|
13 Mar 06 - 03:41 PM (#1692332) Subject: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Clinton Hammond From CBS News http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/09/national/main1385124.shtml Verrra interesting...... |
|
13 Mar 06 - 03:58 PM (#1692346) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Charmion Hmmm. I wonder whether anyone -- judge, lawyer, media pundit -- will have the guts to point out to Mr. Dubay that he had a choice and made it, that choice being whether to indulge in unprotected sexual intercourse with the lady in question. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 04:04 PM (#1692351) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Clinton Hammond If a woman engages in unprotected sex, she has the OPTION to have the baby or not.... Shouldn't it be fair? |
|
13 Mar 06 - 04:12 PM (#1692358) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: GUEST In fairness i have always felt that if a woman gets pregnant and wishes to abort the child, but the father wishes the child to be born and is willing to accept all responsibilities including financial, then the woman should have the baby and hand it over to the father. That strikes me as equality. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 04:16 PM (#1692363) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Clinton Hammond " then the woman should have the baby and hand it over to the father. That strikes me as equality." So wait... a man should be able to tell a woman she HAS to have his baby?!?! Sorry... can't agree there... IF the two can work out a deal where she carries it and gives it to him after it's born, sure... Saying NO always has to be an option |
|
13 Mar 06 - 04:35 PM (#1692390) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Stilly River Sage That's a form of slavery, idiot-guest. Hands down. "Fairness" has nothing to do with it. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 04:37 PM (#1692391) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: CarolC The father can't possibly assume all of the responsibilities because he doesn't assume any of the health risks inherent in pregnancy and childbirth. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 04:41 PM (#1692394) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: GUEST,Not the eejit above We could always use male castration as a deterrent for those who fuck around without benefit of birth control. Now there is a "solution" to something that isn't even a problem for you. Only in neo-con America would Guest 4:12 be taken seriously. Which is quite frightening. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 04:41 PM (#1692396) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Peace '"None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child."' Rights of the child as of when? |
|
13 Mar 06 - 04:43 PM (#1692399) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: gnu Frightening? I have stronger words than that. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 04:48 PM (#1692406) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Bill D *tsk*..any suggested solution which involves 'should' or 'rights' has to be considered very carefully, and this bit about the father's 'rights' is damn sticky! Proving exactly who had the responsibility and who has to deal with how much fall out and who can make what portion of the final decision is NOT a simple thing. The mother is usually the one to have final say, (and it would be hard to force her decision either way), but it is easy to write a script where her actions lead to a scenario where the father ought to be consulted.... |
|
13 Mar 06 - 05:03 PM (#1692422) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Barry Finn All rights & options belong to the one person who's body is living this process & has to continue to live with, for life, only. Her body & in the end her choice, alone. No matter the situation. Any one who wants different for a body that's not their own is one who'd ride lord over life & death itself. I'm not a woman but there's not a power in heaven or hell, in the capitol or in the church that would be able demand of my body what I didn't choose for myself. Barry |
|
13 Mar 06 - 05:06 PM (#1692428) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: JohnInKansas Having known at least a half dozen couples where the "external evidence" supports the claim that the woman asserted that she was either "unable" to become pregnant or that she was "on the pill," when her actual intent was deliberately to become pregnant in the hope that the "father" would marry her, I'd have to give due consideration to the claim that the woman has a bit more "power of choice" than the male in some situations. In one specific instance among my acquaintances, the female asserted her infertility in order deliberately to become pregnant so that she could have a child to raise by herself. She had no intention of making any claim for support from the father, and so far as I know has made none. Unfortunately(?) under existing laws, should she ever need to apply for any public assistance (even unemployment benefits), the courts claim the right to demand that she reveal who the father was, and may take the child from her and/or jail her if she refuses to tell. Even though she has now supported the child for a dozen years, the court has the authority to decide that the child "could have been better off" if the father had contributed and can (and has in some similar cases) demand that the father pay "back support" for all the years since the birth of the child. Neither "parent" has much choice if the judge gets to decide, sometimes arbitrarily, what should be done. John |
|
