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

[selfactivated]

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/p...ect-men-leave-parenting-womans-shoulders.html

Have fun

 

[CDNBear]

Good point. When she runs it is on the 6 o'clock news with the headline "Mother Abandons Child".

Or she has an abortion, a completely leagal act. No matter what you are about to cry and scream, it is legal, viable and a choice. period.

 

[CDNBear]

Wow a few more pages of man bashing the lazy bastards.

All I have seen is emotion, morals and ethics, great I have them to. That does not make the question or the inequality any less valid.

The vert moment you stop applying your ethos to the equation, look at the Charter and the laws, you will see an imbalance, you don't have to agree with the imbalance, but that does not mean it is not there.

You all seem to think that if you apply some sort of analytical thought to the process, you suddenly absolve men of their responsiblity, wrong, you merely note an imbalance has been created. Is that imbalance wrong morally? No. Is that imbalance right based on legal merit? No.

Do any of you see that?

 

[Kreskin]

Or she has an abortion, a completely leagal act. No matter what you are about to cry and scream, it is legal, viable and a choice. period.

Why would you care if she has an abortion or commits infanticide? The male position here is he couldn't care less what happens to his kid before or after birth. Cut n run.

 

[Kreskin]

Wow a few more pages of man bashing the lazy bastards.

All I have seen is emotion, morals and ethics, great I have them to. That does not make the question or the inequality any less valid.

The vert moment you stop applying your ethos to the equation, look at the Charter and the laws, you will see an imbalance, you don't have to agree with the imbalance, but that does not mean it is not there.

You all seem to think that if you apply some sort of analytical thought to the process, you suddenly absolve men of their responsiblity, wrong, you merely note an imbalance has been created. Is that imbalance wrong morally? No. Is that imbalance right based on legal merit? No.

Do any of you see that?

The right to an abortion is based on the Charter of Rights. In fact the Charter resulted in overturning legislation that outlawed abortion. There is no imbalance at all, except the one you're creating in your mind.

 

[Nikki]

If her parents were kicking her and my one-month old grandson onto the street I'd probably go over and give her parents a swift kick in the ass, then I'd bring her and my grandson into our home. There would be no need for court because I would want to help them. I would arrange counselling for both 16-year olds and have them come to a reasonable decision on how to move forward. I would expect both of them to share responsibility.

I believe I read of a court decision in the States that required normally a $500 minimum monthly child support but in the case of a 16-year old student they reduced it to $50 because he could go out and mow lawns or do whatever in his off-school time to pitch in. I believe it was expected that as the male grew older and increased his income he would have more financial obligation. Sounds reasonable to me.

No matter what was decided, her not electing an abortion would have no bearing. I don't believe that factored into the US decision at all, nor should it have.

Fair enough but we both know that the world doesnt always work this way. And that this kind of thing happens all the time in society.

If he had raped her would he have no responsibility for his actions?

We both know this is an entirely different situation. Besides really wouldn't matter he wouldn't be financially responisble because he would be in Jail especially with that kind of evidence against him.

 

[Nikki]

If this situation is causing so much stir (And by the way, before you start calling me a deadbeat, keep in mind I was raised by a single mother and fully understand the concept what it means in real terms to have a father who doesn't pay support)

Perhaps the simplest solution is once the baby is born to have one sole guardian. If the Mother and Father want it they can fight over it, if only one wants it they can take it, and if neither want it they can put it up for adoption (we have a baby shortage after all)

But the current system isn't fair. I mean, currently all the arguements against assume the mother is an angel and the father a bottom feeding carp of some form.

1.) The bottom feeder is as likely to be the mother as the father.
2.) the angel is as likely to be the father as the mother.
3.) If the father is a bottom feeding carp like creature should he really be the father? Further more, if he does the responsible thing and realises he is in fact not able to be a father..should he AND THE CHILD be punished if the Crack ***** mother that slept with this failure wants a welfare cheque?

Lets end the sexism ok, which is what this blatantly is.

thank you. Its like everyone on here thinks moms are so great. Do you know how many gold digging ****s don't take the pill right just so they can get pregnante and they use the child as a money grab. Or they get pregnante to hold onto the guy? Its disgusting.

