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

[Kreskin]

But as Ad, pointed out, once that support starts, his life, if he is not well off is over. No going back to school, no vacations, nothing. HE CAN NOT EVEN GET THE CHANCE TO BETTER HIMSELF. How does that happen under the charter of rights and freedoms. How do the life of one over ride the rights of anyone else. Child or not, I'm not talking about neglect here, I'm talking about turning someone into a bank machine and holding him there indefinetly. With little hope of seeing sun for 20 plus years.

I under stand the costs, I under stand the needs of children and their rights. But the woman CHOSE to bring that child in to the world, how is that the fault of the man?

So what chance does the kid have? The kid is suppose to grow up with those underprivileges because Dad doesn't like his options anymore? This isn't about Daddy's selfishness, it's about the child.

She didn't chose to do anything. Our society doesn't stop supporting certain members because they could choose to paddle in a rowboat to a foriegn country to find work. You have a right to self defense. That doesn't get a murderer of the hook. Stop equating rights to expectations.

 

[CDNBear]

So what chance does the kid have? The kid is suppose to grow up with those underprivileges because Dad doesn't like his options anymore? This isn't about Daddy's selfishness, it's about the child.

She didn't chose to do anything. Our society doesn't stop supporting certain members because they could choose to paddle in a rowboat to a foriegn country to find work. You have a right to self defense. That doesn't get a murderer of the hook. Stop equating rights to expectations.

I didn't want to go here, but you leave me little choice.

Your arguement seems to be based more on emotion then logical interpritation of rights/freedoms/equality and rule of law.

No one is negating the rights of children. Other then that, I'm not sure exactly, where the rest of your post was going.

Lets try some hypothetical exercises here.

What if the laws were as such, as to put onous on the woman to prove that the man acted irresponsible in some way?

What if woman were held accountable for their actions and could not count on the courts to force men to pay?

How do you think either of these changes to the system would impact the present trend of single parent families and suits being filed against men?

 

[Outta here]

Ok, lets start there, because that is where I am. Take that senerio, and run with it. All precautions were taken, but "OH CRAP", something went astray, now what. He's not ready, she is? She's not ready, he is?

What say you?

ok. well now you've got a huge clusterf*ck on your hands, that's what! lolll Honestly, I don't think that scenario is very representative of the actuality though. I'm thinking it's probably a pretty rare occurance of casual protected sex resulting in pregnancy.

Really though, I think when you look at it in this way, where precautions WERE taken, there might be a legal argument for his right to absolve himself of any further responsibility. It would just boil down to a tragic situation at any rate, because then it STILL comes back to who's left holding the bag. The woman. So now, it's only a moral issue, not a legal one. Morally, I still think he has to bear some responsibility... can I say where and what that should be? No, I can't. If we're arguing 'fairness' here, is it fair that an honest to gawd accident happened and she's left to decide what and how to deal with it?

In reverse, if the man says he wants her to keep the baby after he took precautions to ensure a pregnancy didn't occur, I would personally doubt his ability and/or his sincerity to being committed to parenting a child he did everything he could to avoid having. From a legal and a moral standpoint in that case, I still think the man should find a willing partner to do this with. Because no matter how you slice it, it's still the woman who has to put her body through a pregnancy, her life that will be turned upside down for the duration of the pregnancy. Not many men would be agreeable to being forced to go through that to provide someone else with a child. I'm fairly certain of that, CB.

But you do show one aspect of this issue that could get pretty murky - when a man has made attempts to be responsible, there could be some wiggle room for whether or not he should be forced to pay for the rest of his life. I don't honestly think that this is the situation in the majority of cases of casual protected sex resulting in pregnancy though.

 

[Kreskin]

I didn't want to go here, but you leave me little choice.

Your arguement seems to be based more on emotion then logical interpritation of rights/freedoms/equality and rule of law.

No one is negating the rights of children. Other then that, I'm not sure exactly, where the rest of your post was going.

Lets try some hypothetical exercises here.

What if the laws were as such, as to put onous on the woman to prove that the man acted irresponsible in some way?

What if woman were held accountable for their actions and could not count on the courts to force men to pay?

How do you think either of these changes to the system would impact the present trend of single parent families and suits being filed against men?

Whether the man acted irresponsibly or not means nothing when his child has arrived and the child needs his support.

What accountable actions? Like she shouldn't have had sex with him? The sex is simply her fault since he's a man? Or is it that she should be held accountable for not having an abortion at his request?

I think either of these is a license for horny guys to go out and do whatever they want without taking any responsibility for the kids they help produce.

 

[Outta here]

Kreskin, I think ya just hit the nail on the head there.

 

[CDNBear]

This really isn't going anywhere, is it?

As long as we keep circling around, back to the rights of others, negating the rights of others. That's all that going to happen.

