Then perhaps they need to choose not to have kids, i.e. birth control, morning after pill, abortion. If you are going to choose to have kids you need to be responsible for them. Although women do also always have the option to give it up for adoption too. I don't care how dumb a person is or claims to be. Children require a great deal of money and responsibility. We have all these outlets for not having children, but if you choose to have kids anyways then you'll have to own up to those responsibilities even if it means doing it alone cuz dad's in jail, dead or simply not around. I care about kids plenty too but I am not interested in forcing people to be parents who do not want to be parents, whether they are men or women. That goes completely against what makes us a free society, and yes, our free society includes men and their rights too and I have known plenty of men who were forced to pay child support and rarely if ever had the chance to even see the child they were supposed to be fathering and paying for all because mom moved away to another state or decided he shouldn't have the right to see his children.
Then he needs a better lawyer. For eveyone of those type of guys there's at least one other who escaped completely...and his CHILDREN suffered because of it.
Then they will end up facing the harshness of reality when they find out having babies is not all roses and fairytales. Just because she is ignorant of the fact that having children results in the requirement that she must raise and care for those children does not mean she should not be held to the standards every other parents is when they choose to bring a child into this world. She had every option to prevent a child from existing all the way from birth control to abortion. When you have kids you must be responsible for them, that's just a fact of life. And a woman should never expect to rely on anyone else to take care of her just because she is ignorant to reality. Women are perfectly capable of getting jobs and working. We are not so dumb and stupid that we cannot do this. I am a woman and I work a full time job in retail. I am extremely careful about my reproduction and sex life always making sure never to conceive because I know I don't have the funds for an abortion let alone the funds to raise a baby but I know if do get pregnant I will be cutting some serious costs just to fund an abortion because ultimately I can afford that way over the medical costs of carrying a pregnancy to term and raising a child. Women really are not this stupid, and if they are no one else should have to suffer for their stupidity. You wouldn't expect a woman to suffer for a man's stupidity (forgot to pull out before he ejaculated), so why should a man suffer for a woman's stupidity (she chose to have a baby knowing full well she cannot afford to raise it alone)? These are the double standards we need to fight. Men should have just as much right as women to avoid parenthood in my opinion. The discussion we are having at this point is women who get pregnant and choosing to give birth against the wishes of the father and then forcing him into parenthood against his will. I do not adopt the idea that women should be forced into parenthood anymore than men whether birth control was used or not. And I frankly do not understand how one can accept one of these but not the other. What we want is equality for both men and women, not just women. There are plenty of outlets for a woman to avoid the responsibilities of raising a child. If she does not want to pay the high cost of raising a child she should not have refused all the potential outlets of removing that responsibility (again birth control, abortion, adoption etc.) Unfortunately in the face of our actual reality this is what most men do need when they want to cut off all ties to a woman seeking nothing more than a paycheck in the form of 'child support'. I'm not saying we should let mothers and children suffer in poverty, of course not. I think their are plenty of welfare outlets for women to choose from when she realizes the cost of raising a child is too much. I just don't think anyone should be forced or trapped into unwanted parenthood against their will either. These are the prices we pay for freedom. I don't think you give women enough credit though. Plenty of women know the costs of raising kids and are not as stupid as you are saying here. They just also known the justice system is biased towards women and use that to their advantage. If they did not have that at their advantage I think we would see less single mothers, perhaps more abortions, but certainly less single mothers. Perhaps people would be more likely to think about who they are procreating with and make an effort to find someone compatible and remain with them before they choose to carry pregnancies to term and give birth. As it currently stands though I really believe we have a system that enables women to continue being single mothers whether they want to or not. There is a lot that needs to be fixed and it will take a lot of time and effort.