 

[Nikki]

The only reason this is painting the father as a bottom feeding carp is because in this thread he is saying it is his right to be one. The issue being argued isn't sexist in the slightest, unless you consider not helping your kid because they could've been aborted as a sexist position. I couldn't care less if the mother is an angel/hoe or the father an angel/deadbeat. Both had better buck up to jointly support the kid they created or agree on another solution. If one intends to cut and run they can expect life to get a whole lot worse than what it is if the other elects to hold them accountable.

But the thing is that just because the dad doesn't want it doesn't make him a bad person. LIke I said before maybe he doesn't want to abort it. Maybe he wants to give it up for adoption where it will have a loving home and won't financially cripple the both of them. But since he has a penis he doesn't get a say. This is what pisses me off.

When it is in my body I get all the say. But I believe once that thing is a living breathing organism both parents should do what is best for them and their child. And sometimes that means giving it up so it does have a better life. But not every mom can make that hard responsible decision so instead she decides to ruien both their lives.

That just doesn't sit right with me.

 

[Nikki]

The father to be has just as much responsibility as the mother to be, as her future, her education, her
ability to earn a good living, can be affected just as much as his.
She was not ready to be a mom just as much as he wasn't ready to be a dad, TOUGH, once the deed
is done it is too late to feel "sorry" for either one, they both have to face up to responsibility.
The reason the legal system may have to become involved is because he "can" run away, but she "can't."

The point is there are other options. The mom decides she wants to keep it the father wants to do the right thing and give it up for adoption where it will have a happy life. If that mom doesn't want to do that tough **** for her she better be damn sure she can afford that baby on here own.

 

[Kreskin]

He gets all the say about his body too. If he wants to wear a condom she can't force him not to. If he wants a vasectomy it's his medical right, not hers. If he wants to have Mr Happy pierced, it's his right to decide. Women have no say over mens bodies. None. They can't force men to gain weight or lose weight or not see a physician for medical treatment. The exact same anti slavery right applies to women. She isn't expected to have an abortion any more than he is expected to have a vasectomy. If he told her he had a vasectomy then got her pregnant would she have the right to deny him from being the child's father?

 

[Zzarchov]

He gets all the say about his body too. If he wants to wear a condom she can't force him not to. If he wants a vasectomy it's his medical right, not hers. If he wants to have Mr Happy pierced, it's his right to decide. Women have no say over mens bodies. None. They can't force men to gain weight or lose weight or not see a physician for medical treatment. The exact same anti slavery right applies to women. She isn't expected to have an abortion any more than he is expected to have a vasectomy. If he told her he had a vasectomy then got her pregnant would she have the right to deny him from being the child's father?

If she wants to wear a diaphram he can't force her not to. If she wants a hysterectomy its her medical right, not his. If she wants to have happyland pierced its her right to decide.

Whats the difference?

She wants to do something that impacts his life. Conception is in both parents court so ignore that.



Lets look at an issue that ignores conception (which is irrelevant).



A woman steals a sample of a mans sperm and impregnates herself with it. Should he be able to tell her to abort? Should he have to pay child support?

The baby didn't do anything wrong. It is still her body. same situation applies, but you can take away the irrelevant bitching about "He can wear a condom" (hint: she can too)

 

[Kreskin]

If she wants to wear a diaphram he can't force her not to. If she wants a hysterectomy its her medical right, not his. If she wants to have happyland pierced its her right to decide.

Whats the difference?

She wants to do something that impacts his life. Conception is in both parents court so ignore that.



Lets look at an issue that ignores conception (which is irrelevant).



A woman steals a sample of a mans sperm and impregnates herself with it. Should he be able to tell her to abort? Should he have to pay child support?

The baby didn't do anything wrong. It is still her body. same situation applies, but you can take away the irrelevant bitching about "He can wear a condom" (hint: she can too)

Remember, we're talking about financial liability. He has no right to force her to abort. None. Never. Does he have a financial obligation? Probably not. Are there any men out there dealing with stolen sperm issues paying child support? I would love to hear about a case; the circumstances and legal decisions.

