Rights of the father.

I know. He had full control of the situation. Unfortunately, he decided to put his penis in.



Well, till Men can have Financial and Physical respsibility during pregnancy, there isn't much I can do to help you.

I know. He had full control of the situation. Unfortunately, he decided to put his penis in.



Well, till Men can have Financial and Physical respsibility during pregnancy, there isn't much I can do to help you.

I think you are missing the point. If a woman allows a man to put his penis in, she is still able to vanquish her 18 years of responsibility by having an abortion. Therefore, a man too should be able to request a "legal abortion" before the baby's birth so that he too has the option of vanquishing his 18 years of responsibility. If the woman feels she can't handle the responsibility on her own, she can then have an abortion, but it is her choice.

Alright.

I'm not really sure what your point is.

On the one hand you don't care what parents do after pregnancy. Presumably that would include letting the father relinquish his right to the child, and responsibilities, without penalty.

On the other hand you seem to be focused on pregnancy.

There seems to be some sort of conceptual disagreement you have based on this view you have about pregnancy. I'm not sure I follow it, but let's accept it for now.

So your view is rather that upon birth, both parents have the right to choose whether they want to take part in the child's life? And consequently, at that point, they should be able to make individual decisions without penalties?

That is entirely in line with what, I believe, ChickenMadness and I also believe. I am pro-life and I prefer a woman bears a child to term and upon birth the couple make a decision about how it is raised, or given to adoption.

However, I believe ChickenMadness' point is that abortion, as it is a single-party relinquishing of parental responsibility, ought to also include a counterparty right to relinquish responsibility.

Your point seems to be that pregnancy itself has some sort of cost. In that case there could be damages paid by the man for lost wages in the case he doesn't want to have the child but the woman does.

Having said that, the simple point that the woman has a get out of jail free card from pregnancy itself, while the man does not, is an issue of simple equality. If the man is made to pay restitituion for the service of the pregnancy, then it is still the case that he is being unequally penalised for the woman's choice.

If we have abortion, then we must have equal abortion for any type of consistency. In my view it'd be more sensible to have illegal abortion (after a very short initial period and a relinqiushment choice by the man in that period) and allow both parents to choose their participation upon the birth of the child.

No. I don't want to talk about after 18 years after Pregnancy when we cannot even agree about the 9 months during Pregnancy.

I doubt any male that is idiotic enough to get a girl pregnant and have a financial issue with child support is going to be able to afford restitution of any form. I don't really see the point of any overhaul in the law with regards to that.

Yes, a Man should not have a get of Jail free card for Pregnancy. He knew the choice when he had sex.

I think you are missing the point. If a woman allows a man to put his penis in, she is still able to vanquish her 18 years of responsibility by having an abortion. Therefore, a man too should be able to request a "legal abortion" before the baby's birth so that he too has the option of vanquishing his 18 years of responsibility. If the woman feels she can't handle the responsibility on her own, she can then have an abortion, but it is her choice.

I understand the point.

And as I have said, since a Woman has all of the Financial and Physical responsibility during Pregnancy.

Therefore, a man cannot request to relinquish rights over something which he has no Physical control over. Those rights only come into being once the child is born.

Unless he was sexually assaulted. Which our current laws wouldn't take into account.

I'm not suggesting the man relinquish his responsibilities during pregnancy, but rather is responsibilities after the pregnancy. The woman is able to do this, and thus so too should the man have this choice.

It is then up to the woman if she wants to go through with the burden of pregnancy or not, given the man's choice.

Okay. You're just repeating yourself ad nauseum. I'm out.

Sorry...what does Male sexual assault have to do with Pregnancy?

Okay. You're just repeating yourself ad nauseum. I'm out.

The woman is able to have the choice,since she is putting herself through the financial and physical risk of pregnancy. The man does not.

The man had the choice before pregnancy. Quite frankly, the Tax Payer shouldn't have to pick up the bill so a man can decide to piss off after he has impregnated a woman or multiple women.

It makes no difference. Either way, you want men to have the option to bail on the baby.

The only difference is that you want everyone else to pay for 18 years instead for millions of children.




No, I didn't say that. I said that there are a multitude of options include abstinence or even a vasectomy. You are choosing to the ignore that.

A woman doesn't have to use contraception. Ok and? This is known before they have sex and a man knows she can get pregnant.

Are yes lots and lots of fatherless kids in poverty - that's the perfect solution!

On a more serious note: (hypothetically) Guys out there, is it really so bad having to support your own child?
Yes it would have been best to plan it, but if you are going to feel good about throwing money at anyone, surely your own child would be worthy?

This is essentially pointless because you're talking about something completely different to me. My solution is what happens once a woman becomes pregnant but you're fixated on pre pregnancy.

Yes I do want men to have an option to bail out, just as women do. You've constantly contradicted yourself by saying that if you don't want to get a woman pregnant then use contraception but you don't have the same stance on women's choice to opt of having a baby after pregnancy. You're constantly talking about this health risk to women as though we live in the 14th century
Posted from TSR Mobile

I disagree. Most women I know who have had an abortion have done so because they weren't ready for a child for the next 18 years, not because they weren't ready for pregnancy.

... pregnancy? lol.

.

Yes. That is the question.

The father should have the opportunity to walk away from the pregnancy and should not be expected to have any obligations, until the point the child can no longer be aborted (giving men and women the same chance to opt in/out of the pregnancy).
Obviously though he should be given the right to be a part of the child's life if he "opts in" (provided he isn't a danger to it). He shouldn't be forced into paying child support if he decides before the abortion date he doesn't want to, however he shouldn't expect to have a role in the child's life.

However he shouldn't be able to force the woman into terminating or carrying out the pregnancy. That decision can ultimately only be made by the mother

How does this change that a Woman is Physically and Financially responsible during Pregnancy?