or to have the baby only SHE takes all the associated risks and long term effects of that decision. You are arguing to eliminate _any_ consequences to a man when a pregnancy occurs, thus leaving all the consequences to the woman (and child, if it is carried to term). And, you are bolstering that argument by saying "Well, she can get an abortion" - as if an abortion were a walk in the park, and actually something all women are emotionally capable of doing. The reality is that some people (men and women) have very strong moral or religious reasons against abortion; ignoring that reality doesn't somehow make her abortion a valid option to absolving you of responsibility.
Just as an aside, I'd also be happy to insist that men be involved in their kid's life regardless of how that kid came about. That, to me, is at least as important as the financial aspect, and probably more - but it's an even harder thing to ensure than the financial responsibility we're talking about now. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 10:41:06 AM |
Women who have abortions are no better than murders? Now i see your REAL issue, you don't believe in ANYONES right to choose
Here and in your other post you cherry pick.
I said "FOR MANY PEOPLE women who have abortions are no better than ..."
That DOESN'T happen to reflect my personal view. I, personally, don't think I could abort but I have compassion and sympathy for women who find themselves pregnant and make that decision. I do not hold it against them; thank God that was never a situation I found myself in.
As to my other post, I said I despised women who used baby-making to increase their income. You ignored that entire rant to cherry pick another comment and thus make the claim that I somehow am more sympathetic towards women who behave irresponsibly than men. Believe me, I'm not.
So, since you have stopped reading for actual comprehension, I will not respond to any more of your remarks on this topic. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 10:48:57 AM | The debate is over a woman's rights to impose her will on a man for wanting something the man doesn't, once she's become accidentally impreganated with his DNA.
Once you have sex it is taken out of your "hands" and quite frankly in my opinion if you don't want children take precautions or avoid sex altogether. I am so sick of my tax dollars going towards funding other people's children. You tell me how it is fair that the right of the tax payer is never considered? Why should *I* or anyone else have to pay for your or anyone's illegitimate children? You talk so much about imposing will on someone, why don't you mention how the rest of us have to pay for your "accident."  Take responsibility by either keeping your legs crossed or keep it in your pants and stop making excuses, I don't feel sorry for the mother or the father. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 11:01:14 AM | | Big Pacific...More reasons to sue means more people suing...means more court rooms, clerks, judges, attorneys, etc. Right now-withOUT Men's Rights on this topic, all the men who want to try to sue over blocking an abortion have to pay the court/ attorney/etc fees THEMSELVES. Once it becomes their RIGHT to sue over such, the STATE will have to provide free attorneys for the poor dads who want to sue...just as they now have to provide free attorneys for poor people accused of crimes in order to defend THEIR RIGHTS to a fair trial, speedy trial, etc. RIGHTS CHANGE EVERYTHING, AND RAISE ALL COSTS! Have you not noticed how much more costly civil rights cases, criminal cases, etc, have become in the last 50 years? More peopel being born, more being victimized, means more going to trial, and more money spent on the cases. Can you not comprehend second grade math? If six poor men are accused of robbery, and need free state appointed attorneys, it costs more than when two poor men are accused, and need free attorneys. It costs MORE when ten men need free attorneys. It will cost even more when three million, or more, men per year need free attorneys to defend their reproductive rights. Parity, and precedent, rule the courthouses. If you have control over a woman's uterus, and fetus, she will gain control over your balls, and sperm. Then, she will be half owner of your sperm, and you will not be legally able to dispose of them without her permission. If you do dispose of your sperm without your woman's permission, she will have suffered financial, and emotional, loss, and be able to sue you...perhaps even charge you criminally. THAT is how it would affect your wet dreams, and dalliances with other women. Take a few law courses, and see what happens when things become a matter of rights. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 11:02:17 AM | You don't think thats telling?
What I find telling is that you completely ignored the fact that men have every right to not put them selves in this position but continue to argue like they dont have this ability...