13 Mar 06 - 05:14 PM (#1692434) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: GUEST Well John, there is a simple solution to the she-devil who trapped him rant: the guy can take personal responsibility for birth control. If a man ain't willin' to be proactive and take responsibility for his penis being stuck in women's vaginas by insisting on HIM using birth control, getting a vasectomy, etc. then he has no right to bitch. Prevention of pregnancy, like prevention of STDs, is the responsibility of BOTH tango partners. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 05:15 PM (#1692437) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Peace Well, one thing IS for sure. The cause of the uproar has been neglected in the rhetoric: namely, the child. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 05:22 PM (#1692446) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: GUEST And let's be clear. This is yet another lawsuit brought by the National Center for Men, who have been campaigning for years against court-imposed child support. That is, in the case of a man who refuses to keep it in his pants, and then whines when a woman or the state (depending upon the case) says "it's his". So yeah--think of the best interests of the child, instead of the best interests of the male who doesn't want to pay child support to a woman he got pregnant when he was whoring around and acting like a slut. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 05:30 PM (#1692457) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Clinton Hammond " pay child support to a woman he got pregnant when he was whoring around and acting like a slut." Takes two to whore and slut... I can see, in the future a 'consent' form.... "The undersigned agree that the sex that is about to happen is for pleasure and pregnancy resulting from said sex will be the responsibility of the one issuing this form" Or a warning label tattoo! "Warning! If I knock you up, don't come crying to me for $" "Warning! Fertile gold-digging woman. Enter with protection" LOL |
|
13 Mar 06 - 05:35 PM (#1692461) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: GUEST Yes, it does take two to whore around and slut. Exactly the point. And historically, two people have been required by society to pay the emotional and physical price for it, bear the brunt of the social stigma, and suffer the financial consequences. The mother and child. Time to even things up and level the playing field, now that medical technology and social mores have allowed it. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 05:46 PM (#1692478) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Clinton Hammond Ya... whatever... Every child ever born was born of an absent (but somehow still abusive) father and an untouchable, should-have-been-sainted mother... Give yer stupid head a shake... |
|
13 Mar 06 - 05:50 PM (#1692484) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: katlaughing "whore around and slut?!" Jaysus! It's a natural act and about time we quit equating it with archaic "dirty" terms ala Puritans! Feit and Dubay are pretty glib over how "easy" it is for a woman to make such choices. Barrydarlin'...you got it in a nutshell. Her body, her choice, period. When men can have babies, then we'll talk equality. In the meantime, ANYONE who does not want to have a child is RESPONSIBLE for their own form of birth control. Got a condom? Wear it! |
|
13 Mar 06 - 05:51 PM (#1692485) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: GUEST I didn't say any such thing! What a wanker! The point is, "out of wedlock" births have, until very recently in our history, been the problem/responsibility of the mother, have let the father off the hook completely, and the child has suffered the consequences of both parents' bad choices. Court ordered child support is a no-fault solution to that. All cases like this do is make asshole jerks feel justified in trying to avoid paying child support for their kids. And make no mistake about it, the paternity tests don't lie. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 05:53 PM (#1692490) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: GUEST Whoring around and slut was said tongue in cheek. Jaysus, save us from the literal minded. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 06:07 PM (#1692501) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: katlaughing Oh, literally a GUEST idjit. Wow, we've been graced. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 06:15 PM (#1692512) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: CarolC It doesn't matter what the woman tells the man. If he has unprotected sex with her, he bears fifty percent of the responsibility. If you want to make sure you don't ever have to pay child support, keep your sperm to yourself. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 06:21 PM (#1692516) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Clinton Hammond "It doesn't matter what the woman tells the man." Bullshit.... in the same way it matters what a man tells a woman |
|
13 Mar 06 - 06:22 PM (#1692517) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Peace It's much ado about nothing, anyway, because the case will lose in court. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 06:25 PM (#1692523) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: CarolC Doesn't matter what the man tells the woman either. If she doesn't make sure she is protected, she bears fifty percent of the responsibility. See how fair that is? |
|
13 Mar 06 - 06:28 PM (#1692527) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: CarolC If she doesn't make sure she is protected, she bears fifty percent of the responsibility ...except in cases of rape. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 06:41 PM (#1692539) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Grab Got to agree with Clinton - this lawsuit is fair. There's no way a woman should be forced to become a mother - that's utterly wrong. But equally there's no way a man should be forced to become a father. If anyone thinks it's only 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth that's the problem for the mother, boy do you have your priorities screwed up! The problem is being chained to a kid you don't want, having no money, having no opportunities, and your kid likewise having no opportunities. Whether or not the situation was reversed until recently, it doesn't make inequality the other way around right. And using past inequality as the justification is a damn sight worse - it's saying "screw equal rights, I want revenge". FWIW, I was glad to see equality upheld in the case of the woman in the UK who wanted to use her and her ex-boyfriend's frozen embryos without her ex-boyfriend's approval. Graham. