Andrew said:tracy said:Vaginal sex is not a matter of survival. That's just not true. You will not die if your unsurgically sterilized penis doesn't enter another vagina for the rest of your life.
It does take two people to conceive a child, but it only takes one to carry it and give birth to it.
That is your opinion. For mental health it is necessary.
So both people should have a choice.
Zzarchov said:but what does that have to do with a man over a woman? By your own logic your saying a woman shouldn't be able to have an abortion without the fathers consent? Or that if they do they should be sterilized?
Its a very valid arguement, but not one which differentiates based on gender.
Zzarchov said:My logic is this:
Women can avoid unwanted pregnancies by avoiding vaginal intercoarse without being sterilized. If they risk it, they knowingly risk a pregnancy and all that comes with that. They know that women are the only ones physically in control of childbearing so they are the ones who are going to decide if a child is born or aborted. They need to be able to step up and deal with either option knowing that in this situation THEY chose to have the child in a society where it is not illegal to choose not to, and thus they may be soley responsible for their choice and its consequences (society calls that being an adult)
Andrew said:tracy said:Andrew said:[Well, if you think THAT way, then why should the mother's rights supercede the childs? What is good for the goose is good for the gander (and vise versa). I feel the ones the courts view as people (as you noted the fetus is not a person), should have their rights protected..
The mother's rights don't supercede the child's once it is born.
No, neither shoudl the father's...But the father should have the choice BEFORE the child is born.
Andrew said:tracy said:Andrew said:Father's should be identified at the first medical assessment, and at that point the parents should decide on the future of the fetus.
The problem is how can you identify the father? You can't force a woman to tell you the father's name and you can't prove paternity so early in the pregnancy. Even when you can, it's a procedure that increases the risks of miscarriage.
Unless she gets around alot, it should be easy to identify the father. That is what I am saying...The mother should be required to identify the father.
Andrew said:tracy said:Andrew said:Well, only one person to blame in that situation...The mother.
I agree it's her fault. I just think it's sad for the child and a shame that a father could cut himself off from a child he's raised as his own so easily.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the father would be an emotional mess. His live would have been turned upside down. It would be years before he would be the same person again.
tracy said:Andrew said:[
The problem is, the courts do not protect the men if the mother does not sign the paper. So, the choice goes back to one party and not both. A mother would never sign a form like that, as she is guarenteed $$$ if she forces him to be a father.
You might be surprised at how many women are more that willing to give up the financial windfall to get their children's "fathers" out of the picture. My sister in law has been trying to get her ex to give up his paternal rights so he wouldn't have to pay any support.
Andrew said:Father's should be identified at the first medical assessment, and at that point the parents should decide on the future of the fetus.
tracy said:Zzarchov said:My logic is this:
Women can avoid unwanted pregnancies by avoiding vaginal intercoarse without being sterilized. If they risk it, they knowingly risk a pregnancy and all that comes with that. They know that women are the only ones physically in control of childbearing so they are the ones who are going to decide if a child is born or aborted. They need to be able to step up and deal with either option knowing that in this situation THEY chose to have the child in a society where it is not illegal to choose not to, and thus they may be soley responsible for their choice and its consequences (society calls that being an adult)
Right and screw the child's needs. I love how men will fight for the right to abandon their offspring.
tracy said:Andrew said:tracy said:feronia said:Maybe not for long. There are cases in courts being decided. Justice is blind and in most courtrooms equality is law. Basically their going to put to the test the new axiom what's good for the gander is good for the goose.
I think it will be a sad day if our country decides that children have no rights to support. They have no choice in who creates them and are the only blameless parties in the goose-gander drama. Anyone unwilling to support his flesh and blood is a sorry excuse for a man IMO.
So why is it a not a sad day that people who do not want children are being forced to support a child they did not want? That should also be sad, as you are ruining somone life as well.
Also, once the father makes his desires known, the choice of the baby being brought into the world is in the hands of one person...Who could also put the baby up for adoption if she feels she can't give the baby what she feels it needs.
I don't believe that justice is blind, and sex is definitely a determining factor in court decisions.
Why is it sad? It's sad to me that people knowingly engage in behaviors that can result in the creation of a person, then say they have no responsibilities to that person. Screw my flesh and blood child, I just wanted the orgasm not anything that came after it? That's selfish, immature, thoughtless, irresponsible and just plain cold. Someone like that should get sterilized.
tracy said:Andrew said:tracy said:Vaginal sex is not a matter of survival. That's just not true. You will not die if your unsurgically sterilized penis doesn't enter another vagina for the rest of your life.
It does take two people to conceive a child, but it only takes one to carry it and give birth to it.
