Who's right to choose, a womans right to choose.


CDNBear
#1
I have always lived by the rule, that as a man I have no right to tell a woman, what to do with her body. From looks to abortion, it is not my body, I have no right to force my beliefs on it.

But, something has gone wrong.

The rights of the one should not out weigh the rights of others. Should it?

My first example is, a young man dates a young lady for awhile. They do the deed and she ends up pregnant. She does not tell him she's pregnant and they break up, without him ever knowing.

Months go by and the youn man recieves a call from his ex's family. They explain she is to deep in to drugs and that she is messed up, completely unable to care for a child.

The young man, being a stand up guy, begins to put things in place to relieve the young lady of the responsiblity of motherhood, with the assistance of CAS and other government agencies. But unbeknowst to him, the young lady is in communication with a childless family and plans to give them the child.

The child is born. The young man goes to the hospital to bring home his little bundle, only to have his heart broken. The family with which the young lady had been talking, have come and claimed the child with legal documentation, signed by the childs mother.

Long story short. He's spent almost $50,000 in legal bills, proven he is the biological father, and still has limited visitation.

How have his rights as a father been up held?

Example two, same sinario, same sad ending to the relationship. But the young lady plans to abort the child. The young man finds out and pleads with her not to, and says he will take on all the responsiblity, and she can go on her marry way. She refuses and terminates the child.

How have his rights as a father been up held?

Example three, Same thing again, to the letter. But only this time, the young lady wants to keep the child. But the young man is not mentally or financially ready to take on fatherhood. He pleads with her to not go through with the pregnancy, but to no avail. She files a paternaty suit and wins, now hes paying for a child he can not afford to have.

How have his rights, not to be a father been up held?

Not only is there an inbalance in the justice system favouring women, but it seems that women are no longer responsible for their own actions and are able to have their cake and eat it too.

Where in the supposed equality here?

Where is justice here?

Or am I just getting cynical in my older age?
Last edited by CDNBear; Nov 22nd, 2006 at 07:20 PM..
 
tracy
#2
Unfortunately there is no equality in childbearing. There can't be until men are capable of bearing children. There are countless cases of men feeling they have been treated unfairly in this matter and countless cases of women feeling the same (there are far too many "fathers" out there who have no interest in their children).

A man has two points of control as far as I can see: the moment he chooses to have sex with a woman and after the child is born. He can avoid unwanted pregnancies thanks to modern methods of contraception or just not having vaginal intercourse (not a popular option I realize). After conception and before birth, women have the control to abort or not. I don't see any way around that. Once a child is born, the father does have rights. A friend of mine actually wanted to place her son for adoption but couldn't because the father objected.

I really wish people thought more about pregnancies before they happened. I see way too many babies that are born into bad situations and I don't care how upset the parents feel at that point. By then, the child's needs concern me a lot more.
 
Sassylassie
#3
This is a difficult topic for me but I would say I agree with Tracy, safe sex is the only answer for unwanted pregnancies. In the end it's the children that suffer for those who don't practice safe sex.
 
Kreskin
#4
Once a baby is born the baby's rights override the parents rights. If necessary for a judge to rule on it, the circumstances and impact on the child will be major factors.
 
Curiosity
#5
Good responses here .... give much pause for thought...

Nature is a cruel taskmistress - she should give us a dose of common sense hormones along with the ones which continually perpetuate our replication..... but she doesn't.....

So in a cool moment when there are no sexual distractions....I suggest all sexually active unmarried women type up a little contract (not too long)... with two signature lines of consent at the bottom... and
keep it nestled in her bra or purse or wherever she may happen to be when the question of sex comes up...

The little contract should state that if she and her lover of the moment are intent on having sex - even
protected sex, that her lover will consent to sign along with her an agreement that if a child of the union
occurs, they will both assume 100% responsibility for its care, financial needs, and lifelong nurture.
That the male of the union (or father if a birth occurs), will become a father with decision making power and input as to that new child's future.

If that cools the ardor..... well what can I say?

Ah - another dream I have - but alcohol and drugs make the decisions in many cases.... who can read a contract much less sign it and mean it?
 
CDNBear
#6
I understand the rights of children and the fact that the woman has to deal with 9 months of pregnancy.

But where is the accountablity in the woman, I heard about male contraception. Why have we removed responsiblity from the woman and placed it squarely on the man?
 
Kreskin
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

I understand the rights of children and the fact that the woman has to deal with 9 months of pregnancy.

But where is the accountablity in the woman, I heard about male contraception. Why have we removed responsiblity from the woman and placed it squarely on the man?

Responsibility for what - birth control? That's neither here nor there. Once pregnant she has 100% responsibility for carrying the baby, that's why she gets 100% of the abortion decision.
 
Ariadne
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

I understand the rights of children and the fact that the woman has to deal with 9 months of pregnancy.

