online dating service
REGISTER | MAIL/PROFILE | HELP | NOW ONLINE | SEARCH | RATING | FORUMS | SUCCESS STORIES

 

     
Posted In Forum:
Home   login   MyForums  
Show ALL Forums  
 
 Author Thread: You know you are not in the big city anymore when....
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 10 (view)
 
You know you are not in the big city anymore when....
Posted: 11/22/2009 3:43:44 PM
* You are having a quiet coffee and overhear the next table gossiping about so-and-so
* Musical beds is the 2nd favorite past-time, right after spending weekends in the bar
* A guy phones in t0 a radio talk show and says "If people want to use signal lights, let them move back to the city"
* You have to pay twice as much for an item than you'd have to pay in the city because there is little or no competition - though they claim that its because it costs so much to get it there.
* Friendliness/acceptance is only offered if you conform to the 'small town' mentality
* Someone comes knocking at your door to explain to you how you should live your life, because they heard things from "so-and-so"; none of the things so-and-so said are remotely accurate.

That was my experience with about 25 years of small-town life.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 1373 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/22/2009 8:41:02 AM

... and how like a woman to have no sense of humour and to accept a point conceded with no grace whatsoever.

If I misunderstood the tone of your post, I apologize for my lack of grace.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 1371 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/22/2009 12:05:43 AM

Holy Shit! There IS one guy. Wow... what a neanderthal...
Thanks.


I didn't look very hard - actually ran across it by accident looking for something else. Was reminded of your request.

But how like a man to ask for proof, expecting it not to be provided - and then when it is, becoming sarcastic and mocking, enabling him to dismiss so he can continue to admire himself.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 1270 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/21/2009 9:25:28 AM

Before the operation, men must make arrangements to have some of their sperm frozen and safely stored in a lab. He has the vasectomy and is forever in charge of his reproductive rights.

Not sure if it's possible, but could women do the same thing? Then, it could become mandatory that when puberty came along, both men and women could have their potential children safely put aside and both be sterilized till they were ready/willing/able to have kids. Agreements as to support signed etc. Would solve a lot of problems. Or, if the science won't work for women, just make it mandatory that the man have his sperm saved and he be sterilized at puberty. Eliminates unwanted pregnancies entirely, no exceptions.

Seems like SUCH a good idea, to me! :)
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 1262 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/21/2009 9:00:54 AM

Yes there are failures, but they aren't as common as some have been led to believe.

True, and they are most often due to human failure - whether the man or the woman. I argue from the point of view that a pregnancy resulted from bc failure by either of two well-intentioned people, neither of whom wanted a child.

Or how about blaming antibiotics? Ummm, they tell you about this 1) at the initial appointment and 2) it's in every single pack info sheet. Give me a break!

I know women who've gotten pregnant while on the bc pill; they weren't told by either the doctor or the pharmacist that antibiotics would reduce the effectiveness of the pills. I've never seen "antibiotics may reduce the effectiveness of the pill" on any inserts. Not saying it isn't there there, though; I haven't looked at the inserts for bc pills for a few years.

but I know enough women that have had them and they are not walking around like zombies all depressed by making a tough decision. They all have kids now and sure they may think about it once in awhile but come on

True; I know women who've had abortions as well and who aren't walking around like zombies and they have other kids. But they think about the baby they didn't have more often than "once in a while"; they think about it surprisingly often. For many women, abortion is certainly a viable option. But for the women who believe its murder, that their soul will burn in hell forever if they have an abortion - the fact that other women feel differently doesn't make her feelings invalid.

My personal opinion is that abortion is a woman's way of avoiding responsibility for her actions (except in rare cases, such as rape/incest) - that it's too easily obtained and (for some) lightly taken. My belief is that if I became become unintentionally pregnant then I am ethically obligated to bear that child and either raise it or adopt it out. I also believe I would be ethically obligated to inform the father of the pregnancy and consider his thoughts and feelings about it.

I am not particularly religious, btw, and I don't think a zygot or a collection of cells signals "life" in any meaningful sense. For me, I think it is the 'potential' for life that is important. For me, there is something about being adult enough to have sex means being adult enough to accept responsibility of sex, which can be pregnancy - desired or not. If you don't want to be pregnant, take precautions. If you become pregnant, take responsibility for that, too. Abortion, in my view, is essentially a way for women (and men) to avoid responsibility for their actions.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 1254 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/21/2009 8:11:52 AM

If a woman can dismiss a man's point of view on this topic, from both sides of wanting or not wanting a child and having no recourse, then well, I gotta say she is a narcissitic bytch.

What about the men who keep assuming that because abortion exists, it's somehow a viable option for ALL women and therefore they should (also) have the choice to opt-out? Where are all the men showing understanding of the woman's point of view - that she is pregnant and must deal with that, and that her three choices, which she cannot avoid, are akin to deciding which cliff she should jump from? Why aren't you complaining about their lack of compassion for the female point of view? Is it because you don't see it? Is it because the over-riding factor in what you see is your feeling that it's unfair that a man can't entirely opt-out of parenthood, should he want to? That the trick of biology that forces the woman to be the only one who can get pregnant or abort, with all the inherent risks is unfair to YOU because it ultimately leaves you in a position that, if she makes 1 choice out of the 3 she has, you MIGHT become financially liable.

You've asked a few times for empathy/understanding of the male point of view from women. You don't see or acknowledge it when it happens - and it has happened more than a few times from a few different women. You've only notice/acknowledged thanked the female poster who COMPLETELY AGREES with you. Understanding another point of view does not automatically mean you agree with it.

Maybe a little more compassion/empathy/understanding from the male side wouldn't go amiss either.


A man having the choice to opt out of any responsibilities, financial or other, in no way coerces a woman to have an abortion, drop a kid off at a safe haven, or to give a kid up for adoption.

We have men saying that their financial support is such a certainty and such a huge amount that a woman will deliberately get pregnant in order to secure such a windfall, or will refuse abortion because she sees a lifetime of ease for herself at the man's expense. And yet, here you are saying that the financial support she might be able to get is of no consequence for her decision.

Which is it? The possibility of financial support doesn't affect her decision one way or another, or it's a significant reason as to why she doesn't choose abortion?


Really? Someone said they should be able to force a woman to have an abortion? Please tell me the post #. Thanks.



If the man chooses to not want the kid, he should be entited to bail out of responsibility and if not that, force an abortion.

Post #1115.

It's also implied in the "Her body-her choice; her choice-her responsibility" mantra. If men want a "choice" after conception, it implies that he wants the choice to decide if SHE should carry the child to term or not. If they are limiting their "choice" to being able to opt out of child support, well ... it looks like they're just wanting to opt out of child support, something men have been wanting to do (and doing) forever.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 1208 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/20/2009 9:42:42 PM

How many would support a constitutional amendment that would do away with Roe v. Wade? No more abortions!!

I have to agree with the poster above: it is the responsibility of the adults involved to avoid pregnancy and if they fail to do so and a child is born, then they share that responsibility as well.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 1192 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/20/2009 3:23:10 PM

If you can not go through with abortion due to your own moral or ethical frame work, should you be allowed to place your moral framework on another? Should i have to be catholic if my g/f is? You have a right to your own religious/moral beliefs, but those come with consequences that you have chosen for yourself, imho

Granted; but by the same token if your moral/ethical framework says that not supporting your unwanted child is your right, should your moral framework be imposed on the woman, the child and the rest of society - all of whom have a stake in what you do in this instance?


If women would go so far as to perform horrible abortions on their own to prevent that from happening 50 years ago, I just don't see how we wouldn't see a DRASTIC reduction in unwanted pregnancy if there wasn't a financial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Well when the choices were death by abortion vs. shunned by society and living destitute with a child ...
And, CS is not some pot-of-gold for women, believe it or not. It's not enough to live on or raise a child with - it merely eases the burden somewhat. Most women, left to themselves, would rather not chase a man for CS; they'd rather not be in touch with him at all. Most women would prefer (and many do) to raise their child without assistance from unwilling fathers OR from the State. Most men are pursued by the State when women aren't able to carry the financial burden and need help. The "Pot-of-Gold" you (generic) are so proud of is much more like what some of you think you have in your pants: Much more highly rated by you than by women.