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 07:23 PM (#1692564) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: GUEST If he has unprotected sex with her, he bears fifty percent of the responsibility. Exactly, then so does she. Why is it beyond thought that the man therefore has an equal share and an equal say in the child about to be aborted? If he wishes to have his child and is willing to take all repsonsibility then why is his wish so scorned? We seem to have an attitude to men here almost the reverse of the attitude we had to women a 100 years ago. And i'm dissapointed that men on this thread are so willing to deny their sex parental feelings and needs equal to that of any woman. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 07:34 PM (#1692573) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: CarolC Grab, unless he is raped, it is impossible to force a man to become a father. If he takes responsibility for his sperm, it will just never become an issue. If he doesn't take responsibility for his sperm, he bears fifty percent of the responsibility. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 07:50 PM (#1692589) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: GUEST So why can't he take that responsibility and be granted 50% of the say in whether the child is born or not? |
|
13 Mar 06 - 08:03 PM (#1692601) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: CarolC So why can't he take that responsibility and be granted 50% of the say in whether the child is born or not? Because that's not responsibility, seeing as how he won't have to experience fifty percent of the abortion. If he doesn't want to be a daddy, all he has to do is keep his little spermies to his little self. BTW, my comments are not intended to address the tragic situation of the frozen embryos. I don't have any good answers for that one. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 08:12 PM (#1692611) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: GUEST "So why can't he take that responsibility and be granted 50% of the say in whether the child is born or not?" Because the courts would, if the father said he wanted the fetus aborted, have to compel the mother to have an abortion. Or, if the father said he didn't want the fetus aborted, the courts would have to compel the mother to have the child against her will. It's all about who has the right to control a woman's body in the event of pregnancy. I'm voting for the woman, and the woman only. Also, this idea that a man is being compelled to pay ALL child support for the child. That just isn't the case. They are compelled to pay a fair and reasonable sum, based upon their income, to raise the child they are responsible for, instead of foisting the cost on taxpayers. I think that is a very fair deal. Unless of course you think we should compel the men to raise the child so they don't have to pay support to the ho who had it. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 08:13 PM (#1692612) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Peace "If he doesn't want to be a daddy, all he has to do is keep his little spermies to his little self." However, the other side of that is that if she doesn't want to be a mommy, she should keep her ova locked away, too. Sounds like a case of people--male and female--being irresponsible, but both 'sides' saying the other is MORE responsible. I'd still like to know where the foetus/baby fits in the argument, but we don't really care about that, do we! It's all about US, US, US. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 08:20 PM (#1692621) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Jeri So why can't he take that responsibility and be granted 50% of the say in whether the child is born or not? Because slavery is illegal. Because he doesn't do 50% of the child bearing. Because, if a man would want to have a kid without marrying a woman, or even caring for her, he would just have to impregnate her and wait for the baby-growing thing to produce. When it becomes possible to transplant embreyos into men, they can bear their own. Will they? |
|
13 Mar 06 - 08:21 PM (#1692622) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: GUEST No, not MORE responsible based upon who was "at fault" for the conception. EQUALLY responsible for the raising of the child they played an EQUAL part in conceiving through the act of sex, protected or not. Face it, no matter who says what to whom, no matter what birth control is or isn't used, etc there is always a risk that the outcome of the act may be pregnancy. Do you need books, videos, graphs and charts to get that part, fellers? It is always a risk. Don't want to do 18-20 years of parenting, don't whip it out. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 08:21 PM (#1692623) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: CarolC As I said before, if she gets pregnant through having consentual sex, she bears fifty percent of the responsibility (for the child). Fair's fair. And it is about the child. We are talking about who bears responsibility for the child. That's what this thread is about. All of my posts in this thread are about taking responsiblity. If people were more conscientious about doing that, maybe there would be fewer unwanted children in the world, don't you think? |
|
13 Mar 06 - 08:22 PM (#1692624) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: CarolC ...but we sure as hell don't promote responsible behavior by letting men off the hook when they knock women up, for whatever reason. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 08:27 PM (#1692626) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: GUEST And I don't think it is "fair" to make me the taxpayer pay to raise another couple's child, just so the couple could get their jollies for free, no strings attached. Homey don't play dat tune. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 08:39 PM (#1692631) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: GUEST well, Laura Bush believes in choice! |
