Could You Have a Kid Out there?

[expat]

I can't quite agree with 'since both made the baby, both should have a choice on aborting.' The big difference, of course, is that the woman is the one who has to go through the abortion procedure.

 

Forcing a woman to have an abortion because a man doesn't want the baby--it's something I've never thought about before and my gut reaction is to say that in most circumstances that would be bad.

[Julian2]

Agreed.

I know too many guys that won't used protection now, it's just another way of letting them dodge their responsibilities.

I knew one idiot who impregnated half of Australia and three quarters of the PI before he had a vasectomy and than he carried on like HE was the wounded party, all these greedy women harassing him with THEIR brats all the time.

He brow beat three much younger women into an abortion that I know of.

[bust]

 

Penis's leek in case you didn't know.

 

Only on blow up dolls I am guessing.....and you know this because....

 

Ruling please.

[khunsanuk]

Hi,

 

"This is one of the biggest precedents that the pro-lifers use to get rid of legalized abortion in the US. The claim that this practice is unconstitutional in that the female has a choice and the man does not have a choice, by removing the woman's choice it squares everything up. "

 

Seriously warped 'logic' there as it doesn't account for:

- guy doesn't want to keep the child, but woman does

- neither person wants to keep the child

 

And how about always aborting? That would square up things as well.

 

Cent brings up some excellent points as well. These unwanted kids could very easily be turned into cashcows.

 

Sanuk!

 

[Central Scrutinizer]

Agreed.

I know too many guys that won't used protection now, it's just another way of letting them dodge their responsibilities.

I knew one idiot who impregnated half of Australia and three quarters of the PI before he had a vasectomy and than he carried on like HE was the wounded party, all these greedy women harassing him with THEIR brats all the time.

He brow beat three much younger women into an abortion that I know of.

 

 

 

But that is saying it is ONLY the man's responsibility to ensure they, the couple having sex, are protected from getting pregnant. It is the woman's responsibility as well! She knows if she can get pregnant, if she is not on the pill, the coil, the sponge, whatever. Both are responsible to ensure they are protected from procreating. BOTH should have a say on finding the woman pregnant as to whether they want to have a child or not. Abortion should not only be the right of a woman if the child is not wanted at this stage of pregnancy.

[khunsanuk]

Hi,

 

"Forcing a woman to have an abortion because a man doesn't want the baby--it's something I've never thought about before and my gut reaction is to say that in most circumstances that would be bad."

 

Like Cent says, then let them have the baby *and* sign a waiver for any future financial support.

 

Sanuk!

 

[Central Scrutinizer]

"The big difference, of course, is that the woman is the one who has to go through the abortion procedure."

 

Excuse me, but that is horseshit. She will happily go through the procedure if SHE does not want the child. (And whether you want the kid or not.) But if the guy does not want the child and SHE does, well tough luck buddy. Right? You pay me child support for 18 years, and for college if needed and wanted, and all that as the kid is YOUR (the guy's) financial responsibility, even though you did not want the baby. Again, utter horseshit in my opinion. And totally unfair.

 

It might be her body impregnated, but she knew full well her chances of becoming pregnant with your sperm during sex with you. The choice to have the baby or not should be the choice of both parties involved in the financial decision to raise a child to adulthood. Not only that, but full custodial parental rights, equally, should be given both parents. But that is not usually the case is it? No, it is not. The woman gets custody, the man gets the child support payments and whatever she and the courts will allow him to access to his kid. Again, horseshit and totally unfair to the men.

 

[bust]

And then we can introduce the arguement "who protects the rights of the unborn child?"

[Central Scrutinizer]

Julian said: "I know too many guys that won't used protection now, it's just another way of letting them dodge their responsibilities."

 

And what of the woman's responsibilities? She has none? She has, if she is living in the modern world, easy access to birth control. Hell, it is free or damned near free and/or inexpensive in most countries of the world. Sorry, I don't buy into that 'it is the man's responsibility'. It is both persons' responsibility, and the woman's more so as she does have to bear the child to term. So if she does not want kids she should ensure to the best of her ability that she can not get pregnant. Unless we are talking about rape here, or mentally incompetent persons, she knows totally in most cases if she can get pregnant when having sex with you, unprotected sex. Most women I have met know damned near to the day when they are fertile and can get pregnant. If you are not wearing a condom and they are not on some form of birth control, they know the chances of pregnancy. Let's be fair here and acknowledge that both parties are responsible, not just the swinging dick.

[Central Scrutinizer]

And then we can introduce the arguement "who protects the rights of the unborn child?"

 

 

Yeah, and we can also say birth control is the tool of the devil.

 

Look, I do not advocate abortion as a form of birth control. It is a last resort for stupid people who do not behave responsibly to begin with and use protection/birth control methods readily available. But really, are two people this idiotic likely to be a good choice to raise a child in the first place?