This isn't to say there aren't women who don't use pregnancy to trap men or as a 'career' choice (albeit a poorly paid one), but there are also men who trap women using pregnancy, who con women and/or the system in other ways. Lazy, selfish and stupid exist in both genders - but I don't think they're the majority in either. Men assuming that women, as a matter of course, use pregnancy to trap men for their money is as insulting as is women assuming that all men are potential rapists.

For the rest of your remarks, I haven't much more to say. You aren't unreasonable, for which I am appreciative - but we do look at this differently; perhaps a function of biology that neither of us is fully aware of or controls? :)
_________________________________________
I've heard men claim rights to the following on forums and on the various mens' rights websites I've perused from time to time:
The right to choose not to be a father (ie: child support on unwanted children)
The right to be a father (ie: ensure their children not aborted)
The right to avoid CS on his bio-kids because she's remarried/living with a guy.
The right to avoid CS because he's denied access (whether vindictively or with good reason)
The right to avoid CS of children he's raised for years, due to paternity fraud.
The right to avoid CS of children he knew weren't his but accepted, supported and treated as his own, because he and the woman have split up.
The ability to use CS to force access/punish the mother.

Taken individually and in the context of a particular man's experience, whatever is sought doesn't look unreasonable. But taken all at once and considered, it begins to look as if men will use any excuse to avoid CS and parental privileges when it suits them, yet also demand the rights to parental privilege when that suits them. The best interest of the child is brought out when it suits them to demand access or custody, and ignored/dismissed when it suits them to avoid CS for any reason. There doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency in "men's rights" demands; it seems based on personal injustices, and an 'every-man-for-himself' kind of approach.

I'm sure men find women just as confusing.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 1186 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/20/2009 2:14:26 PM

Actually, that is NOT my wish or intent.

Sorry, I misread you slightly ... I was being ironic, which I thought was the tone of your remark.

then I'd rather have my taxes go up than have children living in deprivation, or women forced to abort or adopt out their babies because men were able to evade responsibility.

I understand your point, for sure - it is the lesser of two evils. Ideally, of course, men and women should be willing and able to take full responsibility for their offspring, even those they didn't want/weren't expecting. If I had my druthers, in my little ideal world, they'd have to be involved in their kids' life too. Both boys and girls do better, overall, when they have their father actively involved in their life than do those whose father is unavailable for whatever reason. While many (even most kids) do fine with adoptive parents, even that has backlash among those who find the fact of their adoption painful to live with.

Ah, that we lived in an ideal world where every child was wanted and every parent had a clue!
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 1180 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/20/2009 1:26:51 PM

pro-filer, these are interesting and logical points.

Thank you.

Some of them could be considered borderline emotionally inhumane, and

Ah well, some people would call that 'objectivity'. :)

Of course it makes fora family court system that will damn near fall over of it's own weight, and I suspect income, property, sales and other taxes will have to be raised on ALL of the citizens, to deal with the inherent risk of sexual intercourse,but if that's what it takes so that men don't feel so abused and hard done by, I say "Fair enough."

True, and mighty sporting of you, Cindy, to be willing to make us all pay so that men don't have to.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 1176 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/20/2009 1:17:11 PM

Profiler...
To many of your questions....ask yourself this?
How did Children's Rights come into being? Why was it formed?

Because some adults suck at being parents; the child is simply an unwanted millstone, a chattel for them to ignore, neglect, abuse or use at their whim, for their agendas.

I am glad that the courts took the welfare and care of the child right out of the parents rights and made it the childs rights. Some parents have been proven to be so bad that the court has awarded the child to the best caretaker out of both families...sometimes the grandmother or grandfather, aunt or uncle.

I am also thankful that the courts have done so. I think there are still inequities, and have personally experienced some - but I think things are better now for children than they ever have been.


Read a few threads on here on how ugly parents can be. It ONLY strengthens CHILD's RIGHTS.

Its disheartening when, during discussions related to kids and parents, the kids are dismissed as the least important consideration, or when brought up as part of the equation someone says (usually a man) something like "Oh sure, bring up the kids as if that were a valid argument. Try some objectivity, why don't you! See how unfair it is to ME!"
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 1169 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/20/2009 12:53:49 PM

Pro Filer is back? Nice.

Aww, thanks.


I'll answer with my opinions. (not perfect, rough draft)

Thank you, I appreciate it. My opinion, not perfect either – and for some, way out in left field. :)


The woman, but if she goes to term and the man disagrees, financial liability is waived. You can not force a medical procedure on a woman against her will.


This does not address a situation in which it is not within a woman’s moral/ethical framework to have an abortion; in this case, she can’t make a choice to avoid parenthood, but the man is still able to? That doesn’t seem particularly fair to me, and it leaves the woman wholly responsible – physically, emotionally & financially. Adopting out would, obviously, be the next choice (and in my view, the best one), but again some people may not be able to do that.
The whole “women have the choice, therefore men should be absolved from any responsibility” seems to ignore the reality that the choice, for many women, borders on coercion. If the instinctive desire to bear and raise children is as strong in women as is the instinctive desire for sex in men, then saying abortion is a viable option for all women is as pointless as saying celibacy is a viable option for all men. These urges are among the strongest in humans – since it involves continuing of the species - and while some people can and do overcome them (at least for a time), many more do not or cannot.
In the case where a woman can neither abort nor adopt (whether you agree with her reasons or not) , should she be penalized for this by also having to raise a child on her own? Should society be penalized by having to take over the responsibility of the disinterested father?




Should a woman be forced to gestate or allow surrogacy of the man’s child, if he wants it?

No. It infringes on her rights to choice of her body. Therefor he doesn't pay for surrogacy and she doesn't owe him child support.

I do not like that a man has no choice about his child being aborted. I think this is wrong and unfair. It’s not as if men don’t have feelings for children, and especially for “their” children. Why can she decide to keep a child, but not him?
If a man is to be forced to accept consequences of his actions (financial support of a child) I see no reason why a woman cannot accept the consequences of her actions – pregnancy/surrogacy – allow the potential life and allow a man his child. For me, personally, this is one area where I think the rights of the father and the rights of the potential human over-ride the rights of the mother.


I'd like to see [written agreements] at time of copulation AND at time of discovery of pregnancy to be honest.

Yes, it’d be most useful – along the time of the STD discussion, the standard “Pregnancy Possibility Form” could be filled in and notarized. It’d certainly slow down spontaneous sex! The big question on the forums: Should I bring out the PPF on the first, second or third date??




If an interested father can force gestation/surrogacy on a woman, would that make enforced CS on disinterested fathers “fair”?

If men have a choice, this won't matter, disinterested fathers won't have enforced CS.

Again, what about the men who want the baby, but must accept the pain of losing it through abortion? How does this address their needs and rights?


I'm all for splitting the costs of the abortion. As for opening the door to medical damages, not so much. The decision to abort resting with the woman, part of that decision is the risk of physical or emotional repercussions.

And again, if a woman chooses abortion/adoption she is still left taking the lion’s share of the consequences of mutually agreed on sex, while the man escapes with minimal consequences. Is this fair?


I doubt any full 50/50 will ever exist, biology won't change. We CAN do better though.

I agree, 50/50 will never exist and hopefully we can do better.

But it seems to me, at this point and in this thread, that the only “better” most men can conceive of leaves him entirely risk-free in the pursuit of sex. He can’t get pregnant, can’t have an abortion, doesn’t have to support any kids that he might happen to father. In the man’s “fair” world, all the consequences of unwanted pregnancies fall on the woman.