If you leave emotion at the door, and look at this like you were Spock for a minute.

Everyone seems to want to put blame on someone. Well there is no blame. Shyte happens.

But like I said, leave emotions out of it and look at the arguement from a logical and equality point of view. We all know the end result of unprotected sex is children, so it's safe to say we can leave them out of the equation at the moment.

Lets start at the beginning here, yet again.

Woman and man, freely engage in sex. Easy now, this happens all the time. It's part of life, us and monkey do it for fun.

So lets stop lambasting the men as bad people here. They did not willingly or serrupticiously impregnate anyone, for the express purposses of messing up their lives. Equally, I do not believe all woman are trying to screw over every man they sleep with.

Ok, using Spock like logic, not emotion.

If the woman engages in sex with a man, with the express purpses of having a child, he is liable, period.

If this is a chance encounter and a child is not the goal, but an orgasm is, but sadly a child is produced, why are all the options as to the next step, the very next step, left in the hands of the woman?

If SHE wishes to end it, because she is not ready, she can.

If he isn't, that does not matter?

The hypocracy is paramount, if you look at that with logic, not emotion. Fairness and equality is what womans lib was all about. This looks more like the subjugation of the woman of the 50's then any old TV comercial of the time. Somebody, somewhere, decided that woman are unable to take on the responsiblity for their CHOICES, alone. That is is not logical, nor should it be legal.

 

[Kreskin]

This really isn't going anywhere, is it?

As long as we keep circling around, back to the rights of others, negating the rights of others. That's all that going to happen.

If you leave emotion at the door, and look at this like you were Spock for a minute.

Everyone seems to want to put blame on someone. Well there is no blame. Shyte happens.

But like I said, leave emotions out of it and look at the arguement from a logical and equality point of view. We all know the end result of unprotected sex is children, so it's safe to say we can leave them out of the equation at the moment.

Lets start at the beginning here, yet again.

Woman and man, freely engage in sex. Easy now, this happens all the time. It's part of life, us and monkey do it for fun.

So lets stop lambasting the men as bad people here. They did not willingly or serrupticiously impregnate anyone, for the express purposses of messing up their lives. Equally, I do not believe all woman are trying to screw over every man they sleep with.

Ok, using Spock like logic, not emotion.

If the woman engages in sex with a man, with the express purpses of having a child, he is liable, period.

If this is a chance encounter and a child is not the goal, but an orgasm is, but sadly a child is produced, why are all the options as to the next step, the very next step, left in the hands of the woman?

If SHE wishes to end it, because she is not ready, she can.

If he isn't, that does not matter?

The hypocracy is paramount, if you look at that with logic, not emotion. Fairness and equality is what womans lib was all about. This looks more like the subjugation of the woman of the 50's then any old TV comercial of the time. Somebody, somewhere, decided that woman are unable to take on the responsiblity for their CHOICES, alone. That is is not logical, nor should it be legal.

What kind of options should the man have after impregnanting her, other than telling everyone he won't support the child?

 

[CDNBear]

What kind of options should the man have after impregnanting her, other than telling everyone he won't support the child?

He should have the options she has.

If she does not want the child, she doesn't have to. If he doesn't want the child, but she does he has to.

Do you not see the inequality in that concept?

If he doesn't want children he has no choice.

To go way back to LRG's words, she can opt out for any number of reasons, legally. The man can not, short of breaking the law.

That is not equality, that is biased laws that remove the right sof the man completely.

 

[Outta here]

This really isn't going anywhere, is it?

no not really.... and that's partially because everytime I think you might have at least a modicum of a point, you say something like this:

Somebody, somewhere, decided that woman are unable to take on the responsiblity for their CHOICES, alone. That is is not logical, nor should it be legal.

How do you continually bring the discussion back to a line of reasoning that you think ONLY applies to a man's so-called 'rights' ? You have a very lop-sided way of presenting what you call logic. I'm sure you're making sense to yourself, but if you're honestly trying to discuss this logically, you're not making any sense at all to me.

 

[Kreskin]

He should have the options she has.

If she does not want the child, she doesn't have to. If he doesn't want the child, but she does he has to.

Do you not see the inequality in that concept?

If he doesn't want children he has no choice.

To go way back to LRG's words, she can opt out for any number of reasons, legally. The man can not, short of breaking the law.

That is not equality, that is biased laws that remove the right sof the man completely.

Just because she has the right to an abortion you aren't willing to support your own child? That's absolutely preposterous. Did it ever occur to you that an abortion may not be an option for her? You seem to think it's a willy nilly event, like going to the grocer for potato chips. Having a right to do something and making it an expectation is another. She has the right to also place an ad and look for a rich man to marry. Does that also take the burden of the father as well, even if she doesn't do it?