|
13 Mar 06 - 08:43 PM (#1692635) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Barry Finn That's the only one case where the choice should've been made by more intellegant people. Barry |
|
13 Mar 06 - 08:43 PM (#1692636) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: GUEST They aren't compelled to pay a fair and reasonable sum. What rock did you crawl out from under? Men get off easy or scot free in the child support department most of the time. Show me a man who paid HALF the costs of raising a child he didn't want to stick around for and I'll show you a pile of bullshit. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 08:49 PM (#1692639) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: GUEST Dubay should be paying about $1500 a month for his child. That would be fair. If he didn't want a baby he shouldn't have had sex. Plus, add a fine for being a naive idiot! |
|
13 Mar 06 - 08:52 PM (#1692645) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: GUEST Right you are 8:43. Let me rephrase that. The only legal remedy on offer to the custodial parent, is that the non-custodial parent be compelled to pay a fair and reasonable sum according to the child support forumula of the state in which the custodial parent resides. As you note, no child support advocates would claim that deadbeat dads are paying a fair, much less reasonable, sum to support their children. When they pay at all. My point really is this. It isn't the men who are being treated unfairly. It is the kids they reject, spurn, cast off...and the mothers of the kids they treat with such contempt. Even if the mother is contemptible, they are still the child's mother. And I would also like to point out, nowadays, more and more dads are stepping up to the plate and becoming primary custodial parents. Should that mean the non-custodial mother not be required to pay court ordered child support? NO WAY! If one or the other parent is somehow incapacitated, then as a taxpayer, I want my tax dollars used to make up the difference. But unless that is the case, the parents need to pay the support. Now, all this is complicated by the other benefits a custodial parent might receive from the state, like housing subsidies, food stamps, medical care, job training, child care. But I do think it fair that both parents should be required to jointly pay for the maintenance and support of any child they co-procreate. |
|
13 Mar 06 - 11:02 PM (#1692739) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: freightdawg Okay, now I know who the dumbest person on earth is...guest of 8:43. I know of two situations very closely, and several more on a more general basis where the father was ordered by the courts to pay an exhorbitant amount of money to the woman, who never had to work a day. Worst part of it was, the man then had to go and buy his kids their school clothes, books, etc., because the mother was a drug abusing drunk that smoked, drank and shot up all of her "child support." The whole situation was obscene, but that's the way the courts of today see life...screw the man and who the ***** cares about whether the woman attempts to raise the child properly but because she's the woman she gets the child support. Luckily, over time the worst of these situations was legally remedied but not until years of abuse had taken place and thousands of dollars wasted. Equality cannot exist legally if there is a fundamental inequality in ethics. If a situation is morally and ethically unequal no amount of legal verbage can make it "equal". I for one applaud any attempt to get the legal system to address the fundamental inequality of this discussion, namely that a woman can dictate to a man that a child will or will not be carried to term regardless of his convictions. Most of the posts above have been correct: there is joint responsibility in the conception of a child. And I will admit that the woman is responsible for carrying a child to term (until there is a way for a woman to carry 1/2 and a man to carry 1/2 there will never be true equality). But the child that is conceived is not just her child, it is THEIR child. Any law which ignores the rights of the male during pregnancy and then suddenly, only after childbirth, makes the male to be 50% (or in many lawcourts, far in excess of 50%) responsible for the child is quite simply unequal and unjust. I don't know enough about the lawsuit to say this male Roe v. Wade is the solution. But I do know that the current law gives all of the rights and all of the decisions to the female and that inequality needs to be addressed. Freightdawg |
|
13 Mar 06 - 11:11 PM (#1692746) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: freightdawg And another, random thought.... This is just another of the sad consequences of the so-called "sexual freedom" that we "enjoy" today. A few moments of ecstasy and then days, if not months of heartache and regret. Children who will never know the security of a loving home, men who are legally tied to their children but who are emotionally non-existant, and women who are either forced to bear a child they did not want or live with the mental and emotional results of having to be the one to decide to terminate the pregnancy. No one wins when a pregnancy is "unwanted". Not the man, not the woman, and certainly not the child. God save us from ourselves. Freightdawg |
|
13 Mar 06 - 11:24 PM (#1692756) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: GUEST Well, god save us from the likes of youse anyway Mr. Dog. |
|
14 Mar 06 - 12:16 AM (#1692785) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Peace "If people were more conscientious about doing that [being responsible], maybe there would be fewer unwanted children in the world, don't you think?" Absolutely, Carol. |
|
14 Mar 06 - 12:29 AM (#1692789) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Bee-dubya-ell In fairness i have always felt that if... the father wishes the child to be born and is willing to accept all responsibilities including financial, then the woman should have the baby and hand it over to the father. Sounds fair to me, too. But only if the father is willing to have a ten-pound watermelon stuck up his ass and then spend the next twenty-four hours trying to expell it. |