That is your opinion. For mental health it is necessary.
So both people should have a choice.
That's not my opinion, it's medical fact. I would love for you to show me the diagnosis in the DSM that is caused by lack of vaginal intercoarse without being sterilized.
tracy said:Zzarchov said:but what does that have to do with a man over a woman? By your own logic your saying a woman shouldn't be able to have an abortion without the fathers consent? Or that if they do they should be sterilized?
Its a very valid arguement, but not one which differentiates based on gender.
I don't know what you're saying here at all. My logic is this:
Men can avoid unwanted pregnancies by avoiding vaginal intercoarse without being sterilized. If they risk it, they knowingly risk a pregnancy and all that comes with that. They know that women are the only ones physically in control of childbearing so they are the ones who are going to decide if a child is born or aborted. They need to be able to step up and deal with either option (my brother calls that being a man).
tracy said:Zzarchov said:but what does that have to do with a man over a woman? By your own logic your saying a woman shouldn't be able to have an abortion without the fathers consent? Or that if they do they should be sterilized?
Its a very valid arguement, but not one which differentiates based on gender.
I don't know what you're saying here at all. My logic is this:
Men can avoid unwanted pregnancies by avoiding vaginal intercoarse without being sterilized. If they risk it, they knowingly risk a pregnancy and all that comes with that. They know that women are the only ones physically in control of childbearing so they are the ones who are going to decide if a child is born or aborted. They need to be able to step up and deal with either option (my brother calls that being a man).
tracy said:Zzarchov said:but what does that have to do with a man over a woman? By your own logic your saying a woman shouldn't be able to have an abortion without the fathers consent? Or that if they do they should be sterilized?
Its a very valid arguement, but not one which differentiates based on gender.
I don't know what you're saying here at all. My logic is this:
Men can avoid unwanted pregnancies by avoiding vaginal intercoarse without being sterilized. If they risk it, they knowingly risk a pregnancy and all that comes with that. They know that women are the only ones physically in control of childbearing so they are the ones who are going to decide if a child is born or aborted. They need to be able to step up and deal with either option (my brother calls that being a man).
Zzarchov said:tracy said:Right and screw the child's needs. I love how men will fight for the right to abandon their offspring.
I love how women fight for the right to unilaterally create offspring without any concept of how to care for these offspring.
If you can't raise a child, you shouldn't have a child. No one put a gun to your head and made you choose this path. I really wish more women would think of a child's welfare over their own animal desires to procreate. Men after all are forced to control our base desires.
tracy said:Zzarchov said:My logic is this:
Women can avoid unwanted pregnancies by avoiding vaginal intercoarse without being sterilized. If they risk it, they knowingly risk a pregnancy and all that comes with that. They know that women are the only ones physically in control of childbearing so they are the ones who are going to decide if a child is born or aborted. They need to be able to step up and deal with either option knowing that in this situation THEY chose to have the child in a society where it is not illegal to choose not to, and thus they may be soley responsible for their choice and its consequences (society calls that being an adult)
Right and screw the child's needs. I love how men will fight for the right to abandon their offspring.
Andrew said:Someone like me? You don't know anything about me. That is a pretty cold personal attack, especially since we are supposed to be having a civil discussion. I will not lower myself to such a level. I do hope you can be more civil in your future posts.
Just as I said, you are ruining someone's life by forcing them to be a parent when they decided long before the "accident" that they did not want to be a parent. So, since he cannot force her to have an abortion (unlike her choice to have one if she feels a baby would ruin her life), he must have his basic human rights protected (long before the baby is born (i.e. still a fetus)), which still allows the mother to make her 3 choices (keep, adopt, abort), knowing the father is out of the picture.
I guess women and men have different views of the act of sex (or maybe it is just you and me...I'm not sure), and that is not likely to change. Neither one is right or wrong, they are just different. Sex is not just an act to make babies, much like eating is not just an act so we don't starve. They both may have started out that way, but as society evolved, the acts have changed to be pleasurable (why else would someone spend $300 at a French restaurant, when you can get a $1 loaf of bread to completely satisfy the need?)
Andrew said:It is not an offspring when it is a fetus (your words, not mine). The argument is for the choice to be a parent or not, long before the baby is born, and most likely long before the parents have even met. It is not about abandoning offspring, it is all about choice. It is a basic human right for women to have the choice (not long ago it was not a right women had), men must have this same basic human right.
tracy said:Andrew said:Father's should be identified at the first medical assessment, and at that point the parents should decide on the future of the fetus.
The problem is how can you identify the father? You can't force a woman to tell you the father's name and you can't prove paternity so early in the pregnancy. Even when you can, it's a procedure that increases the risks of miscarriage.