But where is the accountablity in the woman, I heard about male contraception. Why have we removed responsiblity from the woman and placed it squarely on the man?

I would hope that before two people have sex, they have a little conversation about the consequences of sex. If they can't be bothered to consider the consequences of their actions, do you really think they should have a voice in the decisions after the fact? They've cast the future to the wind ... deliberately.

Everyone knows that sex can result in pregnancy. Women that don't want to get pregnant have their choices and men have theirs. Where's the problem? If you, a male, don't want to have children then go get snipped. If women don't want children, they can get snipped. If people want children and are bouncing from bed to bed, then they've decided they want children so badly they don't really care how they come about. If two people want children and they do care about how they come about, then they have that little conversation about the consequences of sex before they have sex. That little conversation usually includes details like marriage, responsibility and who gets to change the diapers. More serious people actually discuss education, religion and other obviously more important aspects of childrearing.

I have a hard time feeling sorry for the guy that drops his pants for a smile and a glance and then whimpers about the consequences.
 
Kreskin
#9
A smile and a glance?
 
CDNBear
#10
I think maybe we have strayed from my question or the premiss there of.

The consequences of sex aren't really the issue I'm challenging here.

The issue is the imbalance in the sex's and how peoples rights are being trampled, in favour of the right's of one sex over the other.

If contriception is used by both parties, but the male is mentally or financially capable of being a father, but the woman chooses to keep the child. Why should the man pay? Or even more sinister, what if he's tricked or lied to in the process? If it is her body and her right to CHOOSE, then it should be her right to choose to pay on her own and take responsiblity for her CHOICE. Instead of heaping it on the male.

I say that, because on the other side of the coin, the man can not force the woman to go to full term and deliver the baby for him to care for. The male has no rights to stop a woman from ending the life of what is his child as well.

Possession being 9/10ths of law, does not make the life inside a woman her sole property.
 
Ariadne
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

A smile and a glance?

In my years of experience, I think it's quite fair to say that's about all it takes to get a guy to drop his pants. Would you suggest that men actually want to have a conversation first?
 
Kreskin
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Ariadne View Post

In my years of experience, I think it's quite fair to say that's about all it takes to get a guy to drop his pants. Would you suggest that men actually want to have a conversation first?

You women have it so easy.
 
CDNBear
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Ariadne View Post

In my years of experience, I think it's quite fair to say that's about all it takes to get a guy to drop his pants. Would you suggest that men actually want to have a conversation first?

As much as I can be turned by a pretty face and set of legs. If I can not carry on an intellegent conversation with the woman, then there really is no point in going any further. As Judge Judy says, "Beauty fades, dumb is forever".
 
CDNBear
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

You women have it so easy.

My point exactly.
 
Ariadne
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

I think maybe we have strayed from my question or the premiss there of.

The consequences of sex aren't really the issue I'm challenging here.

The issue is the imbalance in the sex's and how peoples rights are being trampled, in favour of the right's of one sex over the other.

If contriception is used by both parties, but the male is mentally or financially capable of being a father, but the woman chooses to keep the child. Why should the man pay? Or even more sinister, what if he's tricked or lied to in the process? If it is her body and her right to CHOOSE, then it should be her right to choose to pay on her own and take responsiblity for her CHOICE. Instead of heaping it on the male.

I say that, because on the other side of the coin, the man can not force the woman to go to full term and deliver the baby for him to care for. The male has no rights to stop a woman from ending the life of what is his child as well.

Possession being 9/10ths of law, does not make the life inside a woman her sole property.

Okay, not about the consequences of sex but it is about the consequences of sex when it comes to the rights and responsibilities of men. Pregnancy was the responsibility of women from the beginning of time until the 1960s when someone decided women could control whether they got pregnant. That was a very good thing. Since that time, men have been sad because they can't just get women pregnant when they want. Soooooooo sad. Were women's rights trampled in the 1950s when men got them pregnant, gave then a car load of children and then just wandered away because they had something better to do?

The law says that children are entitled to the quality of life that they would have if their parents were together. That means that both parents get to contribute to the financial and emotional upbringing of the child. If one parent is slightly incompetent, then their access to the child can be restricted. An absent parent (even during pregnancy) is not exactly considered desireable.

If a man gets a woman pregnant, but spending a year using her body as an incubator is not in the cards per her financial or emotional circumstances, then she has to do the right thing for herself. Few pregnant women faced with a promise of marriage, financial and emotional stability, the white picket fence and a life of happiness and companionship are going to chose an abortion. I must be missing something because other than using the woman as an incubator, what is the man offering?
 