Would he still have a right to be the child's father? Probably.

 

[Kreskin]

Remember, we're talking about financial liability. He has no right to force her to abort. None. Never. Does he have a financial obligation? Probably not. Are there any men out there dealing with stolen sperm issues paying child support? I would love to hear about a case; the circumstances and legal decisions.

Would he still have a right to be the child's father? Probably.

I found a case. The appeals court sided with the father:

http://funreports.com/2005/03/04/58528.html

Woman steals man's sperm after oral sex to get pregnant

A judge made a wise decision indeed in a rather complicated case connected with illegal use of sperm. A man sued his ex-girlfriend, when he found out that she had secretly used his sperm to conceive a child. The judge ruled that the woman's actions could not be viewed as criminal, because the man had given his sperm to her on a voluntary basis.

Dr. Richard Phillips sued Dr. Sharon Irons several years ago. Phillips said that his former girlfriend, Irons, deceived him by stealing his own semen that she obtained through oral sex. The woman subsequently used Phillips's sperm to get pregnant without his knowledge. The two lovers had parted by that moment, and Richard Phillips knew nothing about the baby. The ex-girlfriend also surprised her former boyfriend. Sharon Irons filed a paternity suit seeking monthly allowance for the baby. That was the moment, when Phillips learnt that he was a father. The doctor was ordered to pay $800 a month to support his child. Richard Phillips in his turn accused his former lover of "calculated, profound personal betrayal" and required a compensation for the moral damage. Irons did not plead guilty, having said that she did nothing bad for her former partner. The woman added that Pillips's anguish could not be considered a reason for a lawsuit. The court agreed with Irons's arguments, but Pillips refused to give up and filed an appeal. The Illinois Appeals Court has finally acknowledged the rightfulness of the deceived man. The court ruled that Sharon Irons had a sexual affair with Richard Phillips to obtain his semen. Oral sex eventually resulted in pregnancy, which is obviously impossible, and testifies to premeditated fraudulent intentions of the woman, the court said. The judge added, however, that it was not correct to accuse Irons of sperm theft. Ejaculation was a gift of the plaintiff. Furthermore, there was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request, the decision said.

 

[Nikki]

He gets all the say about his body too. If he wants to wear a condom she can't force him not to. If he wants a vasectomy it's his medical right, not hers. If he wants to have Mr Happy pierced, it's his right to decide. Women have no say over mens bodies. None. They can't force men to gain weight or lose weight or not see a physician for medical treatment. The exact same anti slavery right applies to women. She isn't expected to have an abortion any more than he is expected to have a vasectomy. If he told her he had a vasectomy then got her pregnant would she have the right to deny him from being the child's father?

No doubt about it but what happens when that condom breaks? Or when the vesctomy is botched. So again i say once that child is out of the women both parents should have equal say in what happens. But the do not so until that time men should be able to say "ok you didnt want ot either abort or give that baby a home in adoption that we couldn't therefore I want nothing to do with you or it. Hope you can support it because financially I can't"

That doesn't make him a bad person it makes him sane. Ofcourse that would be different if it was some rich asshat just being that an asshat. And in that case of course I think its morally wrong but again we aren't talking about morals here just laws.

Hehehe Funny story. My uncle got snipped after their second child and my aunt became pregnate 3 more times each tiem he accused her of cheating and each time the test came back as his child. and each time he went ot a different doctor to get the vesctomy done and each time it grew back. Nature is odd isn't it?

 

[Nikki]

If she wants to wear a diaphram he can't force her not to. If she wants a hysterectomy its her medical right, not his. If she wants to have happyland pierced its her right to decide.

Whats the difference?

She wants to do something that impacts his life. Conception is in both parents court so ignore that.



Lets look at an issue that ignores conception (which is irrelevant).



A woman steals a sample of a mans sperm and impregnates herself with it. Should he be able to tell her to abort? Should he have to pay child support?

