BS: Roe V Wade For Men

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 02:00 AM

I'd pay to see that, Bee-dubya-ell.

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 07:33 AM

If a man wants a child, he can adopt one.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: GUEST,Mrr at work, kind of
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 09:58 AM

This is a case where it isn't sexist to take sex into account. Sorry, men, the woman has the pregnancy as a body part, and you don't, so you have no say about what happens to the pregnancy. Even if you both were protected and conception is accidental, sorry, it's up to the woman whether to stay pregnant, and up to both of you to support the child after birth if that is what happens. No opting out unless giving up for adoption.
However: I don't see why a man, who accidentally gets a woman pregnant, can't opt for adoption too, and give the financial responsibility to someone who wants it.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 10:11 AM

How about we just save ourselves from parents afraid to discuss sex with their children and from school systems petrified in fear by their local evangelical christian groups who threaten legal action if schools utter anything other than "don't do it till you're married" regarding sex "education."

My son is now in the eighth grade and his father signed the permission slip so he can attend health class this spring to get sex ed. Ha! In a letter sent to school a few years back I told the health teacher what I thought of the proposed course she was going to teach my daughter, and my daughter told me just recently that my note made her teacher cry. I wonder why? She should be glad that at least one parent in the group was going to attempt to do a more than adequate job of discussing the subject thoroughly with her children.

If we don't make it very clear from very early days just what the consequences are for they and their partners, then we're failing our children. If we don't ALSO give them permission to each explore their own sexuality and to understand what gives them pleasure we fail them. Turn sex into a dirty little secret, let people feel guilty about something normal, and you're setting them up for problems.

My parents thought they were being pretty liberal by leaving books about sex in our book room where we could find them and read them. We didn't talk about it much, though sex jokes and puns were heard frequently. When the subject came up, in my teen years, it was the biased rendering of mom complaining about dad after the divorce--that didn't help a teenaged girl AT ALL. Later, when I was about 20, mom asked me about a possible partner and I told her it was none of her business. End of subject. Not very helpful.

Today the venue that seems to bring up the subject most often is film. I've heard my kids speaking frankly among themselves about their friends, and I know full well that they know far more at their ages now than I knew at a comparable age. We go from where they are now. When a subject comes up in a film that is reasonable (or isn't) in its characterization, we talk about it. Not always, but if it's appropriate. (Talking about it all of the time at every opportunity isn't necessarily healthy, either!)

I have not told them "don't do it until you get married." I've told them that they need to protect themselves and their partners, they need to understand that it is inappropriate for a person in a position of power over them to try something (they understand what the age limits/legal statutes are in this state), and that they need to understand what gives them pleasure. All of our rooms have doors. If they're shut, we knock.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: SunnySister
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 12:06 PM

I wonder just how many men have a clue what happens to a woman's body when she gets pregnant? Really. Do you? Do you understand that a woman's body changes FOREVER with one pregnancy? Their feet grow bigger, their body chemistry changes, they even smell differently? And that's not even going into what happens to veins, hormones and their weight.

Some of the postings here really chap my hide and that doesn't happen too often. All of these clueless posts from men who've never stopped to think, really think, what giving birth, having an alien being taking over total control of your body- sucking nutrients out you. And doubly shame on you if you're a man whose partner has had a child with. You should know what happens and what an incredible sacrifice and gift a woman gives to have a baby be born into the world through her body. (Most woman believe the pain and changes are worth it for their child, although I don't believe the act should be taken so lightly.)

If a man wants a baby so badly, and are all fired up about the baby or their parental experience- adopt one of the thousands which need homes. Please.

Otherwise, carry and wear a condom and don't whine and complain when your female partner wants you to use a condom.

Gee, I don't know if it's obvious, but I am so totally sick of men who want sex, don't want to wear protection, AND think that they can dictate what a woman chooses to do with her body.

-- SunnySister- who wishes she could write more like CarolC but can't seem to find the patience...

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 12:27 PM

Babies as alien beings? Dear Gawd; the notion of an unwanted child is itself a bit of an alien proposition.

But, that lies in the realm of pure elective opinion, I guess.

One thing is for sure. A coupling that produces this sort of strife is a couplig in which one or both parties were a little short in the department of personal responsibility. Seems to me, for better or for worse, if you do something that has unintended consequences, you take the responsibility for it. I have walked both sides of this street, having been relatively immature and relatively mature at different times in my life (never mind when!). All I can say is the approach of being willing to take full repsonsibility for one's own choices -- male or female -- is the only path that works, IMHO.

There are no guarantees that life will be a bed of roses; so what? Welcome to the human conundrum.