Some men claim that if they have to pay 50% of the cost, they should have 50% of the decision making ability. Ok, that sounds fair. But offered to them, the response seems to be “It’s not right to force a woman to abort or to carry a child to term”. This is also reasonable, albeit unfair to men who don’t want their child aborted.

It seems to me that what we seem to be left with is that the only decision men REALLY want is the one that allows them to pass all the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy on to the woman. The emotional/physical cost of abortion or adoption, the financial cost of raising kids men don’t want – they seem to want to opt out of it all, either via the default escape biology gives them, or because *she* decided to have the baby when abortion is available to her, at least in theory. Is that fair?





Should mandatory DNA testing for all births to determine paternity be implemented? Should the bio-father be found and held liable for child support in all cases where it’s discovered the woman deceived a man regarding the paternity of the child he’s raising?

Yes.

I agree! :)


In paternity fraud, again assuming there is no pre-nookie waiver the biological father should be held liable financially. Therefore the child isn't punished. Yes the mother should be fined, OR have some other form of punishment to be determined.

I agree, again. Although I have to admit it seems to be an argument, from you, for holding a man responsible for unintended children based on the woman’s choice to keep them.

But I suppose in this case you are saying that the step-parent’s right to avoid paying for kids not his own supersedes the bio-fathers right not to raise kids he didn’t want?


... however men have to be consulted PRE birth to choose to accept or resolve that responsibility as women can.

I agree, this would be the fairest option for each individual man. But in the real world, more men would refuse that responsibility than would women, even if only because of differences in biological design. And, while fair to the individual man who doesn't want to be a dad, it’s not fair to society as a whole, or to the child of the union. Or even to those men who would like to be able to keep the child a woman chooses to abort.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 1147 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/20/2009 10:55:54 AM
Men feel that the imposition of CS payments, when they lack any input about whether or not the child is aborted, adopted out, or raised solely with the mother is sexist and unfair. In this scenario, the needs/desires of the father are completely ignored, once conception occurs; the needs of the child only come into play if the mother does not choose abortion, thereby making the father financially liable for the child.

So, pretending we could all just sign a petition and fix it next week, what is the answer?
Assuming a situation where neither adult intended pregnancy and one occurred anyway:
If a man and a woman cannot agree about the outcome of a pregnancy, who gets to make the final decision?
Should an objective third party be involved to determine the fairest “resolution” when the couple involved cannot come to an agreement?
Should a woman be forced to gestate or allow surrogacy of the man’s child, if he wants it?
If so, should he be expected to support or recompense her in carrying the child to term or for whatever costs involved in surrogacy, as well as some "damages" for the physical effects related to pregnancy/medical procedures?
After the child is born, should she then be liable for child support paid to the father?

Should binding and written agreements be mandatory prior to sex and if that step is dispensed with and an accidental pregnancy results, both parents are fined regardless of the outcome of the pregnancy?

If an interested father can force gestation/surrogacy on a woman, would that make enforced CS on disinterested fathers “fair”?
If abortion is the option chosen, should the man be obligated to pay 50% of the medical costs, as well as damages to the woman for the physical effects of having his child conceived within her, and the medical procedure to remove it?

In the case where the interested parent has a low income, should abortion/adoption be enforced, if the disinterested parent is unwilling to pay support?
If yes to the above, wouldn’t that unfairly penalize those men and women who are less financially able – forcing them to agree to abortion or adoption regardless of their personal beliefs and the lifelong distress they may be subject to as a result?
Should poorer people be excluded from having children, planned or unplanned?
Aside from legal adoptions, should any person (grandparent, aunt or uncle, step-parent) be in a position where they are raising someone else’s child without support from the bio-parent?
Or should it be decreed that if they want or accept the child, they must be prepared to raise it on their own?

Are there any options that fairly address the needs/desires of everyone – male, female, potential child? I mean “fair” in the sense that everything is 50/50 in terms of financial obligation and emotional risk (hard to include physical risk for obvious reasons) between the man and the woman and, should the pregnancy not be terminated, the best for the child?

Another men’s rights issue is Paternity Fraud so lets fix that too.
Should mandatory DNA testing for all births to determine paternity be implemented?
Should the bio-father be found and held liable for child support in all cases where it’s discovered the woman deceived a man regarding the paternity of the child he’s raising?
If so, isn’t that again stepping on the rights of men who had sex, but didn’t intend children?
In the case of paternity fraud, should neither the bio nor the step father be held financially liable?
If so, doesn't that unfairly punish the child for something they had no choice about, under the guise of punishing the mother?
In the case of paternity fraud, should women be fined?
In paternity fraud, should either bio or step-father automatically be awarded custody of the kids, and the woman obligated to CS?
If the bio or stepparent declines custody, should he still be liable for CS for the benefit of the kids?

Personal beliefs – Ideally, all men and all women should use birth control all the time, if they do not want kids. Ideally, people should be willing/able/prepared to raise their kids without help from anyone else - another adult or the state. Ideally, nobody tricks another into pregnancy, man or woman. Ideally, once a child is born, the best interests of the child should be priority, regardless of the fairness/unfairness to either parent. Ideally, there should be no question that CS always and without fail is used to provide for the kid(s) and not squandered foolishly by the custodial parent. Ideally, nobody uses kids and/or money to punish the other parent. Ideally, both mother and father take equal interest in their children, including things other than financial support. Unfortunately, this is not an ideal world, all of less than ideal things happen and no gender is entirely free from this kind of wrongdoing.

Yeah, yeah canoga, you were right ... I did come back. But really, I would like to know what men would consider a "fair" resolution. I see all kinds of claims about how unfair it is for men, which I don't disagree with, but I've not seen much in the way of suggestions that is actually 100% fair to everyone involved, including any resultant kids.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 3 (view)
 
Wants to know about past realationship
Posted: 11/18/2009 8:07:50 PM

Story is he went to jail for something way before I knew him


that I had dated someone that is now in jail


Is he in jail now, or was that before you knew him?

As to the current guy - the history of men you've previously dated isn't really his business. I'd be curious about whatever issue he has around it. but I don't think he needs to know all the details of someone who is a stranger to him.

JMO and all that.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 803 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 8:50:06 AM

Instead of asking women to carry the full burden of responsibility of the decisions that THEY ultimately make with THEIR bodies, it's tell the men to keep it in their pants.

Instead of asking men to carry part of the responsiblity of the decisions that they ultimately made with they're bodies, it's to tell women to get an abortion.


Your body, your choice...your responsibility. Period. That's logic Your penis, your choice to have sex, your sperm created a baby. Your responsibility. That's logic.

This'll be my last post. Someone has suggested (in private) that maybe I'm less than smart to continue here and I think he's right.

I'll say this in closing: when two people are faced with an unwanted pregnancy, it's very difficult for both of them. Whoever makes the decision and whatever that decision is, someone pays. I have sympathy for the man who fears having his income attached for 20 years, the woman who feels abortion is the option she must choose even though it breaks her heart, and for the woman who feels she can do nothing else but raise her child regardless of support from the father; I have sympathy for the man who would have liked to be a father, but either abortion or adoption was the decision made. Nobody wins when pregnancy unintentionally occurs. I don't see that there is an answer that is really fair to everyone involved.

BP, I especially want to thank you - even though we disagreed, I felt we ultimately had a discussion that was honest and "real". Acuddler, thanks for not being a "sheeple".

Carry on, folks. :)
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 796 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:21:21 AM

It's obvious that you have never been in any scenario that fits this thread

Funny how, if someone who has been in the scenario or is intimately familiar with the scenario have their opinions and experience also blithely dismissed if it doesn't happen to fit your agenda.


Many of the posters here have been wronged by the system or risk being wronged

Yup, bitterness makes for great objectivity.