The baby didn't do anything wrong. It is still her body. same situation applies, but you can take away the irrelevant bitching about "He can wear a condom" (hint: she can too)

Its hardley irrelevent. If both parties agree to contraception and the condom breaks and the women hasn't been taking her pill or taking it wrong that makes all the difference and it makes her a scum bag.

No the baby didn't do anything wrong which is why it pisses me off when parents don't make responsible decisions.

If you can't afford kids you shouldn't be having them. Both parents hsould have equal say in the matter.

Ugh, contraception doesn't matter give me a break.

 

[Nikki]

Remember, we're talking about financial liability. He has no right to force her to abort. None. Never. Does he have a financial obligation? Probably not. Are there any men out there dealing with stolen sperm issues paying child support? I would love to hear about a case; the circumstances and legal decisions.

Would he still have a right to be the child's father? Probably.

Actually that would be intersting to see.

And noone is saying that a women should be forced to abort or not. I thought that was made perfectly clear.

What is being said (for the millionth time and I can't believe any of us are still here) is this. Man a and Women A Screw... contraception fails. Man knows he can't (and she cant ) afford the kid so man A says to the women "you should have an abortion" women says "no way I can't do that' fine so the man says "Ok well we should give it up for adoption for the best of the kid" ( and you cant argue with that but people dont always do what is best for the child we all know this). Well it isn't fair that since the child came out of the women the women gets the final say in what happens to the baby that is stupid. Well that child is in her sure do whatever you want with your body but once it's out its upto both parents and if that dad wanted to give it up he should not be forced into supporting a kid he knows he can't when all he wanted to do was give it up for good reason. And the law should without a doubt recognize this.

 

[Nikki]

I found a case. The appeals court sided with the father:

After reading that I remember hereing about this a while back. Insane. See what the hell kind of women would do this. It happens a lot to apparently where they save condoms and get pregnante. Man if I were a guy I would be flushing that damn condom!

So I am confused. Did he end up not having to pay the Bitch?

Now morally it would be interesting to see if he did decide to take on fatherly duties and support the child through education funds or buying him/her clothes.

 

[Kreskin]

No doubt about it but what happens when that condom breaks? Or when the vesctomy is botched. So again i say once that child is out of the women both parents should have equal say in what happens. But the do not so until that time men should be able to say "ok you didnt want ot either abort or give that baby a home in adoption that we couldn't therefore I want nothing to do with you or it. Hope you can support it because financially I can't"

That doesn't make him a bad person it makes him sane. Ofcourse that would be different if it was some rich asshat just being that an asshat. And in that case of course I think its morally wrong but again we aren't talking about morals here just laws.

Hehehe Funny story. My uncle got snipped after their second child and my aunt became pregnate 3 more times each tiem he accused her of cheating and each time the test came back as his child. and each time he went ot a different doctor to get the vesctomy done and each time it grew back. Nature is odd isn't it?

If your Uncle to steps to not have kids, accused her of having affairs etc, it doesn't appear he consented to anything during the pregnancy. Do you think that after the birth he should have the right to tell Aunt he isn't responsible for the kids because she could've aborted them knowing he was doing everything possible not to have them?

 

[Nikki]

If your Uncle to steps to not have kids, accused her of having affairs etc, it doesn't appear he consented to anything during the pregnancy. Do you think that after the birth he should have the right to tell Aunt he isn't responsible for the kids because she could've aborted them knowing he was doing everything possible not to have them?

OMG, Its a funny story do you have to take everythign seriously. They are married and they are happy and they have 5 kids that he takes amazing care of!

Also you are still accusing me of just saying 'lets abort and be done with it" and that is not what I am saying at all.

The point to the story was that contraception does fail. It was directed at all these people who were implying that it never fails.

 

[Kreskin]

OMG, Its a funny story do you have to take everythign seriously. They are married and they are happy and they have 5 kids that he takes amazing care of!

Also you are still accusing me of just saying 'lets abort and be done with it" and that is not what I am saying at all.

I'm not suggesting he wasn't co-operative or an amazing father, but in light of the rights men want I'm wondering if he should at least have the opportunity to opt out after the fact considering he has ample proof to show he didn't want her to be pregnant by him.