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

[Nikki]

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.

Hmm *thinking* See the problem is I know where I stand on the issue of what the law should be I am just trying to decide how it should be written. Because in this case I am tempted to say I dont think he should be able to opt out but at the same time a law is a law. Laws are complicated they aren't all black and white you know case by case basis.

The same for some 45 year old rich guy do I believe he should be able to opt out of a preganancy no. Do I still think we need a laws to protect people yes.

Does that make sense or should I try to rewrite what i just said?

 

[Kreskin]

Hmm *thinking* See the problem is I know where I stand on the issue of what the law should be I am just trying to decide how it should be written. Because in this case I am tempted to say I dont think he should be able to opt out but at the same time a law is a law. Laws are complicated they aren't all black and white you know case by case basis.

The same for some 45 year old rich guy do I believe he should be able to opt out of a preganancy no. Do I still think we need a laws to protect people yes.

Does that make sense or should I try to rewrite what i just said?

You're right Nikki, this stuff if quite complicated. There's never an easy answer to the extreme circumstances.

 

[Nikki]

You're right Nikki, this stuff if quite complicated. There's never an easy answer to the extreme circumstances.

Wouldn't it just be so much easier if everything was Black and White instead of that damn shade of Grey that is so annoying.. :smilebox:

 

[talloola]

equal, no

I don't understand how anyone could possibly think of a "pregnancy" as an equal choice for females and males, to determine the final result of the "deed", whether to keep the baby or abort, or adopt.
If the father to be expects the mother to be to carry the baby to term, then give it away, that is
irresponsible, he is just using her as a "serrogate mother" and then expects her to "just" give it
away with no emotional turmoil, it would be easy for him, he would not be part of the pregnancy,
then he would not be part of the birth, then he would not see the child, and he would not be there
when the baby is taken away "but" if he could carry the child to term and give birth, then of course,
let him make that decision.

If the man and woman could decide "who" is going to carry the child, then I would agree, but the fact that
the woman "has" to carry the child, gives her much more responsibility as to the "outcome".

If she decides that an "early" abortion (as that should be the only kind), is what she wants, then she should
have the right to do that, and folks, and abortion should be thought of as a serious, risky decision, with
consequences that could have lifelong affects to the mother, OR NOT, depends on the individual, but noone, absolutely noone should expect her to do "either", and if she doesn't want to get an abortion and
the fathe to be told her he wants her to, that shouldn't let him off the hook, as the decision to do that is so serious in the life of mother to be, that she shouldn't be saddled with all the "blame" for the babycoming intothe world, for disagreeing with his decision, but if she could transfer the baby into his womb, and he
could then make a decision to either keep it or not, then by all means "do that".

If she decides to carry the child to term, "which is normal", then that is also her decision, and whoever is
responsible, "with her" for the conception of the child, should share in the financial responsibility, and,
again, if that person wants to "cut and run", then she has no choice but to seek help, LEGAL, as that
is her right, and a father to be who "cuts and runs" deserves that stress, as he could have stepped up,
faced his responsibility and helped out, but HE has forced the legal system to step in, noone else.
The legal system never would have become involved in the first place if, the fathers to be, in the past
had of stepped up and faced "their half" of the problem, as "mothers to be" are helpless if the man
decides to tell her it is "her" problem and leave him out of it, and of course, again, there are exceptions,
to the majority of cases, but we are not talking about those cases, right?

And, it is ridiculous to bring "exceptions" and spout them on this thread as though they actually mean
anything, every subject has "exceptions". The rule is the majority, and it makes more sense to focus
on that.

It just amazes me that so many peolple think that men somehow don't have as much responsibility in
this situation as the women. Both people took park in "sex" together, how does that make the woman
more "to blame" for the outcome. That escapes me, some people go to great lengths to try to convince
everyone that men should be able to "opt" out. Is that because men don't have much discipline when
it comes to deciding to have sex to begin with, and the poor guy shouldn't have to "pay" for the rest
of his life. or WHAT? It's so simple, half and half for the child, IT'S FOR THE CHILD
ITS FOR THE CHILD ITS FOR THE CHILD ITS FOR THE CHILD ITS FOR THE CHILD

 

[Nikki]

And i think that its amzing that there are people out there that have this train of thought...