I would be willing to bet that a large majority of the men that find themselves in this position would never buy a used car without doing everything reasonable to ensure that they werent buying a lemon, they would take it to a mechanic, ask to see service records, check to see if it had been in accident, research it as thoroughly as possible before dropping 2k on a car, they would never accept someones word that there was nothing wrong with that car, NO that would be stupid, wouldnt it? BUT when it comes to having sex, they are perfectly willing to allow someone else to have total control of their reproductive rights, their future, and roll the dice. But somehow that isnt stupid and irresponsible and is reasonable???WTF! | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 11:07:21 AM | Really? I'm trying to point out obvious inequity.
BOTH parties can choose abstinance. Men and Women.
After the fact men have no choice, women have
1. adoption
2. abortion
3. morning after pill
4. keep the pregnancy.
THAT is why i skip over that BOTH parties have a right to choose abstinance, but that idea is so absurd it doesn't merit reply. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 11:25:46 AM | Are women playing GOD when they become pregnant?
No, not for the thousands and thousands of years did women have a choice if they became pregnant or not.....their husbands and the Church played GOD. They were told by the church and their husbands that it was a man's right to have sex with his wife any time he wanted and no matter how many children they already had......she was expected and obligated to provide day to day care for for the child. If a married or unmarried woman was raped and impregnated, she was blamed, ridiculed, ostracized, shunned by her family, beaten by her husband or father and in ancient times.....she was stoned to death along with her unborn child.
It hasn't even been 50 years that women have been given choices and I am reading on this thread that men NOW want women to absolve him of any responsibility if HE chooses not to be a participating father. 
Boys, boys, boys...everytime you pull out your penis in the presence of a woman, you are risking the likelihood of becoming the father of an unwanted child. Do you actually have to cause a woman to become pregnant to understand that??????
How many men actually question the women about their form of birth control before engaging in sex? I, myself have never been questioned by a man and in asking some of my girlfriends, most have had the same experience. Hell, they said......women were expected to provide the condoms as well. That my friends, is the general mentality of SOME and most men out there that were born before the 1980's. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 12:24:00 PM |
It's a CARTOON, a simplistic representation of a complex and emotional topic.
False. It is a cartoon that presents A VALID LOGICAL POINT. That is what we are arguing, not the cartoon itself.
As it happens, if a woman birthed a child and then walked away, she'd be just as vilifed as the deadbeat father.
That's a lie, nothing more. Women who birth a child then give them up for adoption do just that. But if I called them a deadbeat mother, I would be vilified by women (and rightly so since women are doing nothing wrong by giving their kids up for adoption).
No one has yet responded to the point because there is no valid response. The women who are in favour of this current system are misandristic, hypocritical, and entitled.
Men who get a woman pregnant and do not wish to be a father are deadbeats. Women who get pregnant and do not wish to be mothers are pro-choice.
The hypocrisy and entitlement is undeniable.
The only possible counter-argument is the following:
"Women may experience emotional trauma due to abortion and for that reason they should have the right to force their will on the man."
This is an invalid argument for a few reasons. Firstly, a man may also undergo emotional trauma if a woman choose to abort his child (especially if he wishes to keep the child). But the woman is not obligated to pay for counselling or damages.
Secondly, men should not be held responsible for biological design. Women are the ones who become pregnant, yes. That is not the fault of men and they should not suffer for that.
If you disagree, then consider the fact that men are the ones drafted as soldiers because they are "stronger and more able to fight." No one is saying women should pay for the soldiers being harmed etc. because that would be unfair. And if you try to argue that this no longer happens, think again.
Right now in 2009, there are many countries that have a MANDATORY draft for male citizens (all males must serve X years in the army). This can be physically or emotionally harmful / traumatizing for the men, especially if they actually fight in some battles. Yet no one suggests women should pay for the damages since that would be unfair.
The comments about history and how in the past women were opppressed, are 100% irrelevant.
It's shameful how some women will speak about past injustices against women and claim that is justification for their selfishness and hypocrisy today. Then you have other women who explain that men should pay for them because "they are traditional. "
In other words, past injustices IN FAVOUR OF WOMEN are justification for current selfishness favouring women. And past injustices AGAINST WOMEN are justification for...current selfishness favouring women. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 12:40:48 PM | I have followed this thread with interest and I have an honest question that I'll present as the following scenario...