We are slowly losing touch with our base instincts

Men are still in touch with their basic instinct of "it's all about me, and I'm a victim!". In other threads, for instance, paternity fraud is a big topic - why should a man have to pay for a kid he didn't father, when the biatch of a woman screwed around on him? Why shouldn't the bio father be made to pay? - valid question, but then you come to this thread and the "bio father" is saying "I shouldn't have to pay!". Go to the single parents forum and the NCP fathers are saying "I shouldn't have to pay because she's spending the money on herself, she's got a new boyfriend/husband and he's paying; I don't get enough input/visitation." Men who've raised kids for years, loved them and nurtured them, once the relationship with the woman ends, seem to have no trouble suddenly discovering they no longer want the responsibility of fatherhood. As far as I can tell, men's rights start and stop with "Don't make me responsible for my own sperm".


The only thing that has survived is the sense of entitlement and it seems men are the only ones that realize they are gone.

Yup, men no longer are entitled to beat women, force sex, deny birth control or get away without paying for the kids they father. I don't blame you for missing all that.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 777 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/17/2009 7:13:04 PM

Oh, right only women are allowed to play god and be worried about the money.

You've made it plain that "arguing" is your goal, not discussion. *shrug* Carry on your vendetta; misunderstand everything you possibly can to substantiate your position that woman is the "evil" gender and you have no responsibilty in life other than to blame women for whatever it is you think you lack.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 767 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/17/2009 5:27:05 PM
"A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic."

So let's go through it step by step, shall we: Topic focuses around whether or not men should be compelled to pay child support
Poster said: "This thread has NOTHING to do with whether a man wants to be a father or not, it's whether or not a man wants to pay child support.
Notice how she stuck to the topic - child support.

Then you come along and change it to: " woman feels entitled to be provided for ... Someone else's money. And how she can get rights to it."
See how there's a lack of continuity between your argument and hers ... she talks about "child support" and you talk about "woman support" - you've tried to divert the issue from 'child support' and make it about 'woman support'.

Strawman.
Fail.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 766 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/17/2009 5:10:37 PM

Read the article i posted and it seems the amount of women who are willing to risk it has tripled.

I did read the article and I was going to make the following comments:
1. Thank you for posting it; I found it interesting, informative and sad.
2. Many men are suddenly discovering that vasectomies are great for birth control.
3. Validates my belief that many, if not most, people are well-intentioned and will take the responsible route regarding procreation.


Well pro filer at least we aren't trying scare people with bogus facts about the horrors of an abortion.

I can only guess that this comment is in response to the link I posted in answer to someone else's question as to how risky abortion really was. In my post, I clearly stated I tried to find OBJECTIVE information, not bogus. You don't have to agree that I did, and you are welcome to find more accurate/objective information to counter or clarify what I found. Tossing out "bogus" as if I'm supposed to take YOUR word for what is or isn't bogus isn't going to work. That sounds to me as if you aren't paying attention to the conversation at all, but merely looking for any old opportunity to take a potshot at the enemy.

I'll also point out that the article you provided was talking about the effects of the recession on abortions/vasectomies and had nothing to do with the safety/risks of either procedure. People engage in risky behaviors all the time - smoking, for instance, in which they know they have a 50/50 chance of dying from smoking-related diseases but do it anyway. Just because LOTS of people do something, the risk of that something doesn't change.

My personal belief is that abortion is relatively safe for most women - we've been doing it in one form or another throughout history and mankind hasn't suffered much; I'd support my daughter in that choice, if she felt it the right one for her. But I'd also want her to be aware of all the risks, big & little, short and long term.

Regardless of how safe/unsafe abortions are, or how I feel about them personally, I see no reason for any woman to have to accept that risk she because men don't want to be responsible for their sperm once it leaves their penis.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 759 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/17/2009 4:39:32 PM

This thread is yet another instance when a woman feels entitled to be provided for.

Strawman. The issue is CHILD SUPPORT for the CHILD that wasn't aborted, as would be the man's preference. Support for the woman has nothing to do with the topic.

Bringing in a similar but different and weaker statement to argue against is a classic strawman tactic. Thought you knew that?
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 745 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/17/2009 3:06:23 PM

Just because you have a hard choice, you would deny men ANY choice?

I also see that women are in a place where they have "no choice" once they are pregnant. They can't not have an abortion AND not be pregnant AND not have to pay financially. To you, it looks like a whole lot of choices - including the one choice that imposes responsibilty on you. To me, it looks like I'm forced to make a choice of three difficult options, one of which obligates someone else to assist in the raising of a child.

I doubt we'll ever really be able to agree. It's 'unfair 'that a man has to pay for a child he doesn't want, just as it's 'unfair' that the woman has be pregnant with a child she doesn't want. The difference is that men can pass the buck onto the woman and they often do so. But the woman can't pass the buck anywhere - mother nature isn't accepting it.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 742 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/17/2009 2:08:13 PM

As for comparing abortion to permanent sterilization, that just seems off base to me. What is the rate of sterilazation of women that undergo abortions? I honestly dion't know.

It's a fair question, I think. I tried to find some stats, quickly, but there's quite a lot of bias one way or another and one wants to at least try to find some objectivity.

I think this link is reasonable, seems to be a summary or outline of a publication which I can't access, but at least, it didn't seem to pushing one side or the other in the quick glance I gave it: http://www.deveber.org/text/whealth.html#one

It says (in part):
Chapter 4: Impact on Subsequent Pregnancies
Subsequent pregnancies are negatively affected by induced abortion.
The main complications are: cervical incompetence leading to future miscarriages; uterine perforations and placenta previa with serious implications to the health of the woman and her child(ren) in later pregnancies; and ectopic pregnancies which, if undiagnosed and not treated, can lead to a woman's death.
Forty-nine studies of preterm or premature births from Europe and North America found increased risks ranging from 30 per cent to 510 per cent.
The consequence of this significantly increased risk of prematurity after abortion is that the rate of cerebral palsy among premature infants weighing less than 1500 grams at birth is 38 times greater than among the general population. Induced abortion, in other words, is directly responsible for many thousands of cases of cerebral palsy - in North America alone - that otherwise would not have occurred.
Despite the data which point to the link between induced abortion and future serious health risks, many North-American research studies fail to point these out.
Numerical data should be carefully compared to research abstracts and conclusions because they often do not correlate; in other words, where data clearly indicate increased health risks, they are often minimized in the abstracts and conclusions of medical articles.
In light of the growing knowledge of the impact of abortion on the rate of prematurity, abortion providers soon incur greatly increased liability for obtaining informed consent for women contemplating abortion.
Chapter 4 contains 34 endnotes including:
Luke, B. Every Pregnant Woman's Guide to Preventing Premature Birth.1995 [foreword by Emile Papiernik], New York: Times Books; p.32.
Chapter 5: Future Fertility
No previous births and an earlier abortion put a woman at significant risk of post-abortion complications leading to possible infertility.
Coding systems at hospitals often make it difficult to link abortion with medical sequelae.
Much larger numbers of women than previously suspected are negatively affected by induced abortion with PID and ectopic pregnancies at much higher levels than ever before in North America and Europe.
Other serious sequelae also on the rise are uterine perforations, endometriosis, Chlamydia trachomatis, endometrial ossification (bone fragments left in the uterus), all of which compromise future fertility.
Many of these medical problems go undetected at the time of abortion and are only discovered years later when women are treated for infertility.
Chapter 5 contains 50 endnotes including:
Ruiz-Velasco V, Gonzalez Alfani G, Pliego Sanchez L, Alamillo Vera M. Endometrial pathology and infertility. Fertility and Sterility 1997 April;67(4):687-92 p. 692.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 740 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/17/2009 1:49:36 PM

How about we take 10 test subjects from here that are male and remove an organ from them that we feel they don't really need?

For some of them, the organ between their ears doesn't seem to be needed at all.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 730 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/17/2009 1:13:59 PM

Tell us what these consequences are again. After the woman has an abortion or gives the child up, she can pretty much get on with her life. What are the consequences?