 

[CDNBear]

no not really.... and that's partially because everytime I think you might have at least a modicum of a point, you say something like this:



How do you continually bring the discussion back to a line of reasoning that you think ONLY applies to a man's so-called 'rights' ? You have a very lop-sided way of presenting what you call logic. I'm sure you're making sense to yourself, but if you're honestly trying to discuss this logically, you're not making any sense at all to me.

How is it you claim my logic is flawed, yet all you have done is point that out without trying to answer the questions I posted to you?

Without draging up the childs rights and abortion of cousre.

i realise that the options at hand are harsh, but then a lot in life is harsh. You also keep saying life is unfair, so why is it if a woman gets to choose her course of action the man can not. Leave all the emotion out, and leave abortion and child rights at the door, lets make this very simple. Just answer the question logically.

 

[Outta here]

How is it you claim my logic is flawed, yet all you have done is point that out without trying to answer the questions I posted to you?

Without draging up the childs rights and abortion of cousre.

i realise that the options at hand are harsh, but then a lot in life is harsh. You also keep saying life is unfair, so why is it if a woman gets to choose her course of action the man can not. Leave all the emotion out, and leave abortion and child rights at the door, lets make this very simple. Just answer the question logically.

As long as you insist on plucking ONE aspect of the equation out - the MAN'S rights - this discussion cannot be conducted logically. It's impossible to discuss any issue logically if you don't look at the entirety of the issue. You cannot attempt to segregate the man's rights from everyone else's rights and claim that's logical. Most especially you cannot NOT drag up the child's rights and insist this is logical. It's not.

You seem to want to hear from someone, somewhere that the poor poor men in this scenario are victims. So be it. They're victims - of what? Mother nature? Take it up with her. Until our biology changes and men can bear children, the way it is, is the way it is.

 

[CDNBear]

As long as you insist on plucking ONE aspect of the equation out - the MAN'S rights - this discussion cannot be conducted logically. It's impossible to discuss any issue logically if you don't look at the entirety of the issue. You cannot attempt to segregate the man's rights from everyone else's rights and claim that's logical. Most especially you cannot NOT drag up the child's rights and insist this is logical. It's not.

You seem to want to hear from someone, somewhere that the poor poor men in this scenario are victims. So be it. They're victims - of what? Mother nature? Take it up with her. Until our biology changes and men can bear children, the way it is, is the way it is.

Why not?

That is exactly what you and Kreskin are advocating. Only for the woman though.

 

[Outta here]

What? I'm pretty sure I've been focusing on everyone's rights, particularly the child's.

I'm not sure what kind of outcome you'd like to see from a discussion like this, but I think we've hit the point where we have to agree to disagree. I don't see the rational of your stance, and so far, you've not convinced me. Obvioiusly I've not convinced you of much either, but I've got a son to pick up and a Christmas tree to put up today so I've gotta jump off this merry-go-round now... it's been a slice. Sorta.

 

[Ariadne]

Are you kidding? Debate the out come before having sex. That is one of the most unrealistic thing I have ever read. ...

Ya, right. I can't count how mant times I have watched that cheque for the child go to vacations, the new beau's snowmobile payment, gas for the boat, her visa bill(because she can't stop shopping). Please, lets all come back to reality.

Hello? No, I'm not kidding. Yes, have a discussion/debate about the possible outcomes of sexual activity before it happens.

I see this makes about as much sense as flying to Uranus for you. Sooo, what planet are you from? I'm relatively new here so can I actually put the feather in my cap for having met a male human that is so absolutely alien that he doesn't know that people discuss children and family before having sex? I thought this would be a remarkable find but ...wow!!! In Canada, you say - just like red rose tea.

Okay, back to reality ... the place where it is unheard of that two people discuss life before having sex.

I take it your "friend" is a great guy but is trapped by child support for a person he never wanted to be born ... that's sad. Yup. Sad. Sorry to hear about your "friends" loss. So, maybe tell your "friend" to stop objectifying women ... tell your "friend" that women are feeling, thinking humans. This is a bit of a secret, but women actually think about that sort of thing before having sex.

... bad shopping women!

 

[CDNBear]

What? I'm pretty sure I've been focusing on everyone's rights, particularly the child's.

I'm not sure what kind of outcome you'd like to see from a discussion like this, but I think we've hit the point where we have to agree to disagree. I don't see the rational of your stance, and so far, you've not convinced me. Obvioiusly I've not convinced you of much either, but I've got a son to pick up and a Christmas tree to put up today so I've gotta jump off this merry-go-round now... it's been a slice. Sorta.

Still you have not addressed the question, just skirted it.

Have fun, we're going to cut ours down tomorrow. Be well.

 

[Ariadne]

Why does he have to grow up?

If the woman feels she is not "grown up enough" she can and many do, chose to abort or give it up.

But the man does not have that option. How is that fair?

That is my point.

