Thanx for the clarification, but I thought it was your clinical thinking. And I understand the law, I was just surprised YOU said it. I have come to expect a softer side from you, I hadn't thought about your clinical side until I read your post,lol.
Who's right to choose, a womans right to choose.
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
I think every nurse I know has those two sides (softer and a little more cynical). It's why dark humour remains such a common coping mechanism:wave: You don't even want to know about some things we have joked about at work!
Here's the thing... you're making it seems like she has all the options and he has none. That isn't the case. He can choose whether or not to impregnate someone and he can choose to assert his paternal rights after the child is born. Men aren't victims any more than women are.
I dissagree, if it is an accidental or what I like to call a "HOOK" pregnancy, he didn't make the choice to impregnate, he was having fun, just like she was. So why should he have to pay for the next 18 to 26 years? She took the risks when she dropped trou to.
Yep, and she has three choices.
How many does he have that he can take without being forced? Assuming he doesn't want to be the father/assuming he wants to be a father?
So now the number of options he has is what decides what's fair and what isn't when it comes to childbearing? That's just completely arbitrary. He can choose not to get a woman pregnant in the first place. When the child is born he can choose to be a father in every sense of the word or just in the financial sense or not even at all because our enforcement is so poor or he can agree to adopt the child out if that's what the mother wants to do or block that from happening if he doesn't want it to happen.
If you want to talk about inequality in childbearing, can we look at the physical for a moment? What happens in a pregnancy can affect a woman for the rest of her life. I've never seen a father lose pints of blood, have a stroke, an embolism, a forced hysterectomy, be placed on weeks of bedrest, lose his job and his income, etc. Even with a healthy pregnancy a father doesn't have his body completely taken over, won't have morning sickness, won't get stretch marks, won't have extremely painful contractions for hours on end, won't have his genitals cut with a pair of scissors, etc.
There is no equality in childbearing. We just have to do the best we can with what we have. Since women have to deal with the physical, they get to decide on abortion and men don't. You think that's unfair, I think that's the only fair way to deal with the fact that men can't carry children. All their other choices are the same.
No, I never said anything like that.
And your wrong, men have one option,,,
whatever the woman wants. She's holding all the cards.
If you really think that, it's probably because YOU are a stand up guy who wouldn't abandon any children that you fathered. That isn't always the case.
I told you, I have a friend who wanted to adopt her baby out and couldn't because the father didn't want to. He has barely taken any interest in his son btw. I actually babysat for her twice when he failed to show up to take care of his son on his planned visit. I also know countless women who have raised children basically on their own because their fathers weren't involved. They didn't get child support, they didn't get any emotional help. They had to be mother and father to their kids. My sister in law is a perfect example. Her mom raised her without any help after she and her father divorced. It was her mother that walked her down the aisle this summer. Her ex husband did the same thing with her. He left when my (now) niece was a newborn and hasn't done a thing to help her since. They are in the process of severing her ex's paternal rights so she can be legally adopted by my brother. The easiest predictor of poverty in our society is to become a single mother, they aren't getting rich off of child support. And despite all this, i don't feel sorry for single mothers necessarily. They do know that the father of their child could abandon them. I do feel sorry for kids who could benefit from a relationship with their father and don't have it or those who could use the financial support from their father and don't get it.
exactly. It's not fair to anyone when the parents are in disagreement about a pregnancy - especially the child.
and Cdn Bear... you made a comment about a man getting screwed over for the rest of his life for a casual romp... well I think that's the whole point some of us are trying to get across here... of course it's not fair to the guy... but it's kind of a case of too bad so sad... this consequence sucks, but it's not a consequence that only the man pays... let me assure you, he doesn't pay that monetary price alone... the courts usually award child support based on both parties income, but the woman does indeed have to share her portion of the costs... and in most cases (and I may be generalizing here) the woman ends up taking on far more than half the costs of raising the child... getting even a bit of money from the father helps, but it doesn't usualy come close to what the actual costs are. It's not exactly a get rich quick scheme or a free ride for the woman! It's a natural consequence to unplanned pregnancy for both parties. Just as the wear and tear on a woman's body, and the ultimate 'raising' of the child, which OFTEN falls squarely and soley on the woman's shoulders is a natural consequence... one the man often can and does escape - and that consequence cannot have a price tag placed upon it... it also changes one's life forever - as a parent you know this - and having to take on that responsibility alone is much more difficult with far more long reaching impacts upon one's life than simply having to shell out a few bucks from one's paycheck every month. We could go on and on about what's not fair to whom in an unplannged pregnancy. I think if one really wanted to tally up the consequences to see who shoulders a heavier burden, it would end up pretty indisputably the woman who takes on the bulk of the consequences... So I reiterate: It's not fair to ANYONE. And at the end of the day, I still think the courts do their best to respond to this issue by asking the only question that should be asked, which is "What's fair to the child?"
But that is not what we're arguing here.
Any man that willing enters in to fatherhood, has no recourse in my eyes. If it was a joint venture and a partnership that want sour. Tough shyte, you pay mister or miss, which ever way the courts swing custody.