You really need to improve your reading comprehension! That sentence actually said that YOU have the right to want as many children as you want (I believe I even mentioned "ten if you want," BUT NOT TO PUSH YOUR OWN DESIRE TO HAVE CHILDREN ON OTHERS! By the way. . .You might have some problem "convincing that mate!" if you don't change your attitude a little bit! And, unless the medical field finds a way for MEN to carry children. . .you will NEVER be able to FORCE a woman to BEAR YOUR CHILD if she doesn't want to. Women are not "incubateurs," and your position that they should be is revolting enough that it might seriously interfere with your ability to "convince" a woman to bear your child! But. . .look on the bright side . .you could always hire a surrogate, or you could adopt!
I've heard of "penis envy" before, but I bet Freud never thought of "uterus envy!" I'm sure you can find a woman that will meet your "barefoot and pregnant" requirement for a mate! I suggest you continue to look in te Christian fundamental Churches!
I once worked with a woman who was just delighted that she was to become a grandmother....her FOURTEEN YEAR OLD daughter would give her one. I don't think that fourteen year old CHILD knew what the rest of her life would be like with a mother who thought of her as only broodstock. My point is not all "women" know what you and I know aobut the challenges of having babies. I don't think that girl is stupid but she sure has the deck stacked against her when her own mother applauds her giving birth at 14. AND I don't think all the children she will subsequently pump out will fair too well either. Let's agree to disagree since I will never be convinced men should be let off the hook for the children they father.
Obviously a child is going to be for more ignorant than the rest of us which is why sex ed is so important at such young ages. I see no use in hiding the realities of sex from children. But I am not sure why you think a teenage boy the same age as the girl he knocked up would be any more capable of supporting a child than she is. In most places you can't even legally get a job until you are sixteen, before that it's around 14-15 with parental consent. Surely you agree that two 14 year olds having sex for the first time are more than likely ignorant to the ramifications of that sex? Which is why we should have a better welfare system designed to promote education to help women and girls who are struggling escape the poverty they are born in or subsequently put themselves in due to their own ignorance. but not to the point that it forces another person to give up his assets to take care of her and leave her with no share of responsibilities either. We need to stop enabling women to abuse the biased court systems. No more reproductive coercion against women OR men! So be it then. But I will not stop continuing to point out the complete lack of equality in this situation and I really don't think it should be ignored. If a woman has multiple routes to avoid parenthood a man should have at least some of those same routes (i.e. sign away parental rights via an a closed adoption setting).
And I don't know why you're lying about what I posted(hanging around with nasty company??) You posted: """But I am not sure why you think a teenage boy the same age as the girl he knocked up would be any more capable of supporting a child than she is.""" I NEVER said I think a teenage boy the same age as the girl he knocked up would be any more capable of supporting a child than she is."""
Are you not arguing that men need to own up and 'pay' for the children they create? If not, then I apologize for the misunderstanding. Oh and if you mean SpaceCricket when you say "nasty company", he is actually pretty funny. I tend to disagree with him very strongly on a lot of issues but outside politics and religion we seem to get along fine well enough. And I am the type of person who does like to crack jokes to lighten the mood a bit. I hope you didn't take offense at us going off and rambling about Barbies and kids toys. I just felt the need to comment when he mentioned it as I was reminiscing a bit about my childhood.
This idea so often suggested by pro-lifers sends a mixed signal because it punishes the "innocent babies" they argue that women should be forced to birth, and does not serve as an incentive for a woman choose birth. "If you murder your baby, you will have breast cancer and mental illness and go to hell, but if you choose to have it, you're on your own."
HE lied about me mentioning barbies...or he can't understand English....sorry you think vulgar , insulting people are funny. I do not take offense at anything in here ... those that do should turn their computers off.