If you were being serious about my wrap up, thanx. I didn't want to post a dozen replies.

Not directed at anyone in particular...

Also, in case anyone has missed it. I do not necessarily support the arguement in its entirety, that I am putting forth here. I am only questioning it, and playing devils advocate. So please keep that in mind when the word "you" gets typed in. My oldest boy was a "surprise". A surprise I was more then willing to commit to. I do not believe abortion should be a form of birth control, I believe many men think it should be, as well as women, that is wrong. I do and have supported many women in the quest for support and have directed many female friends to two of the best divorce lawyers I know, Dunsmuir & Dunsmuir. Yes that is a cheap shout out for two brothers that know how to get a woman what she is due. the cases I have sent them, are families that fell apart, largely due to the man, which in some cases, was my friend, not the wife. But their actions as men, made me angryand ashamed, friendships be damned. If you choose to father a child, you will live up to your obligations. I just wanted to clarify that I am not some troglidite, that thinks throwing his sperm to the wind is a right or honour, quite the contrary. There is a world of difference between being a father and a dad. I know that well and meter it out daily.

Sure, women just choose to have an abortion. It's a bit like choosing a toothbrush ... green or purple ... what mood am I in today.

 

[Ariadne]

The whole jist of my arguement is that woman have the option to "opt" out without prejudice.

As it stands the only way a man can "opt" out now, is by taking illegal actions, such as working under the table, dissappearing all together. In other words, run.

The woman, knowing herself and in such, know she can care for the child is withinher rights to keep and raise it. But if the child was the result of a casual encounter, how can she expect the man to bear responsiblity for her choices, with out infringing on his rights?

Further more, in light of recent actions regarding being to drunk to form criminal intent, I'm wondering if that, may be applied to these types of cases.

Remind me again ... which option allows women to "opt out without prejudice" again (see you've been reading some legal documents, eh ... "without prejudice").

Let's see ... if the child is a result of a casual encounter ... you're worried about the guy having to contribute to the child's upbringing and not concerned about how the mom's life was turned upside down by the childbirth. Have you ever stopped to think that women have feelings?

 

[CDNBear]

Hello? No, I'm not kidding. Yes, have a discussion/debate about the possible outcomes of sexual activity before it happens.

I see this makes about as much sense as flying to Uranus for you. Sooo, what planet are you from? I'm relatively new here so can I actually put the feather in my cap for having met a male human that is so absolutely alien that he doesn't know that people discuss children and family before having sex? I thought this would be a remarkable find but ...wow!!! In Canada, you say - just like red rose tea.

Okay, back to reality ... the place where it is unheard of that two people discuss life before having sex.

I take it your "friend" is a great guy but is trapped by child support for a person he never wanted to be born ... that's sad. Yup. Sad. Sorry to hear about your "friends" loss. So, maybe tell your "friend" to stop objectifying women ... tell your "friend" that women are feeling, thinking humans. This is a bit of a secret, but women actually think about that sort of thing before having sex.

... bad shopping women!

Thanx for solidifying my assumption that you want to make this as personal as possible. Your bias, as with most people around here, is making you blind to anything that does not or can not escape your wrath.

You read into comments and reply to the delusions of such.

Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, have I suggested that women are not deep, thinking, or objects.

That is your bias being transferred on to someone that does not tow your train of thought.

I can assure you, you and your beau, are in the minority. I have worked as a bouncer in strip clubs, pubs, bars and night clubs. I have seen woman throw themselves at men, and nearly have sex on the dance floor without much thought at all. And then to top it all off, leave with a guy they just met. Now I can only assume what is about to take place, but the empty cars in the parking lot and the drunken stumbling to a cab that I hold the dor open on, for the young lady. Is a pretty leading asurance that they are not about to enter into a deep phylosophical conversation on the out come of what they are about to do. Both parties, not just the man.

Your contempt for the male of the species is being highlited quiet nicely as you personalize your rebuttle and take your shots at me. You may want to read back some and get a grip on who you are trying to cast as a cad. Because I sertainly do not fit the bill, I'm only playing devils advocate. But you wouldn't have known, that, you're to busy trying to blame me for your woes.

 

[CDNBear]

Remind me again ... which option allows women to "opt out without prejudice" again (see you've been reading some legal documents, eh ... "without prejudice").

Let's see ... if the child is a result of a casual encounter ... you're worried about the guy having to contribute to the child's upbringing and not concerned about how the mom's life was turned upside down by the childbirth. Have you ever stopped to think that women have feelings?

So now I'm not intellegent?

Is that what your comment was implying?

Yes I have stopped to think about how she feels. Have you stopped to think how the choice the woman makes effects the man? No, in your point of view, he gave up all his rights and choices when he decided to have sex, yet the woman does not. Hmmm, tell me again how that is equality for all?