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

[Nikki]

Nikki

Good point!

Thanks

Wear two condoms?

Please don't. This is even worse.

Withdraw if you think it is broken?

Too late by this point.

Withdraw before ejaculation?

If used correctly you would already be doing this lol.

Don't have sex?

Right..... We both know that humans have biological urges and this is just something Religious people came up with. Abstinece (sp?) isn't the answer to everything.

Have oral sex as a substitute?

Maybe, but that mostly would just do it for males. UNFAIR

Get a Vasectomy?

We talked about this earlier. Not every doctor will do it on someone who either doesn't have kids or is under 30.

Not many really good choices are there?

I must agree with you. Yes all these choices suck!

 

[Outta here]

I've never met a female that objected to a condom but can the same be said of a man? NO.

oh so sad, but so true.

 

[Nikki]

The courts decide things based on the needs of the child, not the parents, and they only act under civil law when the issue is brought before them. They certainly don't force people to live under the same roof.

Oh that should make it better for a child. So insted of daddy telling him everyday of his life that he is unwanted he only has to hear it every second weekend.

 

[Nikki]

Plan Parenthood in texas suggested 2 condums. I called before I gave the kids the talk.

Are you serious!!!??? *mouth drops open* Those people are retarded. DO NOT USE TWO CONDOMS!!!! That is just logical science.

 

[Ariadne]

Keep in mind that not everything is that cut and dry. Ideally the woman is taking the pill on time, the man is correctly using the condom. If this is the case there shouldn't be a problem. But what happens when the woman doesn't take the pill correctly? It reduces its effectiveness considerably. Does the man know that she's taking it wrong? Not likely. But he's stuck with her decision regardless of what happens.

Fair?

What about women who tell men that their on the pill but actually aren't? It happens, we all know that. But the man is stuck.

Fair?

I really don't think that we can force men to be responsible if they don't have a 100% assurance that they won't have to deal with a pregnancy. Women have that assurance. If they feel that they aren't okay giving up a child, how is that the man's responsibility? Nobody is trying to move us back to the fifties, but if the shoe was on the other foot the feminists would be screaming from the walls. All I'm asking for is relative fairness. I'm just asking that no one be forced into something they don't want.

If the shoe was on the other foot, men would get pregnant, men would be happy about the development of the birth control pill, men would have had sexual liberation in the 60s, men would claim that their bodies are their own and no one is going to force them to carry a baby to term if it interferes with the career promotions, income, health and freedom. I think that if the shoe was on the other foot men wouldn't think twice about their rights to choose to give birth or not, much like women. They would refuse to listen to arguments that women want babies so why won't men just carry them to term so the women can raise them. Men would tell women to adopt if they want babies that badly. That seems fair so if the shoe is on the other foot, men should be fair to women and women should be fair to men.

If the woman is that confused about how to use the pill, then her doctor should have recognized that and will have recommended the implant or other more suitable birth control device.

Women say they're on the pill but they're not? Hmmmmmm. Dishonest woman. Hmmmmmmm. Probably dishonest in many ways, not just about birth control. Probably a good woman to stay away from.

 

[selfactivated]

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.

Sassy I totally agree. BUT I raised one of "these" children alone for 4 years and we did PERFECTLY fine until an idiot judge gave "daddy dearest" visitation rights. SOMETIMES we are NOT doing these children any favors by forcing there "fathers" apon them. And SOMETIMES its just not right to make two strangers bonded together for decades. SOMETIMES these young adults need to be sat down and given CLEAR options. Maybe if THAT was court ordered FIRST then everyone would be clear on their rights and whats right for that peticular child.

Im headed to the Pub if Im lucky I'll loose the migrain and gain a one night stand.........night yall.

 

[Nikki]

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.

Yeah sure he can say he wants nothing to do with the child. However the women can still take him to court and collect a cheque. this is wrong.

 

[selfactivated]

Are you serious!!!??? *mouth drops open* Those people are retarded. DO NOT USE TWO CONDOMS!!!! That is just logical science.

Its Texas doll and almost a decade ago.........I'll say no more

 

[Nikki]

Its Texas doll and almost a decade ago.........I'll say no more

ROFLMFAO

 

[Ariadne]

The birth control pill is 99% effective a condom is only 70% effective. What happens if it breaks?

Seems to me that if two people use birth control, they've discussed the possibilities of children ... particularly avoiding them. If the condom breaks, even on the first time people have sex, they sometimes decide to have the baby, get married and raise the child. I know of at least one true story where this happened - wait a minute ... that happened to me! This is one option that women find hard to refuse. Abortion is usually a very difficult choice so if there is the option of building a life for the child, women will often take it.

If the man really wants the child, maybe he should think very carefully about the woman he chooses to be the mother of his child and if that's all good, then he should give the woman some security. It's extremely offensive for a man to want a woman's child, but not the mother.

 

[Ariadne]

This is the meat of my point. EXPECT FINANCIAL SUPPORT.

Why should she expect it?

Who is she to dictate to another free sentiant being what they may or may not do, if no one can tell her what to do?