Jack 23, and Jill 21, both students, both decent people, meet and like each other and after discussing contraceptive methods and getting their STD check-up, they become intimate.
Two months later, they have words or the flame dies down and they are no longer an item.
Three weeks later, Jill misses her period. The test comes back positive. Jill calls Jack - after much agonising, they both agree that an abortion is the best solution at this time.
An abortion is scheduled - Jill can't go through with it. Jack is notified of the new development - angry and frustrated words are exchanged - Jack and Jill are at an impasse - she wants to keep the baby - Jack feels that he is not ready to be a father.
Thankfully, Jack can now sign away all parental rights to his child before the child is born, relieving him of all responsibility, which is fine with Jill - she takes full sole responsibility for her decision = her child. They shake hands and wish each other luck.
Life goes on. Then one day, through mutual friends (and because it's a small town), Jack learns of the birth. A mix of strange and powerful emotions that he never knew existed before threatens to overwhelm him. A few days later, he gratefully accepts a job offer that will take him 3 provinces away as soon as he graduates.
And life goes on some more...Jack loves his new position...in fact, he loves everything about his new life.....there's just one thing...he can't get the life he left behind out of his head.
Two years have now gone by....Jill, having graduated a year late, is now working full time in a job she loves and that pays well and has just bought a townhouse. Her parents and extended family are supportive of her and her son and life, although not exactly as planned, is good.
One night, Jack calls Jill....it's an emotional phone call. They both agree that Jack "should" have the right to see his son and that his son "should" have the right to know his father.
Now what....?
Some of my other questions/comments are....should Jack be allowed to change his mind?
Is it reasonable to think that a "father" could walk in (and out) of a child's life whenever he feels like it?
And what about the mother or Jill in this case - if she exerts her sole parental right and refuses the visit, she now has to live with her decision, a decision which by all accounts (and in my opinion) can be as difficult to make than her original decision to keep the child in the first place. Not to mention what she'd be getting from the outside ie: she'd be accused of parental alienation, of being selfish, a golddigger (cuz we all know that someone would bring up the ole "if he paid support you wouldn't have a problem with it"), etc.
I'm really having a problem with the privacy factor ....unlike a closed adoption, the father "giving his child for adoption" still knows the name and whereabouts of the mother - how could we ensure the peace/safety/privacy of mother and child should a father become distraught and start pleading/demanding/ threatening to see his child??
What happens in small towns and villages where everybody knows your name (literally)?
The more questions I come up with, the more complicated it all becomes....I honestly don't think that some people have thought their ideas through...this is a complex issue that carries serious long lasting consequences for a lot of people.
In a way, all of that is moot for me - I've always been a strong advocate of personal responsibility - I had a tubal ligation when I was 20 years old - I don't have much sympathy for anyone, male or female, who doesn't take contraception AND the possibility AND consequences of it's failure seriously. My grand-daughter (15) and I just had this discussion a few days ago and I swear to gawd that if I saw in her some of what I see in here, I would consider myself a complete failure both as a parent and as a human being.
| |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 12:47:24 PM | This is a simple scenario with simple and fair solutions.
"Should Jack be allowed to change his mind?"
Not solely on his whim. Sperm donors are not allowed to see their children at their whim, likewise Jack.
However, IF Jack and Jill can mutually agree to change the decision, AND Jack is willing to pay all the back child support that he would have paid had he not signed away his parental rights and responsibilities, then he should be allowed to change his mind.
Parental RIGHTS and parental RESPONSIBILITIES go hand in hand. Jack should not be allowed to pick only the rights but not the responsibilities.
"Is it reasonable to think that a "father" could walk in (and out) of a child's life whenever he feels like it? "
No, that is unreasonable. See above.
"And what about the mother or Jill in this case - if she exerts her sole parental right and refuses the visit, she now has to live with her decision, a decision which by all accounts (and in my opinion) can be as difficult to make than her original decision to keep the child in the first place."
Again, it's Jill's decision. If she is willing to let Jack change his mind, her call. If not, also her call. Jack made his decision, he must live with it. Jill can make her decision now, she must live with it.