That said, I think entrapment by false reassurance is a pretty low trick, when it happens.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 01:33 PM

>>The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.<<

They will lose and they deserve to. This is stupid. Don't want a kid? Keep it in your pants or use a condom. Why is that so frigging hard for some of these people??

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 01:36 PM

A friend of mine learned fairly recently that his now-ex wife purposely got pregnant in order to assure that the two would marry. They did, but he knew from early on that if the relationship had been given time to evolve normally they would have gone their separate ways; he wouldn't have chosen to marry this woman except under the looming spectre of parenthood. They made a go of it for about 15 years, and had two more children. He dealt with growing depression and finally lost so much weight that he looked like he'd blow away in a strong wind. They separated, he still felt horrible, and then last year this revelation took place in a couples divorce counselling session. To say that he suddenly felt a flood of emotions is a mild expression of what he had to sort out. A couple of years ago he met someone to whom he did want to be married, but still had to struggle through all of the mixed emotions of this marriage that had been forged through manipulation. The truth was in some way liberating, but it didn't suddenly make things right. He still has a lot to work through, and now he has to be particularly careful that none of his much-loved children become entangled in something that was not of their making.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 01:50 PM

Seems to me quite a few people in this thread need to reread the article WITHOUT their blinkers* on....

|
|

*Something that serves to obscure clear perception and discernment.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 01:57 PM

A friend of mine learned fairly recently that his now-ex wife purposely got pregnant in order to assure that the two would marry.

When my son was in his teens, I warned him that there are women in the world who do such things. And I made a very careful effort to impress upon him the need for protection during sexual encounters. Our sons deserve to know about and be prepared for such people.

Conversely, had my child been a daughter, I would have been equally careful to make sure she knew that there are men who will pretend to be more serious about a long-term relationship than they are just to get into a young woman's pants, and I would have impressed upon here the absolute need for protection during sexual encounters.

On a side note, I also made my son very aware of the need for protection during sex for the purpose of preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

Bottom line... if you are not in a committed monogamous relationship, don't have unprotected sex. And try to use more than one kind at the same time, in case one of them fails.


(thnx, SunnySister)

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: MMario
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 02:04 PM

I find it rather offensive that the press is comparing a case about a women's right to decisions about her own body to a case about men avoiding the responsibilities of their actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Peace
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 02:11 PM

Fer krissake. Part of the discussion from some of the sane posters here have repeatedly made the point that if people are responsible in the first place that the whole issue of abortion does NOT become an issue in the second place. That is as it should be, IMO. Takes two to tango--a thought obviously lost on many people. Most pregnancies are not unwanted visitations foisted on females. We discuss abortion like it's anything to do with men, and the decision to abort is a woman's decision, and hers alone, and I agree with that. However, maybe by abortion number three some women should take another look at their own decision-making processes. Wear a rubber? You are stupid if ya don't. AIDS is a reality these days, as are a number of other diseases that are just not too good to get.

The case will lose in court. It's a non issue (no pun intended).

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Peace
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 02:18 PM

And PS: I also think that the abortion should be paid for by both people involved unless it is the result of rape or the resulting pregnancy from agreed-to coitus would put the woman's health at risk.

"Canadian women obtained 106,418 abortions in 2001, a slight increase of almost 1% from 105,427 in the previous year. The rate of abortion has also marginally increased from 15.4 abortions per 1,000 women in 2000 to 15.6 abortions per 1,000 women in 2001.

The ratio of the number of induced abortions per 100 live births decreased from 32.2 in 2000 to 31.9 in 2001.

Induced abortions continue to be the most common among women in their 20s, who accounted for 51% of all women who obtained an abortion in 2001. On average, 27 women out of every 1,000 in their 20s obtained an abortion."

Statistically, that would likely indicate that the US with ten times Canada's population did abortions for about 1,000,000 women. That is one helluva lotta money going out the door because guys and gals are to fucking busy to use protection. Rubbers cost a helluva lot less that surgery.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 02:47 PM

If women were well-educated about safer procedures no one would be able to dictate their right to choose. This has been done at home with women who wanted to get their moon-time done and over with each month, and, yes, for early abortions, too:

The aspiration procedure has been safely practiced for decades throughout the world. In the United States, it was practiced in the 1970's by the Women's Health movement. It was called "Menstrual Extraction." It is so simple that women used to do it on each other in their own homes!

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 02:54 PM

"Menstrual Extraction"

Holy crap, women are gross!

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 05:35 PM

Now isn't that the pot calling the kettle black!

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 05:40 PM

Don't like the sight of blood huh. CH?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Peace
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 05:41 PM

Procedure here.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 06:04 PM

Can we get to the real issue? That being why do women oppress men so much and why do they like to be treated like crap :) ?