Sassylassie
#16
yes being a female is a riot, I'd like to see how males cope with carry a living breathing thing inside of him for nine months. It will always be the womens right to choose, is this fair well yes it is. I've yet to meet a male who wants a women to follow through with an unwanted pregnancy and if she should choose to have the child well perhaps we need laws to protect men who don't want the child or pay child support. Not much of man in my book. Welfare purdy much ensure that any child will be taken care of in NS for life.
 
Ariadne
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

You women have it so easy.

Oh yes we do. If men want women to drop their pants, I think they have to have buy a woman a house and a car, sign over the bank account and then walk away after the pants get zipped - that might work.
 
Kreskin
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Sassylassie View Post

Is this a smile and a glance?
 
Ariadne
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

As much as I can be turned by a pretty face and set of legs. If I can not carry on an intellegent conversation with the woman, then there really is no point in going any further. As Judge Judy says, "Beauty fades, dumb is forever".

Well, well, well ... so perhaps that intelligent conversation should stumble into the topic of childrearing.
 
Ariadne
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

Is this a smile and a glance?

Mooning is always good for getting a smile and a glance ... don't forget to shave!
 
tracy
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

If contriception is used by both parties, but the male is mentally or financially capable of being a father, but the woman chooses to keep the child. Why should the man pay? Or even more sinister, what if he's tricked or lied to in the process? If it is her body and her right to CHOOSE, then it should be her right to choose to pay on her own and take responsiblity for her CHOICE. Instead of heaping it on the male.

I say that, because on the other side of the coin, the man can not force the woman to go to full term and deliver the baby for him to care for. The male has no rights to stop a woman from ending the life of what is his child as well.

Possession being 9/10ths of law, does not make the life inside a woman her sole property.

In the womb, a fetus is not a person. It is a fetus and yes it's sort of owned by the woman. Since she is the one who has to be pregnant, she's the one who has to decide whether or not to abort. It sucks for the guy, but biology doesn't care about equality. This burden of childbearing also sucks for women at times too. Pregnancy complications are not uncommon at all and even low risk, healthy pregnancies can be very difficult physically.

The reason a woman can't just assume total 100% responsibility for a child and let the man off the hook is because the right to child support is the right of the child. A mother can't ethically waive her child's rights.
 
tracy
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

My point exactly.

You've obviously not spent enough time in a labor and delivery room if you really think that!
 
CDNBear
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Ariadne View Post

Okay, not about the consequences of sex but it is about the consequences of sex when it comes to the rights and responsibilities of men. Pregnancy was the responsibility of women from the beginning of time until the 1960s when someone decided women could control whether they got pregnant. That was a very good thing. Since that time, men have been sad because they can't just get women pregnant when they want. Soooooooo sad. Were women's rights trampled in the 1950s when men got them pregnant, gave then a car load of children and then just wandered away because they had something better to do?

So because there was an imbalance the other way, infringing on the rights of others in reverse, is ok?

Quote: Originally Posted by Adriadne View Post

The law says that children are entitled to the quality of life that they would have if their parents were together. That means that both parents get to contribute to the financial and emotional upbringing of the child. If one parent is slightly incompetent, then their access to the child can be restricted. An absent parent (even during pregnancy) is not exactly considered desireable.

And that would be one of the laws, I believe is flawed.

Quote: Originally Posted by Adriadne View Post

If a man gets a woman pregnant, but spending a year using her body as an incubator is not in the cards per her financial or emotional circumstances, then she has to do the right thing for herself. Few pregnant women faced with a promise of marriage, financial and emotional stability, the white picket fence and a life of happiness and companionship are going to chose an abortion. I must be missing something because other than using the woman as an incubator, what is the man offering?

So, even if the man is willing to accept full responsiblity for the child after birth, leaving her free to do whatever, she should still be allowed to abort, even though the child she carries is his as well?
 
CDNBear
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Ariadne View Post

Well, well, well ... so perhaps that intelligent conversation should stumble into the topic of childrearing.

Like I said in the OP, I support a womans right to chose. I am only putting out a topic for discussion.

As a father of two. I have had that discussion at length morethen once.
 
Ariadne
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

So because there was an imbalance the other way, infringing on the rights of others in reverse, is ok?



And that would be one of the laws, I believe is flawed.



So, even if the man is willing to accept full responsiblity for the child after birth, leaving her free to do whatever, she should still be allowed to abort, even though the child she carries is his as well?

Life has balanced out a bit for women. Instead of men abusing the rights of women, per pre-1960, men now have to respect the maternal rights of women. Men don't like it, too bad. They liked it when they had all the rights and women had to suffer the consequences ... no wonder men are whining now is it ... having lost control over women's procreation.

You disagree with the rights of children such that they are entitled to the lifestyle that they would have if their parents were together. That's unfortunate, but a common opinion. Many men don't want to support their children after divorce, so you're in the majority. Fortunately the courts protect the rights of children when their parents have better things to do with money.