The child has the right to expect financial support from both parents and if the parents have university education, the child has a right to financial support from both parents for that as well. It's definitely unfortunate that the man participated in the birth of a child if he is that reluctant to celebrate his child's life, but that's something he had to debate before he chose to have sex with a woman. C'est la vie.

 

[Ariadne]

Is that realy constructive or called for?

I understand your position, but bashing men is not the answer.

If you have the right to spread'em and have some fun to, but oops, something goes wrong, you can abort or carry it out. The man does not have an option here. That is unfair period.

Just because two concenting adults have sex, does not give a woman the right to pick the pocket of someone for the next 18 to 26 years.

The woman should be accountable for her particapation in the act, and if she choses to go it, then she should bear the burden, alone.

Talk about crude: "If you have the right to spread'em and have some fun". Men often have the mistaken opinion that funds they provide for the upbringing of their child are actually a second income for women. Maybe more men should try providing a home for children so they could see how the cost of providing for one more than doubles when providing for one plus a child. Don't think for a moment that woman are not contributing financially to the costs of raising a child. The contribution from the dad may allow the child to buy new clothes rather than second hand, participate in team sports rather than kick the soccer ball around the field with a friend, enjoy snow boarding rather than tobogganing. Don't short change children simply because you don't understand the costs of raising children. Everything, from indoor shoes to music lessons and outdoor school, costs something and the dad has a percentage financial responsibility. Single mothers are not getting rich on child support ... don't kid yourself.

 

[Kreskin]

And these are the guys you want to force into being "Daddy's"? Why?

They could get off the playstation and go to work.

 

[Ariadne]

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.

If they were both "just havin' fun", why is there a baby to discuss. Methinks maybe someone was more serious about the sex than the other. Maybe men should stop thinking that women have sex "just havin' fun". Men like sex for fun, but women often think they're in love. You wouldn't believe how many women I know that had a one night stand and then pine away for a few weeks wondering why the guy isn't calling. Someone was "just havin' fun" while someone else was thinking a relationship was in the making.

 

[Ariadne]

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?

A woman's three choices are:
1. she can raise the child alone
2. she can have an abortion
3. she can get married

A man has choices
1. he can marry the mom
2. he can walk away and deny it's his child
3. he can encourage the woman to have an abortion
4. he can let the woman have the child and choose whether he participates in it's upbringing

Seems to me that men have plenty of choices.

 

[Ariadne]

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?"

Very true about the costs. There are always incidental costs that come up ... birthday gifts, ski trips, all sorts of extra-curricular activities, bikes get stolen, shoes get stolen ... and more. It all has to be looked after and although there are guidelines stipulating how much each parent will contribute to those extra costs, it really is up to the day to day parent to track down the other parent for a contribution. Many times, it's just not worth it. The moms, however, often would rather forego the car repair or night out so the child can replace the stolen items.

 

[Ariadne]

Oh that should make it better for a child. So insted of daddy telling him everyday of his life that he is unwanted he only has to hear it every second weekend.

Daddys don't have to spend any time with their children if they don't feel like it. It's a privilege and a right of a child to know both parents, but it is not a responsibility of a parent to give the child that right. For example, if a mom wants to move away from the dad, the dad can prevent this because the child has a right to know the dad. If the dad wants to skip town, the child has no rights to prevent it.

 

[Kreskin]

Oh that should make it better for a child. So insted of daddy telling him everyday of his life that he is unwanted he only has to hear it every second weekend.

He doesn't have to hear a thing from Daddy. Daddy can mail in his cheque and have sufficient funds on deposit to cover half of the costs of clothing, daycare, food, activities, education etc..thus when Daddy is mentioned it can be said that he was man enough to care about his kid. If he wants to participate in visitation and activities, all the better.

 

[Ariadne]

Yeah sure he can say he wants nothing to do with the child. However the women can still take him to court and collect a cheque. this is wrong.

If the guy thinks sex is "just havin' fun" and the woman thinks that she's met a man that wants a relationship with her, then there's bound to be trouble. If she gets pregnant, then she has the right to have the child. If the child is born, the child has a right to financial support from the father. The mother cannot collect cheques from a man for having sex, she can collect cheques on behalf of the child to pay for accommodation, food, clothes, education, haircuts, toys and extra-curricular activities. The woman is not collecting the cheque, she is managing the funds for the child. It is a parent's responsibility to provide for the child so if one parent reneges, the other parent has no choice but to seek the assistance of the courts.

 

[Ariadne]

They could get off the playstation and go to work.

I was in court one day and mom needed child support. Dad had quit his job to go back to school. The judge did not reduce the child support but instead pointed out that dad had responsibilities so although he could quit his job, that didn't reduce his responsibilities.

I heard another case where mom filed an affidavit stating dad made 3000 per month, but in court mom corrected that amount and said it was actually 6000 per month - typo. Dad didn't even bother showing up with the stated income of 3000 ... but the Judge made the adjustment and awarded child support for a 6000 income. Dad would have been pretty mad about the change ... but he obviously didn't even care enough to show up.
Took me forever to catch up on 4 pages of posts and I finally catch up and everyone's gone.:smilebox: