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

[tracy]

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]

My point exactly.

You've obviously not spent enough time in a labor and delivery room if you really think that!:laughing7:

 

[CDNBear]

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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Kreskin]

He "opted in" before the pregnancy test. Those arguments are nonsense.

 

[CDNBear]

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.

 

[CDNBear]

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.

I honestly can not believe you say that. I though I had you pegged. I was way off. Or perhaps it's you clinical side showing?

I am not a pro lifer, but even I had difficulty holding it together when my wife had to abort a tubular pregnancy. I'm of the camp that believes life starts at conseption.

 

[LittleRunningGag]

He "opted in" before the pregnancy test. Those arguments are nonsense.

In a general sense I agree with you, however do you think that society has the right to force a man to participate? If women can make the decision to opt out of having the child, why can't a man?

Remember, any time you use the government to force somebody into something you are essentially saying: follow my priorities or I will use the state to kill you. That is the ultimate result if the person flat out refuses to cooperate. They will be arrested, and if the resist enough, they will be killed. And you will be partially responsible for advocating a law he disagrees with.

Do you feel comfortable with a person dying because you want him to be a part of raising a child he didn't want?

 

[Sassylassie]

Thank goodness for your clarification Bear I was ready to drag my "Old Lady" panties out of the drawer and commence beating you about the head with them. You are safe for now but I'm eyeing up Kreskin very keenly.

 

[CDNBear]

In a general sense I agree with you, however do you think that society has the right to force a man to participate? If women can make the decision to opt out of having the child, why can't a man?

Remember, any time you use the government to force somebody into something you are essentially saying: follow my priorities or I will use the state to kill you. That is the ultimate result if the person flat out refuses to cooperate. They will be arrested, and if the resist enough, they will be killed. And you will be partially responsible for advocating a law he disagrees with.

Do you feel comfortable with a person dying because you want him to be a part of raising a child he didn't want?

Exactly my point!!!!!!

This is it, thsi is the debate I was looking for. A little harsh LRG, but your on the mark.

 

[CDNBear]

Thank goodness for your clarification Bear I was ready to drag my "Old Lady" panties out of the drawer and commence beating you about the head with them. You are safe for now but I'm eyeing up Kreskin very keenly.

You didn't think I was one of those troglodites did you????

That would hurt, if you did.

Hey, I come from a matriarcal society, my Gram's is a goddess. Her word is law. My wife has almost the same power, lol.

Don't tell her I said that though.

 

[Kreskin]

In a general sense I agree with you, however do you think that society has the right to force a man to participate? If women can make the decision to opt out of having the child, why can't a man?

Remember, any time you use the government to force somebody into something you are essentially saying: follow my priorities or I will use the state to kill you. That is the ultimate result if the person flat out refuses to cooperate. They will be arrested, and if the resist enough, they will be killed. And you will be partially responsible for advocating a law he disagrees with.

Do you feel comfortable with a person dying because you want him to be a part of raising a child he didn't want?

The natural progression for pregnancy is birth. If she decides to carry to term that isn't a bargaining chip. That's the way it is. She isn't going to be forced into an abortion because some guy won't accept supporting his own child. And the child isn't going to grow up without because an idiot father can't take responsibility. I think Libertarians miss the boat here completely. The baby's rights come before anything else.

 

[CDNBear]

I get ya, but the mother wasn't thinking of the babies rights when she decided to either act irresponsibly or unfairly and now she can use the child as a paycheck?

The equality and benefit to womens rights is where, in that?

 

[Kreskin]

I get ya, but the mother wasn't thinking of the babies rights when she decided to either act irresponsibly or unfairly and now she can use the child as a paycheck?

The equality and benefit to womens rights is where, in that?

You have kids. You think child care payments are free and clear paycheques? It will cost $125,000 in 18 years just to put them through 4 years of post secondary. That paycheque won't cover the real costs of raising that child.

What about women's rights?

 

[CDNBear]

You have kids. You think child care payments are free and clear paycheques? It will cost $125,000 in 18 years just to put them through 4 years of post secondary. That paycheque won't cover the real costs of raising that child.

What about women's rights?

What about self accountablity?

What about considering the mans rights?

What if we hold woman to the same standards as you would hold men?

As LRG said, if a woman can opt out, why can the man not?

 

[LittleRunningGag]

The natural progression for pregnancy is birth. If she decides to carry to term that isn't a bargaining chip. That's the way it is.

Thats the way it is now. How many women have gotten pregnent to force a man to stay around? How many women have gotten pregnent in order to get a piece of the money? I hope you feel comfortable with her using your tax dollars to threaten his life.

She isn't going to be forced into an abortion because some guy won't accept supporting his own child.

Who is forcing her? Thats the entire point of the formula. Everyone has a choice. She doesn't have to have an abortion. She can keep the child or give it up for adoption. And she doesn't get to force anyone else into participating. Plus, you assume that he is going to opt out. Isn't it better if a guy is a willing participant, rather than being forced at gunpoint?

And the child isn't going to grow up without because an idiot father can't take responsibility.

Who says the kid grows up without? Again, the point of the formula: options, options, options.

The baby's rights come before anything else.

Why? Tell me why.