If a woman is unable to carry a child to term, she should not be forced to give up a year of her life and give birth because a stranger has attempted to use her body as an incubator. Perhaps you would prefer if men could be pregnant ... seems to me that would solve your concerns. Hey, I have an idea ... hire a surrogate. Men with money and a desire to raise a child, but no desire to have a relationship with the mother, should just pay someone to carry the fetus for them. See, there's a solution to every problem. Before men could just knock up a woman, now they can pay someone ... end result: they can raise the child alone if they want.
 
Ariadne
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Like I said in the OP, I support a womans right to chose. I am only putting out a topic for discussion.

As a father of two. I have had that discussion at length morethen once.

It's a hot topic indeed ... I have to run ... parent teacher interviews and all that other fun stuff that comes with single parenting.
 
tracy
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Ariadne View Post

If a woman is unable to carry a child to term, she should not be forced to give up a year of her life and give birth because a stranger has attempted to use her body as an incubator. Perhaps you would prefer if men could be pregnant ... seems to me that would solve your concerns. Hey, I have an idea ... hire a surrogate. Men with money and a desire to raise a child, but no desire to have a relationship with the mother, should just pay someone to carry the fetus for them. See, there's a solution to every problem. Before men could just knock up a woman, now they can pay someone ... end result: they can raise the child alone if they want.

I believe paying for a surrogate is illegal in Canada. It is allowed in the US and I've worked with gay men who have used them before.
 
LittleRunningGag
Free Thinker
#28
We had this discussion on a more libertarian slanted board that I am a member of. I doubt that it will turn out the same on this one, but here goes nothing:

Should a father be able to opt out?

The formula would be:

Point A) Couple conceives,

Point B) Female has sole right to terminate the pregnancy. Male has zero rights to this option. If woman aborts, story ends.

Point C) If female opts into pregnancy, male has option to opt out of fatherhood. Note: this means that the male now holds zero claim over the child, and is not a part of the child's life from this point on without significant financial penalty, and the mother's consent, until the child is at the age of majority. If male opts in, current state of affairs regarding parenting legalities apply.

Point D) If father opts out, mother has sole responsibilty of rasing child, putting it up for adoption, or aborting. If the father opts in, and the mother opts out but is willing to carry the child to term and adopt the child out to the father, the usual adoption rules apply.

It is key when considering this is that in all situations the woman has sole control over her body. No one else, not the state, not the father, no one, has control over her body. The same is said for the father. He has complete control over his role in the child's life. No one is being forced into anything.

I see this as the ideal compromise for everyone. It allows everyone who wants to be involved in the child's life to be involved. And at the same time, no one is held at gun point to supporting a being that they want no part of.

Thoughts?
Last edited by LittleRunningGag; Nov 23rd, 2006 at 08:11 PM..Reason: typo
 
Kreskin
#29
He "opted in" before the pregnancy test. Those arguments are nonsense.
 
CDNBear
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Ariadne View Post

Life has balanced out a bit for women. Instead of men abusing the rights of women, per pre-1960, men now have to respect the maternal rights of women. Men don't like it, too bad. They liked it when they had all the rights and women had to suffer the consequences ... no wonder men are whining now is it ... having lost control over women's procreation.

You disagree with the rights of children such that they are entitled to the lifestyle that they would have if their parents were together. That's unfortunate, but a common opinion. Many men don't want to support their children after divorce, so you're in the majority. Fortunately the courts protect the rights of children when their parents have better things to do with money.

If a woman is unable to carry a child to term, she should not be forced to give up a year of her life and give birth because a stranger has attempted to use her body as an incubator. Perhaps you would prefer if men could be pregnant ... seems to me that would solve your concerns. Hey, I have an idea ... hire a surrogate. Men with money and a desire to raise a child, but no desire to have a relationship with the mother, should just pay someone to carry the fetus for them. See, there's a solution to every problem. Before men could just knock up a woman, now they can pay someone ... end result: they can raise the child alone if they want.

I senced a bias in your post before I read the follow up post. After reading your follow up post, I know why.

I beleive your bias is jading the issue.

The imbalance that you speak of prior to womens liberation, was wrong, but that does not condone or make the present conditions any better.

Why should the man not have the right to be a father, even if the woman does not want the child?

But she can force him to be a father, even if he does not want to be a father.

Totally removing any accountablity from the woman.

If you haven't read the OP and the three sinerios in it, please do. It may shed some light on why I'm asking this question. One of the stories is true. I'm sure the others are likely true as well, but I only have knowledge of the one. That is the story that got me thinking about this topic. I posted it for your opinion, but I am not trying to suggest anything. I just want some input. Just like yours.
 

Similar Threads

17
The Right to Choose
by s243a | May 21st, 2007
9
Which one would you choose????
by Nuggler | Feb 3rd, 2007
93
6
Who would you choose?
by cookies | Nov 20th, 2004