"I'm really having a problem with the privacy factor ....unlike a closed adoption, the father "giving his child for adoption" still knows the name and whereabouts of the mother - how could we ensure the peace/safety/privacy of mother and child should a father become distraught and start pleading/demanding/ threatening to see his child??"
If a sperm donor finds out the identity and whereabouts of his child and demands to see his child, he can be arrested for stalking or whatever crimes. Likewise Jack.
Any other questions? | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 12:56:18 PM |
That's a lie, nothing more. Women who birth a child then give them up for adoption do just that.
There's a difference between "abandoning" a child by simply assuming someone else should have the responsibilty of raising your child, and making careful, deliberate and consensual arrangements with other people to raise the child. In the "deadbeat" father or mother, they're refusing to accept or acknowledge their responsibility and just dumping it on someone else.
If a woman voluntarily agrees to be 100% responsible for a baby-surprise, that would indeed be her choice. But why should it be forced on her that her choice is either abortion OR financial hardship for herself and his child? What kind of choice is that, especially for a woman who has moral or religious objections to abortion? And why should the man, who suffers none of the ill-effects of either of those choices, have the power to insist she decide in the way that best suits HIM?
The comments about history and how in the past women were opppressed, are 100% irrelevant.
Not so irrelevant. Men, for centuries, have had ALL the choice about parenthood, and left the women to pick up the pieces whenever they couldn't be bothered with the consequences of their actions. You've had to endure what ... 20 or 30 years of the "unfairness" of actually being held responsible for your progeny? Oh, cry me a river.
Maybe try taking some RESPONSIBILITY instead of blaming women because you can't dip your wick without facing some of the same consequences women haved faced throughout history. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 1:14:42 PM | "There's a difference between "abandoning" a child by simply assuming someone else should have the responsibilty of raising your child, and making careful, deliberate and consensual arrangements with other people to raise the child. In the "deadbeat" father or mother, they're refusing to accept or acknowledge their responsibility and just dumping it on someone else."
LOL? Most women who give their kid up for adoption give them to the gov't. They get placed in gov't agencies. There's no deliberate and consensual arrangements. They are "refusing to accept responsibility" in exactly the same way the man would be.
You're a hypocrite, nothing more, if you refuse to admit that. Men and women doing the same behaviour must be painted with the same brush.
"But why should it be forced on her that her choice is either abortion OR financial hardship for herself and his child? "
Because it is indeed HER CHOICE. The man has no choice.
Let's rephrase this. A man gets a woman pregnant. He has moral objections to abortion. But she doesn't want to carry the baby. Why should it be forced on him that his baby is murdered without getting a chance to live?
"Not so irrelevant. Men, for centuries, have had ALL the choice about parenthood, and left the women to pick up the pieces whenever they couldn't be bothered with the consequences of their actions. You've had to endure what ... 20 or 30 years of the "unfairness" of actually being held responsible for your progeny? Oh, cry me a river. "
It is irrelevant. No one can be held responsible for sins committed by other people before they were born.
This is the same "logic" fundamentalists use to explain why all women are sinners (Eve was responsible for the Fall).
You're a misandrist, nothing more, if you can't see that. | |
|
| are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/13/2009 1:16:24 PM |
Secondly, men should not be held responsible for biological design. Women are the ones who become pregnant, yes. That is not the fault of men and they should not suffer for that.
Yup, this is the male mentality that I spoke of in my last post which is basically....
HER body, so it's HER problem. Do boys maturing into men develop this attitude as they age or have their parents raised them that way??? It amazes me that women still actually agree to have sex with men without marriage or some form of contract, should an unwanted child become part of the equation.
There was a case in Virginia where a 19 year woman was brutually raped and left for dead. She survived, but became pregnant and because of her religious upbringing could not morally bring herself to have an abortion or give it up for adoption. The rapist did jail time, but was also made to pay child support and had no parental rights.
There was a thread on POF forums not too long ago about a rapist being forced to pay child support..........and did the men on the POF forums complain about that, saying that jail time should have been enough. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
15
of
54 (14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54)
|
|
Home
login 