"ok the child falls more on the women for responsibility therefore the women should be able to decide if the baby lives or dies, if she keeps it, if she gives it away for adoption and if that adoption is open or closed and F*** what the father thinks."

You know what else is stupid. the fact that you seem to think the mother always makes the best decision for her child. you say its all about the child and that is the way things should be. Ok if that is the case then People who only make a certain income shouldn't be allowed to have children because they can't provide well for them. Its not in the childs best interest to be brought up in poverty. Chew on that for a while.

And again Lwas are not always black and white. We already say an article on here where a mans sperm was stolen from him and used to impregnante someone against his will you think he should be financially repsonsible for that child?? See Grey.

 

[CDNBear]

I see no one other then Nikki has graspped the difference between Laws and moral emotion. So nothing relevant to rebuttle yet.

 

[talloola]

that's right

And i think that its amzing that there are people out there that have this train of thought...

"ok the child falls more on the women for responsibility therefore the women should be able to decide if the baby lives or dies, if she keeps it, if she gives it away for adoption and if that adoption is open or closed and F*** what the father thinks."

No it's not F****what the father thinks, he might have lots of turmoil in this situation, but he can't
dictate the outcome as he is not carrying the child, simple. Lots of people think that carrying the
child is not a big part of the story, and I think it's almost "everything", and if you think the men should
be able to dictate what the mother to be should do with her body is ridiculous, he is still walking around
in the same physical condition as "before", she isn't.

No, the mothers won't always make the best decision for her child, she is human, she will make mistakes,
but that doesn't mean that she should turn all decisions over to the father to be either, in many cases
it would be the very best thing for the baby to be aborted, as giving it life isn't always the right thing
to do, as it's life could be horrible.

Again, the point you make, re: stealing sperm is an exception, right?, wierd circumstances, not the norm.


S

 

[Nikki]

And i think that its amzing that there are people out there that have this train of thought...

"ok the child falls more on the women for responsibility therefore the women should be able to decide if the baby lives or dies, if she keeps it, if she gives it away for adoption and if that adoption is open or closed and F*** what the father thinks."

No it's not F****what the father thinks, he might have lots of turmoil in this situation, but he can't
dictate the outcome as he is not carrying the child, simple. Lots of people think that carrying the
child is not a big part of the story, and I think it's almost "everything", and if you think the men should
be able to dictate what the mother to be should do with her body is ridiculous, he is still walking around
in the same physical condition as "before", she isn't.

No, the mothers won't always make the best decision for her child, she is human, she will make mistakes,
but that doesn't mean that she should turn all decisions over to the father to be either, in many cases
it would be the very best thing for the baby to be aborted, as giving it life isn't always the right thing
to do, as it's life could be horrible.

Again, the point you make, re: stealing sperm is an exception, right?, wierd circumstances, not the norm.


S

No I do not think that the father should be able to dictate anything. And once that child is no longer inside the mother I do not think she should be able to dictate **** all either. The rights of both parents must be and should be considered.

yes it was weird circumstances and not the norm.. or so we would like to think. But this does happen more then we would like to think. there are cases where women have saved sperm from condoms.. screwed up right?

And yet this man had to appeal twice because two judges said he was finanacial responsible for a child that he didnt even get the pleasure in creating. That is what is messed up.


Also I would like to clarify that not once have I stated that well that baby is in the womb the mother shouldn't have complete contorl because I believe that that is absolutly the case.

 

[Kreskin]

No I do not think that the father should be able to dictate anything. And once that child is no longer inside the mother I do not think she should be able to dictate **** all either. The rights of both parents must be and should be considered.

yes it was weird circumstances and not the norm.. or so we would like to think. But this does happen more then we would like to think. there are cases where women have saved sperm from condoms.. screwed up right?

And yet this man had to appeal twice because two judges said he was finanacial responsible for a child that he didnt even get the pleasure in creating. That is what is messed up.


Also I would like to clarify that not once have I stated that well that baby is in the womb the mother shouldn't have complete contorl because I believe that that is absolutly the case.