It really is a mixed message. On the one hand I see pro-lifers say they want men to be free of responsibilities of child rearing while on the other they want women to risk their health and life to become a parent against their will. - - - Updated - - - I apologize then. Would you mind if I asked you to re-elaborate your point for me? *shrugs* What do you expect, he is pro-life, well at least I think he is, maybe he is not. lol
I've just been describing our current system. I want the law to continue to hold fathers responsible for the act of consensual sex. And I want the law to continue to protect women who are in danger of permanent bodily damage or death as the result of a pregnancy. Our laws should never force people to risk imminent bodily harm or death for any reason, including a pregnancy. However, I don't consider the normal physical effects of a complications-free pregnancy as imminent or permanent bodily harm. This harm, imo, was implicitly agreed to during the consensual act of sex. I know that sounds harsh, but let me explain my thinking: It is implicitly agreed that parents of children will risk their health to feed their children, even if little food is available. If a family has only 5,000 calories of food for the night, the 2 parents don't determine the healthy adult levels (about 3500 for the 2 parents?), and then split the remaining 1500 calories between the children. Therefore, it is assumed that the parents risk their health to care for their children, by voluntarily eating less than healthy amount. We all know that society in general feels it is appropriate to expect these parents to risk their health for the children. In the same way, this is how I feel it is appropriate to expect women to risk their health (only to the degree that permanent damage or death is not likely) to deliver a healthy pregnancy. In the same way I feel it is appropriate to expect parents to work to care for their children. Working for 30-40 years isn't too healthy either... Of course rape, incest, and/or sex with minors changes the target of accountability. In these cases, there was no consent, and therefore we cannot hold someone responsible for an act they didn't consent to. Only the rapist, or adult in case of a minor (which imo is the same as a rapist), should be held to account for that act (which I wouldn't call sex). Which explains why in these cases I feel the choice should be the woman's to abort at any point up to viability.
I have yet to see a pro-lifer PROVE that any woman consents to pregnancy when they consent to sex. You have nothing unless you actually get her to sign a written contract beforehand. Feeding a born child is NOT the same as gestating a fetus and carrying it to term and you know it. It's simply not comparable. So let's continue to follow your logic of a comparison between fetuses and born children. On the one hand if a woman consented to sex you expect her to give birth just as you expect parents to risk their health to feed their born children. But if a woman did not consent to the sex she may kill her fetus...just as a woman who has a child born of rape and she is risking her health to feed the born child, since she never consented to conceive the child to begin with she may kill it to protect her health? Do you not see how fruitless it is to say that fetuses conceived of consensual sex are equal to born children and then in the same breath say that fetuses conceived of rape are not equal to born children (who may also have been conceived of rape) and are not deserving of the right to live? Again, this is just to paint my point that fetuses are most certainly not equal to born children and the fact that you make a rape exception, i.e. this fetus is not worthy of life because it's daddy was a rapist, this born child is not deserving of life because it's daddy was a rapist - they are simply not comparable because even you agree there are certain exceptions to kill a fetus in the womb, but never an exception to kill a born child no matter how they were conceived. The cause for conception is irrelevant. Either all fetuses are equal and deserving a right to life or NOT.
That argument for expressed or implied consent has been shot full of holes. Problem is when a woman has gone through the whole pregnancy and given birth then she has expressed consent to maintain caring for the born child .. but .. even then she can still give up the child for adoption or put into care. In our cultures no means no, the minute a woman seeks an abortion she is explicitly saying no, once she does that the implied consent argument goes out of the window as consent is an ongoing agreement .. another reasoning why Roe is stated the way it is, the longer the pregnancy is continued the greater the implied consent is. Even so there has not been a good argument put forward by ANY pro-lifers that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, and even if they could get over that problem pro-lifers would still have to deal with other arguments, such as - 1. If a fertilized ovum is a 'person at conception' as pro-lifers would like to be the case, then that 'person' does not have the right to force another person to sustain their life. 2. Consent is ongoing and can be removed at anytime for any reason, or even no reason at all.
http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/judpol/mcfall.html http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-law/criminal-law-keyed-to-dressler/rape/people-v-john-z/ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/u...draw-blood-in-drunken-driving-cases.html?_r=0
You can't compare an unwanted pregnancy with rape. With rape, the man chose to invade the woman's body. With pregnancy, the fetus has no awareness of what it's doing. That's why the fetus's rights should override the woman's rights. At least women have a choice to avoid getting pregnant. The woman's actions (whether she wanted to get pregnant or not) invited the fetus into her body (especially if she knew beforehand that she was going to get pregnant.)