An abortion requires a surgical procedure and carries various risks, which a woman has to decide to accept should she decide to abort. This is a consideration NO MAN has to take into account. The effects of abortion may be minor for most women, but then so are the effects of vasectomy for men - yet men don't seem the least inclined to recommend that as a matter of course in preventing unwanted pregnancies.

As far as men are concerned, the risks of abortion to prevent him from being a father are ok for women to take, but the risks of vasectomy to prevent him from becoming a father aren't. Double sexist standard, anyone?

Pregnancy (whether to keep the child or give it up for adoption) carries risk as well, not to mention 9 months of a woman putting her life on hold and perhaps making significant lifestyle changes to ensure the health of the baby. The birthing of the baby involves risk, as well, and even if all goes well, several weeks of discomfort follow and there maybe physical changes that never go away. A consequences men NEVER have to face is pregnancy, regardless of whether she keeps the child or gives it up for adoption.


And don't tell us guilt.

OH yes ... god forbid you should have to consider another person's mental well being, hmm? Nope, women can have abortions regardless of the cost on their bodies/mental health - anything, so long as you aren't expected to dip into your wallet. But no, you don't get off that easily. Some women do suffer for years when they abort/adopt out their kids. Some kids also suffer when they are deprived of the knowledge of their bio parents. "Fair" or not, these results are a FACT of abortion/adoption and trying to take them out of the equation simply doesn't work.


I'm sure some men have to suffer with pain and guilt too when the woman decides to abort and he wants the child to be born.

I'm sure some do as well, as I've said previously. That is, in my mind, heartbreakingly sad when a father wants his baby, but the woman aborts it regardless. I've suggested before that I'd be willing to support requiring a woman to be willing to allow at least a surrogacy when the father wants to raise the child.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 726 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/17/2009 12:45:10 PM

However, I do feel that if there wasn't a social normality of collecting child support, that MANY children wouldn't be born into that situation at all.

I can't disagree with this and I have read studies that suggests its true. I think this is completely wrong and feel frustrated that there is no real way of preventing women from using their ability to conceive as an income source, other than having these women sterilized - but that would be stepping on their rights, too.

But for the majority of women (and I really do believe they're the majority) who find themselves unwantedly pregnant, why do you and others insist that she bear all the consequence when perhaps it was his condom that failed? Or maybe he used no protection, assumed hers was good enough?

And that it's because only she can decide whether to terminate/give birth/adopt/raise the child an answer. Even HAVING to decide is an unavoidable consequence and for her, only the first one. The second unavoidable consequence is going through with an abortion/adoption or single parenthood. The woman has NO WAY of avoiding the consequence of an unwanted pregnancy. The most she can do is hope or expect the man to HELP in ONE of those unavoidable consequences.

What men are hoping for, in this argument, is that they can have NO consequences for their lack of foresight, planning or plain bad luck - the same bad luck that the woman has experienced. They're automatically free of the consequence of abortion or pregnancy, thanks to biology. If 50% of all pregnant women are capable of aborting, they have a 50/50 chance of not having to pay any financial consequences. A 50/50 chance of walking away consequence-free! NO woman has that chance, once pregnancy has been established.

Somehow, I fail to see how expecting men to take SOME responsibility for the possible outcome of their sexual behavior is unfair. The woman is still stuck with most of the consequences, from the discovery of being pregnant, to which very difficult decision she'll make (with a man pressuring her to make the one HE wants, usually to abort), to the follow through of that decision, whatever it happens to be. Why can't you men even see how difficulty this is, let alone regard it as a relevant? Want kind of tunnel vision can focus so forcefully on the unfairness of ONE possibility, when the other person has to deal with a biological "unfairness" that forces her to make literally life and death decisions for two adults and a possible third life?

You want us to see YOUR side, the unfairness of having to pay for an unwanted child, but you make no effort to see the woman's side - the unfairness of having to accept the consequences of either abortion/adoption/single-parenthood in a situation that the man was equally responsible in creating - yet he can walk away without ANY consequences in two of the three decisions she makes. That hardly seems fair to me.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 710 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/17/2009 10:54:27 AM

i'd probably end up getting child support being the stay at home dad.
Oh wait, i probably wouldn't even get custody, despite being the stay at home parent. Because i'm a man

Both my son and my brother got custody of their kids. My brother's kids are older, and she left the family home, so maybe that had a bearing. But my son's kids are pretty young - yet, the court still preferred him over the mother. He hasn't asked for CS because he doesn't want to give her any excuse to apply for custody and be successful - we do recognize the bias there is - but still, courts aren't invariably blind.

And kudos to you and your girlfriend for your plans. From the sounds of it, whatever happens in the future, the two of you will make responsible decisions that are for the benefit of the kids.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 700 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/17/2009 9:48:03 AM
(Read "practical/not practical" as "due to religious, moral, physical or financial reaons" it can or cannot be done.)

Men who not want babies have choices before pregnancy occurs they are:
Celibacy (not practical for all men)
Vasectomy (not practical for all men)
Condom/Spermicide use (Practical for all men; almost as reliable as the pill)
Relying on the woman's birth control entirely (Not practical, albeit the most practiced).

Women who do not want babies have choices before pregnancy occurs:
The pill (practical for most women under 35)
Celibacy (Not practical for all women)
Tubal ligation (Not practical for all women)
IUD (Practical for most women)
Diaghragm/spermicide (practical for all women)
Morning after pill (Not practical in all situations)
Relying on the man's birth control (not practical, and not widely practiced)

Women who do not want babies MUST make a choice after pregnancy occurs - this is something that they can't avoid - or pass to someone else.
Abortion (Not practical for all women)
Adoption (Not practical for all women)
Raise the kid (Not Practical for all women)

In men's ideal world, they don't have to make any kind of a choice/decision after a pregnancy occurs other than whether they'll stay, offer support only, or walk away and leave the entire responsibility on to the woman.

Men say that it's not their fault women happen to be the one to carry the baby - so why should they be "financially punished" for that if she decides to carry it to term?

But no more is it the woman's fault that she is the only one who is able to abort, so why is it ok for the man to "punish" her (and, in some cases the child) for not making the choice that most suits him?

Once a pregnancy is established, the woman has no choice but to deal with it. She is the one who must make all of the decisions, carry the consequences and the responsibility - regardless of what the man does. SHE has to make the very difficult decision about abortion/adoption or to raise the child. SHE has to take whatever risks (financial/emotional) inherent in abortion, pregnancy and delivery, and raising the child. If she should decide to give up the child for adoption, she also has to cope with whatever emotions that creates for the rest of her life. Not to mention, the decision to adopt out a child carries consequences for the child too - aside from whether the adoptive parents are the best in the world or not, people who are adopted often find this a difficult thing to live with.

What is "fair" about the woman being left with making all these decisions on her own, and having all the consequences fall on her so that the man doesn't have to fear for his wallet? Leaving one person with all the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy isn't fair. Leaving a woman who could not bring herself to either abort or adopt to raise a child without any help from that child's father, and expecting the State to step in to ensure that child is healthy is not fair to the rest of society. Allowing a man to use the threat of lack of support to try to coerce her into an abortion/adoption that would require her to go against her moral beliefs isn't fair. Men don't want to be "financially punished" because women's biology is different from theirs, but they are sure ok with "punishing" the woman for it - and not just financially, but phyiscally and emotionally as well!

Expecting a man to pay CS for a child he helped create is the least "unfair" option we currently have. It would be nice if the man would do so voluntarily (and many do, I know), but they have proven through history and right through till now, that enough of them do not, that in order to protect taxpayers as much as possible, it has become part of the legal system to enforce this responsiblity on to men. That has nothing to do with women plotting against men, but only the outcome of men's attitude's toward unwanted pregnancy.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 22 (view)
 
When is the time right?
Posted: 11/16/2009 6:49:13 PM

My thoughts are that guys want to go from one woman to another woman. That's what I've been told. I just don't care for that scenario.