We're talking about casual sexual relationships. That result in unplanned children.
That changes everything. The childs welfare is the sole responsiblity of the woman if she chooses to keep it. Why should the man by forced to pay, because she wants a biped puppy?
It seems whenever any topic includes abortion it becomes a comparison of rights. If she can do this, why can't he do this? Or someone's rights becomes dictated by the intent. Like how someone will defend the embryo's right to life until it's created by a rape, or she can't have an abortion because she was having sex for the sake of sex and therefore should have to go through life with the bed she made.
The real issue is it's his baby. The baby has half of his chromosomes. He created that kid. He has an ethical, moral, and legal obligation to help out financially if it's necessary. He does not have a license to have sex with anything and everything and simply walk away leaving everyone to figure it out for themselves. If they don't need or want his help..great. If they do, be a bloody man. If he can't, then see the judge. Explain to him/her.
Anyone have any idea what % of the population this effects? I spent many years handling payments on court orders for family maintenance and never did see one under the circumstances we're talking about. Is this one of those arguments that's primarily in theory and not reality? Most reasonable people settle this stuff before it gets this far, and in my experience when it gets this far it's generally the result of long term relationships going sour.
The real issue is it's his baby. The baby has half of his chromosomes. He created that kid. He has an ethical, moral, and legal obligation to help out financially if it's necessary. He does not have a license to have sex with anything and everything and simply walk away leaving everyone to figure it out for themselves. If they don't need or want his help..great. If they do, be a bloody man. If he can't, then see the judge. Explain to him/her.
Anyone have any idea what % of the population this effects? I spent many years handling payments on court orders for family maintenance and never did see one under the circumstances we're talking about. Is this one of those arguments that's primarily in theory and not reality? Most reasonable people settle this stuff before it gets this far, and in my experience when it gets this far it's generally the result of long term relationships going sour.
See now...that statement bothers me. I know it happens but it's an extreme example and there are equally extreme examples of men who have such naive expectations around pregnancy - such as thinking he has no responsibility to ensure a pregnancy doesn't happen by wearing a condom with a woman he hardly knows, even if she's assured him she's on the pill.
The same could be said about him..he doesn't want to give his kid a better life because he wants to spend his money at the bar playing pool and texas holdem. And because he wants to go on being irresponsible she should abort or adopt out if she doesn't like it.
Adoption is an amazing thing. More people should, but it would have to be the most difficult decision in ones life. Giving up your own flesh and blood would take far more guts than any mission in Afghanistan, yet the goodtime Charlies don't see it that way. The same with an abortion. Just because abortion is legal doesn't mean it is wanted. Why in hell would we want to have women having abortions simply because bozos won't support their children?
Can you tell I get worked up over this? :read2:
Looks like theres alot of the wrong kind of passion going on around here. Lets clear up what we ARE talking about.
We are NOT talking about relationships gone wrong.
We are NOT talking about rape pregnancies.
We are NOT talking about molestation pregnancies.
We ARE talking about casuual sex pregnancies.
Is that correct?
We are NOT talking about relationships gone wrong.
We are NOT talking about rape pregnancies.
We are NOT talking about molestation pregnancies.
We ARE talking about casuual sex pregnancies.
Is that correct?
loll Kreskin... ya, I can tell. And I totally respect where you're coming from. Adoption is a wonderful option, but like you said, one that takes alot of courage. And I also agree that abortion is a worst case solution... and not one that's usually entered into lightly. I believe there are long term emotional consequences to women who choose this option also... the whole issue of unplanned pregnancy is just so fraught with unfairness.
I'm holding my hand up like a good student? Why is it always the females fault that she gets pregnant? Bear a man only has to follow the belief no glove no love, I've never met a female that objected to a condom but can the same be said of a man? NO.
Adoption seems to be the forgotten choice in this issue, and sadly many of us who can't have children would love to adopt but the process is slow and bogged down with red tape and by the time a light is seen at the end of the tunnel we are "Deemed" to old to adopt. Children are a gift, regardless of how it happened and it angers me to talk about them like they are grain or soy products.
Adoption seems to be the forgotten choice in this issue, and sadly many of us who can't have children would love to adopt but the process is slow and bogged down with red tape and by the time a light is seen at the end of the tunnel we are "Deemed" to old to adopt. Children are a gift, regardless of how it happened and it angers me to talk about them like they are grain or soy products.
Those studies are usualy flawed due to the presence of a Birthcontrol Pill. Condoms are officially labeled as "highly effective" but are in no way close to the effectiveness of the Birth control pill.
And in looking it up YOu are right though I am slightly off its 85% effective....Unless you are not allergic to spermicides but that is still not just using a condom is it? And for the record almost noone uses the condom correctly. using it correctly would mean pulling out before ejaculation. Who actually does that!??
from http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/malecondom.html
How effective is a male condom?
The typical use of male condoms, which is the average way most people use them, has a failure rate of 14-15%. This means that 14-15 people out of every 100 will become pregnant during the first year of use. Spermicidal agents increase the effectiveness to over 95% when used correctly and consistently. You should take a pregnancy test if you are experiencing any pregnancy symptoms.