You really do twist and turn don't you .. you specifically asked for other examples of where consent is revoked not including abortion, that is what I gave you. What YOU fail to understand is that regardless of the specific case the precedence of consent being withdrawn has been set in LAW, and as such can be used in any case where consent is an issue. Oh My ... you now sound just like that politician who stated a woman can shut down her ovulation when being raped .. its pointless debating with someone who thinks a woman can know beforehand whether she will get pregnant, if you were not being serious I would be thinking it was a joke. and you really do need to get your English teacher to start again with your knowledge of word definitions. Invite - Make a polite, formal, or friendly request to (someone) to go somewhere or to do something Just how the hell can a woman 'invite' a zef into her womb when the bloody thing doesn't even exist at the time of sexual intercourse. Absolutely bloody ludicrous
Really .. care to prove that? and I will add that my premise is no more out of context than the much cited UVVA in regards to abortion. now please do address the rest of my comment; Oh My ... you now sound just like that politician who stated a woman can shut down her ovulation when being raped .. its pointless debating with someone who thinks a woman can know beforehand whether she will get pregnant, if you were not being serious I would be thinking it was a joke. and you really do need to get your English teacher to start again with your knowledge of word definitions. Invite - Make a polite, formal, or friendly request to (someone) to go somewhere or to do something Just how the hell can a woman 'invite' a zef into her womb when the bloody thing doesn't even exist at the time of sexual intercourse. Absolutely bloody ludicrous
1-The context of that law was about sex, not about pregnancy. 2-Because she knows (if she has unprotected sex over a long period of time) that the chance of getting pregnant is almost 100%.
I agree with what you said, and I have gone back and forth on this abortion issue, but in the end, I support Roe v Wade. That said, I'm going to challenge you a bit on this if you don't mind. First off, what rights does a man have in an abortion? I completely agree that if somebody wants an abortion, it is their right, but I have thought about this issue a lot, and I don't know how I would feel if I was the one who got a girl pregnant. I don't know if I would want a girl to get an abortion if it was my baby that was being aborted. When does a man have any rights to the child? Does the man have any right to choose in the matter? Why or why not? Another point, and this may just be the wording you used, that I felt was poorly phrased was "If you are against abortion for moral reasons: learn to live and let live". Would you say that if the baby had just come out of the mother, and she threw the baby in the trash or killed it? After all, it isn't you or me or anybody else who the mother is hurting if she killed the child immediately after birth, so why not turn a blind eye to that as well? I'm against murder, but at what point does "abortion", or deciding to abort the life of a child, become murder? Now that I have given you some things to think about, I will explain why I support Roe v. Wade. In the end, there was really one thing that made me support the right to abortion; it is in the best interests of the child. You cannot force a mother to have a healthy pregnancy period if she doesn't want the child. She may smoke, drink, do drugs, etc. which could me more damaging to the baby and society if she has a deformed child than if she just aborts it in the first place. As a person who is against the use of force to make somebody live in a certain way, there is really no way to remedy this problem. The other fact is that many people that get abortions do so because they simply cannot handle a child. As a man, I cannot relate to what it feels like to carry a child (although I do believe there should be some responsibility on the side of the woman), and I don't know what it would be like to carry a child and give it up for adoption. The only option besides adoption is to keep it, and if you are young, and are an inept parent, the child and society as a whole is going to suffer because of the birth. In the end, this is an issue that I am very open to arguments on both sides of, because I believe both sides make valid points, but in the end, getting a black and white answer as far as morality goes is really never going to happen. I decided to support the right to choose because of the reasons above, but also because the courts have spoken on the issue, and that is there job. I believe that the courts made the right decision, but I may also be saying that they made the right decision had they decided that abortion should be an issue left to the states to decide the legality on.
Not in the slightest, the context of the law was dealing with consent, not sex .. the trial was not about sex it was about what constitutes consent and the withdrawal of it. Is that what you actually said .. I think not. The woman's actions (whether she wanted to get pregnant or not) invited the fetus into her body (especially if she knew beforehand that she was going to get pregnant.) Please point out the reference in your comment to the time period?