I'm sure some guys do, but I bet a lot more guys would like to find one compatible woman with whom they could have regular sex, get to know, let her know him and maybe build a relationship with her. But it takes time, and eventually sex will have to be had. Sex is not a guarantee of a relationship, you know, whether you have it on the 3rd date, the 30th or date #100.

I guess what I'm saying is, "I don't want to be hurt if I (do it) and then he doesn't want to see me again." That would suck. I definetely don't want to feel used.

You also have the power to decide whether or not you want to see him after the two of you have had sex once, twice or however many times. Assuming that you will be hurt more by his leaving after you two have had sex gives him (and sex) far too much power over you.

If you have sex and he leaves - well, he was gonna leave anyway, sooner or later, with or without sex.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 631 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 2:01:25 PM

Is adoption a viable option for you?

Personally, I think thats the best option. I have a problem with women who regularly use abortion as birth control, too - and they are out there. I think they're avoiding their responsibility to avoid getting pregnant if they don't want kids. In some ways, I think abortion is as much a cop-out as is the male attitude of "her pregnancy, her problem". But I can also understand why a woman would choose that, just as I can understand why a man would avoid onerous CS payments imposed for kids he's not allowed to see.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 617 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 1:30:48 PM

At some point you have to try to understand that when a relationship ends, you lose the kids, the ex is obstructing the visitation, AND you have to write her a check for the privaledge it can become a bitter pill to swallow for a lot of men, to the detriment of their children.

I agree; that is completely unfair and should not be permitted. Given my druthers, I'd focus my efforts in fixing the inequity in family court before purusing options that leave women holding the whole bag.


If the woman has a right to absolve the responsibility as she sees fit, and this is accepted, how can you chastize men for wanting the same ability?

I don't chastize men for WANTING the same ability; I chastize them for the ongoing assumption that abortion is a VIABLE option for ALL women, or that somehow it doesn't come with some kind of COST to the woman. It's only if you accept the premise that abortion is cost-free and doable for the woman that you can then use that to justify "therefore, if she doesn't avail herself of that option, she shouldn't expect me to pay". Celibacy is something every man can do; so is having a vasectomy. But neither are viable options for ALL men and insisting that it is (or should be) is as senseless as expecting abortion/adoption to be a viable choice for all women.

So yeah, it's not fair. For anybody - not the man who may have to pay CS, the woman who has to "choose" abortion/adoption/single-parenthood, or the embryo who may or may not make it to fetus and then baby, and who may or may not have the support of both parents.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 609 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 1:08:36 PM

You call that "seeing it from the man's point of view"?

Actually, that has been the attitude of MOST men, in my experience. I keep mentioning (if only to remind myself) that the male viewpoint presented here (her body, her problem; her choice, her responsibility) is the extreme, and not what most of the men of my actual acquaintance claim to believe.

Having said that, out of the 13 single-parent families I know well enough to know the financial situation, 8 of the 10 single mothers receive (or received) no CS from their husbands/partners when the relationship ended. The two single fathers in the bunch have also received no support. There was one pregnancy in which the child was the result of a casual sexual affair; all the rest were marriages/long-term relationships in which both partners wanted the kids. The relationships span from the late 50s till now. None of the women I know have used access to "force" money from the guy. Five of the eight women in this small sample raised the kids alone, since it was before FMEP would force men to pay. One went through FMEP for payment; the other two fathers simply "disappeared" well enough that FMEP can't pursue them. One of them periodically contacts his daughter, promises her all kinds of things, then disappears again.

Most women I know figure if he doesn't care about his kids enough to provide help, then they aren't going to demean themselves to chase after him. The single fathers have not pursued support because one fears losing custody if he "rocks the boat" and the other simply feels if she's not willing to help, he's not going to chase her, just as many women feel. If either of these men needed welfare subsidies, they could apply - and the system would go after the women for CS, just as it does for men.

It seems odd to me that men are arguing that they shouldn't be held responsible because the woman decides to give birth, that they shouldn't be "forced" to pay, when I'm faced with the fact that even when men WANT kids, they still don't want to be financially responsible for them when the relationship with the woman ends. From here, it looks like men simply don't want to pay for the kids they father and will use absolutely any argument to support their desire not to be responsible.

Sometimes I'm amazed I still believe most men want to and will support their kids. Maybe I should re-think that. Maybe it's because my ex-husband was responsible and "did the right thing" without being forced.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 597 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 12:18:59 PM

Like big pacific has demonstrated, we do understand the opposing view

He demonstrated a mature way of presenting the situation so as to possibly appeal to the man's better nature, not so much understanding of how a woman might feel when being presented with abortion/single parenthood as viable and "fair" choices.

The man, however, does not wish to see the child terminated so instead he proposes that the child be moved to a surrogate mother or an artificial womb at his expense [ ] this man should have a legally protected right to sue this women for child support and/or any other expenses and assets(financial or otherwise)?

I asked a similar question earlier on in the thread. Surprisingly (to me) I didn't get lambasted for suggesting that maybe the man ought to have an equal legal right to maintain a pregnancy (whether by the bio mother or surrogate) as does a woman to legally enforce CS, and then also be expected to pay child-support but I didn't get any response either. Maybe "fair" dictates that the one willing to raise the child has the right to "force" the other to pay, whether the payment is physical (for the woman) or financial (both).

As long as were dealing in unlikely scenarios, maybe there could be an artificial womb created that would reside within the man's body? At the end of the gestational period, he could have a 'ceasarian'. That would certainly give men a better idea of the physical effects of pregnancy.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 587 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 11:24:06 AM

I would think that if i were a woman my arguement would be the following.
We both got into this, and while you may disagree with how to continue it IS in fact my body, and it IS your child. That being said, I may not be able to provide as much as is required to raise this kid on my own.
Since it is YOUR child, I would hope you would think of the kid first and help burden the cost of raising your offspring, i'm not asking for a full time parental commitment, I can do that. What i can't do is pursue my career dreams as easily and i'll be giving up a lot of income to do this single handedly. So i won't be able to give our child the way of life that i'm sure you would want.
Don't you want to do whats best for our child?

Very nicely said, thank you!

I guess, from my perception of the other side, I'd say something like -
"I do not want to be forced through the courts to pay for this child, but if you will trust me to help, then I will be happy to do so to the best of my ability. I need the freedom also to decide how much I can actually afford rather than have someone else decide what I can afford; I do not want my future finances held hostage, especially since I may want more children/a family in the future. I would like you to communicate with me about what is needed, and together we can work out how to pay for what is needed."
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 578 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 10:53:10 AM

I had sex.
I got pregnant.
I need somebody to help me
I'm a victim....

I was serious, azzhole. I LIKE debating the other side; it helps me see issues more clearly. I was actually already thinking about how it would feel to be facing 18-20 years of enforced CS for a kid I didn't want.

But since you want to play that way:
I'm a man.
Birth control isn't my job.
And sex is so much better without a condom!
What? Get a vasectomy? NO, IT HURTS!
And why should I?
I can't get pregnant.
SHE'S the one who gets pregnant, not me!
Birth control is HER job, not mine!

What!
There's a baby?
So what?
Who cares about a stupid baby!
That biatch tricked me!
She's trying to get my money!
And the law supports her!
It's a plot, women are out to get men!
It's not fair!
I'm a victim!
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 575 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 10:34:22 AM

then be asked to debate it as if we were on "their" side.

Good idea, let's do that!

Can we start with these agreements?
1. Men and women are both equally capable of raising and caring for children.
2. Men and women are both equally capable of earning similar amounts.
3. That the couple we would be discussing are essentially middle-class (neither is poor, neither is rich), and neither of them are trying to "trap" the other, whichever partner used birth control used it to the best of his/her ability - but only one form of birth control was used. It failed, and a pregnancy resulted.