I did find it interesting that the appelate court did mention that he gave her the sperm without any expectation of it being returned. Therefore she theoretically did not steal it, which was his contention.

Nevertheless, once a woman becomes pregnant the conventional way there is no obligation or expectation for her to terminate the life inside her. Generally abortions are to be voluntary and not made under duress. No court/judge would ever condone the concept that she has the choice of an abortion or having the child live without parental responsibility. That just simply would never happen, so why pretend the idea makes any sense?

Abortion is not legal because it's an accepted method of contraception. It's legal because the law can't force anyone into physical bondage, it can't be criminalized, and the fetus has no legal rights. The government has tried to ban it. Most people don't want any woman to have an abortion but they have to live with the right. Why on Earth would our society accept laws that put duress on a woman to have an abortion? It won't. It can't.

 

[Sassylassie]

I see no one other then Nikki has graspped the difference between Laws and moral emotion. So nothing relevant to rebuttle yet.

Well Bear enlighten we the emotive masses please because this is the third time I've asked you to explain what laws you'd like to enact to make this situation Equatable. You started this thread but you have repeatly side stepped my question on what the solution is, so step up to the plate and explain how you'd solve this inequality.

Anyone else what to hear Bear's ideas that will give equality to the suffering male masses?????? Speak up so that we can be "oh so enlightened" from our emotive selves.

Kreskin, as per nom a great and balanced post. You are a girl arn't ya????????????:smilebox:

 

[Kreskin]

Well Bear enlighten we the emotive masses please because this is the third time I've asked you to explain what laws you'd like to enact to make this situation Equatable. You started this thread but you have repeatly side stepped my question on what the solution is, so step up to the plate and explain how you'd solve this inequality.

Anyone else what to hear Bear's ideas that will give equality to the suffering male masses?????? Speak up so that we can be "oh so enlightened" from our emotive selves.

Kreskin, as per nom a great and balanced post. You are a girl arn't ya????????????:smilebox:

Let me look...ottytrain2: ...nope.

 

[tracy]

I see no one other then Nikki has graspped the difference between Laws and moral emotion. So nothing relevant to rebuttle yet.

It's possible to understand the differences and just not agree with you:wave:

I just don't see why the law should protect someone from taking care of their child when they knowingly acted in a way that could result in the birth of a child. The law isn't there to save people from taking responsibility for their actions, it's the opposite.

 

[Sassylassie]

LOL Kreskin that was sooooooooo funny.

Tracy, I agree with you I can't imagine a law could be enacted to protect the irresponsible. Then again I could be wrong.

 

[Zzarchov]

you mean Irresponsible men, no problem with the existing laws to allow for irresponsible women.

Whats so wrong with forcing women and men to have the same level of responsibility?

 

[tracy]

you mean Irresponsible men, no problem with the existing laws to allow for irresponsible women.

Whats so wrong with forcing women and men to have the same level of responsibility?

I don't see how irresponsible women are let off the hook.

 

[talloola]

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.

The father "to be" can't decide, (after the fact), that they should put the baby up for adoption, that is so
easy, as he can say that, then just walk away, and that leaves her with the 9 mths. to carry baby, the
delivery of the baby, the very stressful moment of having to "give" it away, and then she has to start
her life up again, in the mean time he has forgotton all about situation and gone on his merry way.
Does anyone have any idea how gut renching that experience would be for her. They "both" have made
the mistake, but "she" has the baby to carry. If he actually wants to give it away, then he isn't going
to be the loving partner all the while she is pregnant, and if he was that mature, he would have made
a decision to help her have the baby, and want to be part of the experience of supporting his child.
In my opinion, not many women could actually give their new born away, it is easy to say, so easy to
say, do the right thing, give the baby a happy life, if I had ever given my new born away, I would have
been so guilty and miserable and I would never have been able to get over it, it's so unnaturnal, and
I'm sure there are many women today, that, if they could turn back the clock would never have done
it.l
Men, who want the pregnancy to disappear, or the baby at birth, also disappear, they are not pregnant,
they can forget all about it, get on with their lives, be thankful that they don't have to be a part of it
in any way, but SHE is pregnant folks, tummy getting bigger.

