|
Men want say in unplanned pregnancy (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| randomX |
| Yeah, They should call it `primary care-giver's maintenance support'... its weird that the law hasn't caught on yet. |
|
|
| R.j. |
| take that FEMINISTS!!!:whip: |
|
|
| tribu |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
What exactly is "signing off an abortion"? Can you please elaborate on this? |
I dont live in North Carolina and I may not even have the right state, but it's an official document that says that the man and woman have discussed the pregnancy and decided that abortion is the best plan.
In short, it forces people to make the decision together. Maybe not in the best way, but I suggest it isd a step in the right direction. |
|
|
| Floorfiller |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Can anyone outline for me:
1. What EXACTLY needs to be done to make this seem "fair"?
2. How will this be enforced?
3. How will you make it secure enough so as not to be breeched by dishonesty?
Just the plain and simple, straight up version of what you surmise would solve the problem. |
really all i think that needs to be changed is men need to be given some form of legal right to challenge financial responsibility in extreme circumstances.
how will it be enforced? well basically by a court of law. i don't understand what you're wanting there, but if a court has the ability to demand child support from a father it should also have the ability to reprive that obligation.
how will you make it secure? well put the burden of proof on the man. i think if a man is going to deny financial responsibility for a child, he needs to have a real reason and something that is proveable. now perhaps that proof is most of the time not likely to be had, but that doesn't mean that the ability to challenge child support shouldn't be there in situations that demand it.
this thread isn't about screwing mothers and protecting dead beat dads, it's about allowing some kind of right for fathers in extreme circumstances. if their is dishonesty or manipulation involved in any situation in life, the victim should have the right to seek recourse. |
|
|
| Falcon-X |
In a related case, last year a man in canada got sentenced to jail (I think it was 10 years) because he had aids and knew it yet didnt tell 2 sexual partners and then had sex with them without protection.
Now if we use the same theory of you stick it in you should know theres a chance of pregnancy, then these women should have tought the same thing and know that there is always a risk. Yet the man lost and was portrayed as a horrible human being and went to jail. Why would it not be the same situation for a woman saying she cant have kids or is on the pill yet isint, etc |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
Here's my two cents...
If a man and a woman willingly have sex, they should know, that even if protection is used, there is always a chance pregnancy could occur. That being said, if the woman gets pregnant and wants to have the child, I really don't see how the man should be able to get out of some sort of responsiblilty. No man can possibly say "oh, I didn't know I could get a woman pregnant by having sex with her."
The problem I have is if a man and a woman have sex, the woman gets pregnant and the man WANTS to keep the child but the woman says "no" and decides to abort it. My rationale has to go both ways, and if the woman had consentual sex and got pregnant, she has to realize the possible consequences as well. If the father wants to keep the child, he should have a say so in that case, just like the mother did in the former. |
|
|
| timmyboy2 |
because she lied and said she was on the pill
and he got her pregnant and she wanted him to pay child support |
|
|
| ZeJayMan |
There is no denying that women have to power in this sort of situation, they're the ones that have to carry the baby for 9 months and can decide whether or not they should have the child aborted or not.
If you're not ready to handle the responsibility of raising a child you should just wear a condom, it's not that difficult. I can honestly say that the only time I plan not to wear contraception during sex is when i'm ready to have a child. I know that not every form of contraception is completely safe, but I feel secure enough knowing that theres a 99.99% chance that i wont get a girl pregnant.
Lots of men have been fooled into having sex with a woman and getting her pregnant so she can then go on to raise the child with her lesbian partner. It happens everywhere.
Don't want a kid? It's up to you, if you're not happy with the idea of having children.
Guys: Wear a condom.
Girls: Don't have sex unless he's wearing a condom, and use some sort of contraceptive pill for extra peace of mind.
The mind boggles, Scotland is teenage pregnancy capital of Europe. |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| quote: | | If you're not ready to handle the responsibility of raising a child you should just wear a condom, it's not that difficult. |
You do know that there is a chance that a condom doesnt work dont you? |
|
|
| ZeJayMan |
| quote: | | but I feel secure enough knowing that theres a 99.99% chance that i wont get a girl pregnant. |
|
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Whenever you have sex, whether you take precautions to prevent pregnancy or not, you are taking a risk of having a child in result. That is common knowledge.
As soon as you insert your penis into a vagina, you are taking the chance into YOUR hands, regardless of the information you have recieved, of this woman possibly getting pregnant.
|
This totally side-steps the responsibility of the woman who is also involved in the event.
She has to be just as responsible in saying, "No" since preliminary knowledge of the consequences are shared by both, not just the man.
| quote: |
If you are a big enough moron to take someones "word" that she is on the pill or whatever, that is your own mistake, and you must take the consequences.
|
Not totally the man's fault.
While true, the man didn't 'have' to trust her, he based his decision on the information that he was provided, by her, at the time.
The man could take the woman to court based on false pretenses if it could be proven she was lying.
If she had no intention of conceiving a child, then she shouldn't have lied and therefore stopped the events before their inevitable conclusion.
She has now become the instigator with this action, however, legally the man is responsible??
Someone is wrong with this picture indeed...
| quote: |
Essentially, by having sex with someone, you are signing a contract that you are willing to take all the chances of these things happening, even while being fully aware that pregnancy is a possibility, and you have no say in it once the act has been done.
|
...and herein lies the problem...
| quote: |
Just like... you get into a vehicle, you know there is a chance that you could get into an accident. You choose to get into the car and drive anyway. You get into an accident. It is no ones fault but your own, and you should own up to the consequences of those actions. |
It's a nice attempt at an anaology however there's only one person involved in this arguement...
there's no one else to share responsiblity of those actions...;) |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by ZeJayMan
|
You're deluding yourself a bit.
The failure rate for condom use is about 15 pregnancies per 100 live births when accounting for the way it is "typically" used.
That makes condoms about 85% effective when used in the way society uses them.
Source:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp...ontrol/main.xml |
|
|
|
|