It is a given, obviously, that only women can get pregnant/have an abortion.

I'll take the man's side, and you'll take the woman's side?
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 565 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/16/2009 8:33:58 AM

But what I've noticed is that most of the men who have contributed to this topic have been pretty respectful to the opposition and are just asking you to understand our grievances.

Really? Calling women misandric, hateful, myopic, stubborn, implying they don't have the brains of a six-year-old - those are just a few examples - is "respectful"? Give me a break.

You make no effort to see this from our point of view. You just don't care at all.

I, personally, have made more than one statement indicating understanding and even empathy. I've made deliberately conciliatory posts. Those sorts of things are ignored in favor or mistating me in order to "attack". I saw only one male poster that bothered to acknowledge he'd mistaken what I said and apologize.

I can't speak for the other men here, but I really do have a much lower opinion of the female gender after participating in this debate.

It's entirely mutual. Every thread that men become passionately involved with revolves areound money. If I went by the examples on these fora, men would simply look like empty, egotistical, greedy, selfish, shallow, inconsiderate azzholes, whose sole purpose in life is to amass wealth, fvck women, and let someone else raise any resultant kids.

Fortunately, I know enough men off these forums to believe that's not really what most men are like.

a lot of women here seem more than willing to force the same "religious anti-abortion" mentality on men without showing a single ounce of doubt, empathy or regret.

I'm actually the only woman I've noticed who keeps mentioning that some women are against abortion, and then what choice does she have? No man here has bothered to address that, because of course - it doesn't suit their agenda of "blaming" the woman and leaving her responsible.

I have said, more than once, that I don't know what a fair and equitable answer is, that both parents should take responsibility for birth control, and that once born, the child's welfare should trump the parents' rights - regardless of how "unfair" that is to the parents. Oddly, when the welfare of the kid is mentioned, the men here think this is irrelevant and either ignore it or sneeringly dismiss it, as if the kids are the least important part of the equation. Which further supports the impression that men aren't the least concerned about "fairness" or "rights" or other human beings, but only about their money.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 554 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/15/2009 6:57:36 PM


if there is one iota of doubt in his mind then he is compelled to take responsibility for preventing any pregnancy that might result from recreational sex.

No.

Thanks for (finally) admitting that men don't want to take resonsibility for preventing pregnancy.

One cannot be held responsible for the actions of another.

But they can be held responsible for their own actions - which would be, in this case, failing to take precautions to prevent pregnancy.

It's really not hard to be objective

If it's so easy, maybe you should give it a try.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 546 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/15/2009 12:09:56 PM

I can add to that list so that both can have sex, orgasms and no risk of a pregnancy.

I can do that too ... when I was sixteen and began having sex, I immediately went to the doctor and got on birth control. Without my parents even being aware. The doctor wasn't really in favor (he thought he should get my parents permission), but decided putting me on the pill was a better option. Once I had the kids I wanted, I got my tubes tied - I was 23, I think. The doctor there also had reservations, because I was so young - but I convinced him. Lucky guy ever since - no pregnancy, no condom, well, till herpes/HIV came along.

See, it's not just the penis-less people who can make responsible decisions! Imagine that!

That history reminds me ... in my entire sexual life, there have been maybe two men who asked about birth control, and none who were prepared with condoms. It seems men really aren't interested in birth control, only avoiding responsibility if it should happen.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 541 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/15/2009 12:00:18 PM

WIP, he's not behind the wheel, in terms of deciding if the pregnancy is to occur, or if there's going to be a gestation as the OUTCOME.

Since sex has the POSSIBILITY of leading to pregnancy, he knows the risks and he accepts them when he decides to have sex, same as the woman. If a pregnancy does occur, then the consequences should be shared. Even a six-year-old could figure that out.

As to an abortion being only the woman's option, I would suggest that fairness dictates that if a man wants the child he fathered, it would be fair to insist that the woman either carry the baby to term or have the embryo transferred to a donor mother (though assuming that would actually work?). Of course, that is as likely to happen as is the likelihood that we'll go back to the days when men couldn't be forced to take responsibilty for the kids they fathered, but could simply leave it to the women/state.

As to your statement that penis endows a person with the ability to think clearly and logically about emotional issues ...
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 532 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/15/2009 11:23:14 AM

If men got pregnant, trust me - they'd be real preventative about it.

My mother-in-law used to say that if men got pregnant every second time, no family would ever have more than three children.

Bottom line though is everyone is responsible for their own crap. Men who don't want kids should make sure they can't have em. Women who don't want kids should make sure they don't get pregnant.

Exactly! Why is this such a hard concept for (some) men to get?
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 529 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/15/2009 10:54:25 AM

It's always "he" sould do this to avoid the pregancy, "he" should do that.

When someone says the man has the option to engage in celibacy, have a vasectomy, or use a condom, why would you assume the speaker (or writer in this case) also means that the woman doesn't have to take any responsibility? In my view, if a man doesn't want to father a child, he needs to take responsibility for that, and not leave it to the woman. And, if a woman does not want to be a mother, she needs to also take precautions and not leave it to the man. If people did this, then the likelihood of unwanted/enexpected pregnancies would be practically nil because there would, by default, be TWO forms of birth control being used. If one failed, the other one would (probably) not fail at exactly the same time.

SHE made the CHOICE to have a man's penis inside HER while fully aware of the potential consequences.

If she puts a gun in her mouth and it accidentally goes off, it's HER fault that she's dead. You can't sue the gun. You can't sue the gun manufacturer.
Guns go off accidentally.

This cuts both ways. HE made the CHOICE to have HIS penis inside HER while fully aware of the potential consequences.

If he puts a gun in her mouth and it accidentally goes off, it's his HIS fault that she's dead. He can't blame her for having a mouth, or sue her for opening it.


A man can't impose his will one way or the other, pre or post coital.
But the woman can.
Imbalance. Injustice.

When the "Imbalance and Injustice" of the fact that ONLY women can get pregnant is addressed, then perhaps the Imbalance and Injustice of the (financial) consequences on the man can be addressed. When the right to freedom of religion is removed (therefore invalidating the right to refuse abortion on religious/moral grounds, or the rights of drs to refyse to provide them), or the debate over when life starts is actually resolved so that everyone agrees , perhaps then abortion as a male-birth-control option can be included. But until those issues are resolved, SOMEBODY will be treated unfairly merely because of the situation. At this point, somebody has to pay the consequences. By default the woman always does, once pregnancy is established - whether she chooses the relatively short/painful option of abortion, the longer and painful option of adoption or the longest option of raising the kid. Is that "fair", when the other contributor to the situation has NO consequences, other than the knowledge fathering the child? Which, by the way, is a knowledge the woman also carries whether she aborts/adopts and is something that many women find difficult for their entire life. (Not to imply that some men do not; many do as well).

Why do you (and others) insist that the woman carry 90% of the load when you were 50% of what got her there?


And then wonder why men don't want to "sign" on the dotted line.

This is nothing new. The difference between now and previously is that men have less legal freedom to avoid their responsibilities and women have more legal options to insist they do.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Dress code?
Posted: 11/15/2009 10:06:37 AM
I have to admit, I like a guy to put some effort into his dress if he's going to be meeting me for the first time. Jeans are fine, but maybe a button-down shirt as opposed to a t-shirt or golf-shirt, shoes rather than sneakers (unless the plan is a walk). I'll wear a skirt and heels - not too dressy, but not completely casual, or if the plan is a walk, then jeans and a nice shirt, no T-shirts/sweats. Later, if the relationship gets to "later", then more casual is fine if we're hanging out at home, but if we plan an evening out then again I like a bit more effort.