|
14 Mar 06 - 02:00 AM (#1692810) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: CarolC I'd pay to see that, Bee-dubya-ell. ;-) |
|
14 Mar 06 - 07:33 AM (#1692995) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: GUEST If a man wants a child, he can adopt one. |
|
14 Mar 06 - 09:58 AM (#1693135) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: GUEST,Mrr at work, kind of 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. |
|
14 Mar 06 - 10:11 AM (#1693146) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Stilly River Sage 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 |
|
14 Mar 06 - 12:06 PM (#1693294) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: SunnySister 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... |
|
14 Mar 06 - 12:27 PM (#1693335) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Amos 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 |
|
14 Mar 06 - 01:33 PM (#1693399) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: GUEST,AR282 >>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?? |
|
14 Mar 06 - 01:36 PM (#1693401) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Stilly River Sage 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 |
|
14 Mar 06 - 01:50 PM (#1693419) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Clinton Hammond 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. |
|
14 Mar 06 - 01:57 PM (#1693430) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: CarolC 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) |
|
14 Mar 06 - 02:04 PM (#1693439) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: MMario 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. |
|
14 Mar 06 - 02:11 PM (#1693450) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Peace 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). |
|
14 Mar 06 - 02:18 PM (#1693455) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Peace 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. |
|
14 Mar 06 - 02:47 PM (#1693486) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: katlaughing 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! |
|
14 Mar 06 - 02:54 PM (#1693495) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Clinton Hammond "Menstrual Extraction" Holy crap, women are gross! |
|
14 Mar 06 - 05:35 PM (#1693731) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Stilly River Sage Now isn't that the pot calling the kettle black! |
|
14 Mar 06 - 05:40 PM (#1693736) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: katlaughing Don't like the sight of blood huh. CH? |
|
14 Mar 06 - 05:41 PM (#1693739) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Peace Procedure here. |
|
14 Mar 06 - 06:04 PM (#1693755) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: GUEST,rarelamb 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? |
|
14 Mar 06 - 06:08 PM (#1693756) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Peace Go play the blues. |
|
14 Mar 06 - 06:12 PM (#1693759) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: GUEST,rarelamb We shall over come... We shall overcome.... Oh the humanity! |
|
14 Mar 06 - 07:27 PM (#1693818) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: GUEST 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. |
|
15 Mar 06 - 11:39 AM (#1694083) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: GUEST,Mrr at work, kind of 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? |
|
15 Mar 06 - 11:44 AM (#1694090) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: CarolC 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? |
|
15 Mar 06 - 11:59 AM (#1694104) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: MMario 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. |
|
15 Mar 06 - 12:02 PM (#1694109) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: CarolC 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)? |
|
15 Mar 06 - 12:06 PM (#1694115) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: MMario 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. |
|
15 Mar 06 - 01:02 PM (#1694174) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Richard Bridge 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. |
|
15 Mar 06 - 01:18 PM (#1694188) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: CarolC 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. |
|
15 Mar 06 - 01:24 PM (#1694192) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: GUEST,Mrr 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... |
|
15 Mar 06 - 02:13 PM (#1694229) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: katlaughing that's assuming they are able to, Mrr, which often is not the case... |
|
15 Mar 06 - 03:37 PM (#1694311) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: SunnySister 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. |
|
15 Mar 06 - 04:25 PM (#1694363) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Wolfgang And never forget to take the full condom with you to dump it yourself. Wolfgang |
|
15 Mar 06 - 05:24 PM (#1694433) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: SunnySister 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. |
|
15 Mar 06 - 05:27 PM (#1694436) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Richard Bridge 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. |
|
15 Mar 06 - 05:39 PM (#1694447) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: CarolC 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. |
|
15 Mar 06 - 06:41 PM (#1694543) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Richard Bridge And whose responsibility is that? The liar's. The party lied to shoud be entitled to an indemnity from the fraudster. |
|
15 Mar 06 - 07:29 PM (#1694604) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: CarolC 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. |
|
15 Mar 06 - 07:31 PM (#1694609) Subject: RE: BS: Roe V Wade For Men From: Peace Put a raincoat on Mr Happy and it becomes a non-issue. |