On a side note, I would mention that James Tiberius Kirk fornicated with a bunch of, let's say exotic women and the end result was a kid from an episode that didn't exist with the woman wanting to keep our beloved lord away from his son. I mean could you imagine the nerve of that mortal?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Peace
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 06:08 PM

Go play the blues.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 06:12 PM

We shall over come... We shall overcome.... Oh the humanity!

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 07:27 PM

I think there is an anti-Roe agenda here, which is why the case is being purposely called "Roe V. Wade for Men." If a woman has a 'right' to an abortion, then she can or not have the child despite the man's wishes, thus this hideous claim by the guy " where's MY choice? I didn't want the kid, I'm not paying for the kid." But, if there was no right of abortion, the woman would have no recourse but to have the kid (in most cases) hence the man would have no recourse but to pay.

So I suggest this case exists primarilly to put Roe V. Wade in a bad light.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: GUEST,Mrr at work, kind of
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 11:39 AM

What about him putting the baby up for adoption, if the woman opts to have it? She can keep it all she wants but he can get someone else to take the financial burden... where is the problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 11:44 AM

Mrr, do you think there are people who would be willing to adopt the biological father's share of the responsibility for a child they would have to share with someone they didn't even know?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: MMario
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 11:59 AM

Carol -- there are a lot of guys out there paying (or not paying depending on the case) child support for a child they share with someone they don't know.

there are a pretty fair number *LIVING WITH* and sharing a child with people they don't know.

And there are plenty of them with adult children shared with people they *STILL* don't know - sometimes after decades.

NOt something that makes me proud to be a guy - but it's the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 12:02 PM

I take your point, MMario, but would someone be willing to do all of that, not for a brief moment of ecstasy (or whatever), but rather for thousands of dollars in legal costs (for the adoption process)?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: MMario
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 12:06 PM

Probably,- yes. If it gave corresponding legal and visitation rights of many biological fathers, more probably.

But then social sevices would proablay step in and claim so-an-so wan't "fit" to pay ...as they prevent many people from adoption.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 01:02 PM

I think there is a material difference between a risk that transpires, and the intentional concealment of the risk. In my view the morality of the situation is as follows. The man who claims to be sterile or to have had a vasectomy, or the woman who clames to be on the pill or to be sterile is the party primarily responsible for any ensuing pregnancy and birth. The former should not only be liable for support for both the child and the woman, but also for damages (as in any other fraud case), and the latter should net be entitled to support for the child or herself. I can't see a claim for damages in the latter case. There is no physical trauma to the man. The fraudulent man should not be entitled to access, but the defrauded man should, if he wants it.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 01:18 PM

I think the needs of the child are not addressed at all in your take on the morality of the situation, Richard Bridge.

The person who is defrauded in such a situation is not a hapless victim. He/she had the option of making sure he/she was protected, and did not do so. That makes him/her equally responsible.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 01:24 PM

They should have the option to try - the woman who wants to give up her baby isn't guaranteed that someone will take it, so why should the man? If the baby can't be adopted then the parent will have to take care of it...

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 02:13 PM

that's assuming they are able to, Mrr, which often is not the case...

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: SunnySister
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 03:37 PM

Wow, a great idea just came to me!

Why don't people always use condoms when they are not in a committed relationship?? Novel idea, I know but based on what I've read in this thread, I think it the best policy for all concerned.

--SunnySister, still grouchy but learning a whole lot from the men in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 04:25 PM

And never forget to take the full condom with you to dump it yourself.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: SunnySister
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 05:24 PM

Yeah, Wolfgang... that's the ticket!

Perhaps you can bring a box of baggies with you to each "romantic" encounter so you can be sure that none of your precious juices won't get stolen or spilled.

--SunnySister- who definitely is not feeling that sunny after this thread and should probably stop reading this lovely thread in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 05:27 PM

In either of my models the child gets the care or attention of a parent who wanted it: far better than the resentment of a parent who didn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 05:39 PM

Care and attention are good things for children, Richard, but they are, unfortunately, not anywhere near enough. Money is also required. Lots and lots of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 06:41 PM

And whose responsibility is that? The liar's.   The party lied to shoud be entitled to an indemnity from the fraudster.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 07:29 PM

The liar doesn't always have enough. And since it is a new and growing human being we are talking about, who wasn't consulted about the whole thing prior to the person who was lied to not being responsible enough to use protection, that means even the one who was lied to has to take responsibility for NOT USING PROTECTION. If you can't understand that much, you must not understand anything about raising kids. Or about responsibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men
From: Peace
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 07:31 PM

Put a raincoat on Mr Happy and it becomes a non-issue.