But that's just me. Through some conversation with the guy before you meet him, you can probably ascertain what degree of "casual" he's into and go from there.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 524 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/15/2009 10:00:22 AM

That is a good question and I certainly need more time to think about it. For so many years, women never had a choice of whether they would carry a child to full-term or not

Yeah, me too ... on the one hand, it doesn't seem any more unfair than forced CS in a world in which many women are capable of financially supporting their kids single-handedly; on the other hand, it does seem that it would be a step backward in terms of women having rights over their own body. It's just a tough question all 'round, no easy or completely fair answers.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 519 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/15/2009 9:14:49 AM

Men, the father can also have custody of the child if the mother doesn't want to be a mother........

Do you think women should be obligated to carry a child the man wants to term, in the way men are currently obligated to financially support a child they don't want? If so, would it also be fair for her to have to pay child support, or should the imposition of being pregnant against her will relieve her of future responsibility for that child?

I also think that adoptive parents should paid child support from the natural mother and father.

I disagree with this; to me, adoption signifies an intention to be responsible for the child entirely. And it wouldn't do any good for those children born to destitute/teenage women who give the child up to ensure it's financial as well as emotional well-being.

ETA:
The bio parents contributing financially to foster parents would seem more reasonable, to me.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 513 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/15/2009 8:46:30 AM

Women have options before sex and after the pregnancy test is positive. After the positive test, men have none.

This assumes that abortion or adoption is a viable option for ALL women. It's as viable an option as is celibacy for ALL men. Some can do it, some cannot. The assumption that if some women can accept an abortion or adopting their child out, then all should be able to simply isn't realistic. If a woman who, for moral, religious or even biological reasons, is unable to countenance an abortion or adoption, then what CHOICES are you leaving her with, exactly? The "choice" of single-parenthood.

The choice between abortion/adoption/singleparenthood is the same kind of choice as a person sentenced to death: firing squad, hanging or electric chair? All choices, sure, but none of them "good" from the recipient's point of view. The only role the man plays here is essentially ticking which decision was made, and then handing it off to someone else.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 17 (view)
 
girl i`m seeing-never get invited out
Posted: 11/14/2009 12:47:28 PM
It's only 4 dates, relax. If you're still dating regularly in 3 or 4 months and it's the same situation, then you might have something to worry about.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 437 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/14/2009 12:28:43 PM

And obviously it's not only the woman who is "entirely affected by pregnancy/ abortion", or we wouldn't be having this discussion now.

Perhaps you are one of the men who non-consensually lost a child to abortion? If so you have my deepest sympathy; I know many men care deeply for kids, especially their own.

Personally, if a woman is pregnant and he wants the child but she aborts anyway - I find that much more unfair and hurtful to the man than the situation where the man is expected to pay CS when she chooses not to abort. It's hard for me to say she should be forced to carry the child to term so that he can have his child, but maybe no more unfair than insisting the man financially support a child he doesn't want.

My remarks were more directed towards men who think abortion is a viable form of birth control for HIM.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 435 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/14/2009 11:56:38 AM

That's easy to say when it's not your money.

What makes you think it hasn't been? I've had to work through some difficult times, too, you know, being screwed over or watching people I've cared about being screwed over by men I/they've trusted. Just because some people choose bitterness and anger when faced with that situation doesn't mean others haven't made a different choice in a similar situation.
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 434 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/14/2009 11:52:05 AM

... starting with the bullshit of the Happily-Ever-After endings or fairy tales, romance novels, and movies.

Agreed. One of the greatest disservices done to women AND to men is the "falling in love/happy ever after" stuff we're inundated with daily. But, it sells - really, who doesn't like a happy ending and who doesn't want to believe it can happen to them? That's why so many people buy lottery tickets, right?

I agree, especially that kids are ONE thing that can bring us joy, but not necessarily the ONLY thing as so many women seem to think.

Again, I agree and for those people who choose to live a childless life, kudos to them. Still, when you look at other threads in which MEN are blasting women for having destroyed the family unit because they have jobs/careers or are too "selfish" in pursuing their own pleasure instead of hunkering down to be wife/mother - well, seems like a no-win situation sometimes to live a life where men aren't finding endless fault with women.

Women, generally speaking, see this issue from the perspective that CHILDREN are the centre, the foci, and define YOU as women.

I'm not one of those women; I'm not particularly maternal and might not have had any kids if I hadn't accidentally gotten pregnant the first time. Nonetheless, I believed then and still believe, that once you've got a child it is your resonsibility to raise that child and do the best for him/her that you can; this responsibility applies to both men and women equally and even if it is inconvenient or difficult from time to time.

Men, generally speaking, don't see life in the same terms.

No they don't, and I see that. I'm sometimes reminded in these threads of animals where it's not uncommon for males to abandon, drive away or kill their offspring. Having said that, and not wanting to paint all men with the same brush - in the wild (as in human society) some males take all the responsibility whilst the females walk away (are there any species, other than human, in which the female deliberately kills offspring?).

Who's right, who's wrong? I dunno, but I see men seeing this issue in broader terms than the broads here....

I don't see an easy answer either, really. I see the unfairness that men present, but it doesn't seem any more fair to me that the women is stuck with the choice of abortion/adoption/single-parenthood while men want to simply walk away. To MEN, abortion/adoption apparently looks like some kind of cure-all; they seem to completely dismiss the fact that women's biological urges or personal beliefs may make this a difficult or impossible choice. At the same time, they're willing to use their own biological urges to "spread their seed" as justification for bedding lots of women. They can, apparently, understand biological urges that affect them, but think women are somehow exempt or should be. And, since it is the woman's body that is entirely affected by either pregnancy/abortion, it makes sense to me that she makes that choice.

Both men and women have vested interest, in strictly biological terms, in ensuring there are future generations. That's the broadest picture. Yet, it seems that men want to limit their involvement to their initial ejaculation - literally and figuratively leaving women entirely in charge of ensuring there is a next generation, while still claiming the right to be involved should they decide they want to. From here, it looks like men want ALL the choices, period, based on what they want and little else.

and at the end it's all about the MONEY," for women just as much (more?) as men.

I wouldn't agree that women are all about the money more than are men. I see men justifying some of the unkindest behavior towards others- especially women & children - based on money (I see women doing that too, don't misunderstand, not trying to whitewash anyone) - but it seems to me that men overall seem to have enshrined their wallets as the primary motivation for their behavior - perhaps similar to the way in which you feel women have enshrined children as the primary reason for their behavior? If it really is between money/resources & kids, who is really seeing the "bigger picture"? The one who focuses on retaining (or getting more) money (male or female) at the expense of the kid? Or the one who focuses on the overall well-being of the next generation?
 pro-filer
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 427 (view)
 
are women playing GOD when they become pregnant
Posted: 11/14/2009 10:18:07 AM

I'd also be remiss in my duty as a father to not tell them the realities about relationships, kids and women.

I agree; it is part of your job as a parent to tell kids the REALITIES about relationships, kids and women. When your directives are filled with bitterness as opposed to reality, though, that's not good - in my opinion.

Most women are as reliable, honest and well-intentioned as most men - despite the bad apples of either gender. Having a positive outlook in life, including towards other people regardless of their gender, contributes to a person's emotional & physical health. Money is important, yes, but it can't make up for the losses when people are bitter/angry/paranoid about half the people they'll meet in their lifetime.


Where, exactly, have I told my sons that they were stupid mistakes? That's just a nasty extrapolation on your part.

When you tell them that "They'll be smart never to have kids", this sends the message that you think you were stupid to have had them.
When the reason for avoiding kids is because it'll make you financially less well off, the message is that money is more important to you and that you blame having had them for your lack of wealth.
Yeah, maybe you don't intend to send these messages. Still, its implied in the "You'd be stupid to ever have kids, because their mother will suck you dry for every dime you have."
Saying "Be careful, take responsibility, think through your options and be prepared - but don't shut yourself off from possible avenues of joy" is a much better message - because as I think you might agree, children are one of the things that do bring joy to us - and, for your information, so are grandchildren. In my opinion, anyway.
 
Show ALL Forums