ALL THE THINKING should have been done before conception, instead of so much thinking after
conception, especially by "fathers to be" as to how they shouldn't have any responsibility, it's her
problem, she should have done 'this" or "that", as though those decisions are "so easy", they are not.

And for those who only want to talk about "law", laws were made as a result of "behavior", so the
idea that you can only talk legalities, is not reasonable, as behavior results in "law"

And for those who think that if the "father to be" should only act on his morality in this situation, is
spitting into the wind, as if that was a responsible way to solve these problems, we wouldn't be
haveing this conversation, as we would be saying "oh well" he didn't think it was his problem, so
"whatever", guess that's the way it goes, better luck next time -(what a bunch of crap)

 

[tracy]

My birth mother and birth father agreed on the decision to put me up for adoption and he did support her through the entire pregnancy. We are all very happy with their decision, so I wouldn't be quick to generalize adoption as something unnatural or heartbreaking.

 

[talloola]

My birth mother and birth father agreed on the decision to put me up for adoption and he did support her through the entire pregnancy. We are all very happy with their decision, so I wouldn't be quick to generalize adoption as something unnatural or heartbreaking.

Your story is great, and I commend your birth parents, but I do think that is the exception and not
the rule, and I wasn't meaning that 100% of couples don't make decisions that suite both of them,
but I'm always referring to the majority, and of course there is always exceptions, and in your case,
it was a happy ending, and a good life, and that makes me feel good.

 

[CDNBear]

Well Bear enlighten we the emotive masses please because this is the third time I've asked you to explain what laws you'd like to enact to make this situation Equatable. You started this thread but you have repeatly side stepped my question on what the solution is, so step up to the plate and explain how you'd solve this inequality.

Anyone else what to hear Bear's ideas that will give equality to the suffering male masses?????? Speak up so that we can be "oh so enlightened" from our emotive selves.

Kreskin, as per nom a great and balanced post. You are a girl arn't ya????????????:smilebox:

Thanx for the sarcasm Sass. Not needed though.

As I and others have stated morethen once, without side stepping...

If the woman has the option to "opt out". So should the male.

Now read this slowly.

If the woman feels that she is not ready, financially or emotionally. She has two choices to choose from.

Abortion

or

Adoption.

Even if the man feels that he is ready to be a father, he can not (and justly so) force her to bear him a child.

If the man feels that he is not emotional or financially ready to be a parent. He has but one option.

Whatever

the

woman

chooses.

Do none of you see the flaw here?

The only answer I can come up with, and I'm not a lawyer, nor do I know if this is the right answer.

The male should be allowed to "opt out" as well.

So if said woman, feels that she is ready, but the male does not, then he should be able to "opt out".

Is

that

clear

enough

for

all

of

you

?

Let me look...ottytrain2: ...nope.

Not much substance in that, is there kreskin?

It's possible to understand the differences and just not agree with you:wave:

I just don't see why the law should protect someone from taking care of their child when they knowingly acted in a way that could result in the birth of a child. The law isn't there to save people from taking responsibility for their actions, it's the opposite.

Yes.

you mean Irresponsible men, no problem with the existing laws to allow for irresponsible women.

Whats so wrong with forcing women and men to have the same level of responsibility?

Absolutely nothing.

I don't see how irresponsible women are let off the hook.

If they want to they have two choices, men have none.

My birth mother and birth father agreed on the decision to put me up for adoption and he did support her through the entire pregnancy. We are all very happy with their decision, so I wouldn't be quick to generalize adoption as something unnatural or heartbreaking.

That's one of those choices. Seemed to work ok here, you seem to be clear headed and able to afford a computer, so you must not have been subjected to a life of poverty.

 

[Kreskin]

Bear, you still don't get it. Pressuring people to give up their children or commit abortions is illegal. Why they heck would we have a new law that is unconstitutional? You comparison means nothing. Forget anyone has any choices because it is all entirely irrelevant. The baby is either born or it isn't, and if it is the courts don't give a rat's a$$ that she could've done either. And they never will.