Jump to content

Abortion as Art?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If he is unwilling to be part of the child's life, he should be free to not pay child support.

I really disagree with this statement. If a guy is going to make babies then he should also assume responsibility for those lives he helps create. A major problem among certain groups right now is absentee fathers who accept no responsibility for their actions. We really don't want to encourage more of that behaviour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a man has no say whether or not a woman aborts he should not be on the hook for child support if she decides to keep the child.

It is her decision and she should take full responsibility for it.

What about the poor guy who doesn't even find out he has a child until months or even years later? What about the fathers who never get to see their children? Should they have to pay? IMO they shouldn't. If a woman denies access then child support should be stopped. (unless he is abusive or a drunk or druggie or otherwise harmful to the child).

Ultimately birthcontrol is the woman's responsibility as she is the one who gets pregnant. Ultimately it is her decision alone whether to keep it. The guy is just a bystander really. All he can do is pray that she is a nice person and won't take him to the cleaners for the next 18-20 years. Sadly, that is rarely the case -- many men never see their children but are forced to pay exhorbitant amounts of child support to vindictive women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a woman denies access then child support should be stopped.

Actually I agree with that. What I don't agree with is the part where you said that if he is unwilling to be a part of the childs life. Probably misinterpreted by myself as it was a rather ambiguous statement and didn't specify factors such as access.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
What about the poor guy who doesn't even find out he has a child until months or even years later? What about the fathers who never get to see their children? Should they have to pay? IMO they shouldn't. If a woman denies access then child support should be stopped. (unless he is abusive or a drunk or druggie or otherwise harmful to the child).

If a man doesn't even know he has a child, he can hardly be paying child support. As for fathers who never get to see their children, what are the reasons they never see them?--A woman can't deny a father visitation-- all he has to do is get a court order if the woman refuses to let him see his child (unless he is abusive or a drunk or druggie or otherwise harmful to the child).

Ultimately birthcontrol is the woman's responsibility as she is the one who gets pregnant. Ultimately it is her decision alone whether to keep it. The guy is just a bystander really. All he can do is pray that she is a nice person and won't take him to the cleaners for the next 18-20 years. Sadly, that is rarely the case -- many men never see their children but are forced to pay exhorbitant amounts of child support to vindictive women.

Ultimately birthcontrol is both the man's and the woman's responsibility since they both create the child and they both are financially responsible. I would hardly call someone who was 50% responsible for the creation of the child a "bystander." So he can do more than pray she is a nice person-- he can use birth control himself, because providing support for a child that he created is hardly being "taken to the cleaners." As for the "many men who never see their children," again, I ask-- why don't they see them? And since when is expecting a father to help support his child being "vindictive?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He cannot choose whether to abort or not.

So he should not be "50% responsible" -- keeping the child is not his choice, but hers and hers alone even though he played a part in the creation of it.

Condoms break or fall off and there are no other temporary methods available for men at this point in time. A vasectomy for a 25 year old guy seems a tad harsh IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
Condoms break or fall off and there are no other temporary methods available for men at this point in time. A vasectomy for a 25 year old guy seems a tad harsh IMO.

Because condoms break or fall off sometimes a man shouldn't have to take any responsiblity for birth control?-- Is that what you're saying? By the same token, the pill isn't 100% effective either, so I guess using the same line of thought that would mean women don't need to take responsiblity for birth control either.

He cannot choose whether to abort or not. So he should not be "50% responsible" -- keeping the child is not his choice, but hers and hers alone even though he played a part in the creation of it.

Carrying the child to term falls on her and her alone too, even though he played a part in the creation of it. Sometimes life isn't fair to the woman, sometimes life isn't fair to the man. But the fact is, the child has two biological parents, two people who engaged in sex. The child wouldn't be here but for that fact, and the child is 50% the mother and 50% the father; therefore, both are equally responsible for the child's life. It seems to me you are dismissing the man's part in the creation of this child as less significant than the mother's.

But bottom line-- as much as you are making this about the man and the woman, it's about the child. The child had no say in whether or not its parents had sex and had no say in whether or not it was carried to term, so the child shouldn't be the loser. Fortunately, the courts see it that way too.

But what about the questions I asked in my previous post? I take it you don't have any answers?

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

edited to answer AW's questions

If a man doesn't even know he has a child, he can hardly be paying child support. As for fathers who never get to see their children, what are the reasons they never see them?-

If a woman does not tell him for months or years, why didn't she in the first place? Why is she all of a sudden in need of money? She was fine at first, so what happened to cause her to suddenly need the support of the man?

Sorry to answer your question with another question, but that's the way it goes ;)

As for the "many men who never see their children," again, I ask-- why don't they see them?

Many men are not "allowed" to see their children for the reasons I stated already.

Should we punish men for having sex with willing (old enough and unprotected) women?

The thread is about abortion. A man has no say in whether or not his fetus is aborted so why should he have to pay if she decides to keep it -- he does not get to make this decision, she does.

She has all the power to destroy his life forever. She chooses to have a child and put this burden upon herself. He has two choices -- abstaining from sex or using a condom. Her choices are multitude: Abstinance, The Pill, Vaginal Condom, Sponge, Birth Control Patch, Birth Control Shot, Rhythm Method, IUD, Morning After Pill, Abortion.

And if a grown woman is too stupid to use these methods (or combination of) then she really should suck it up and do the responsible thing -- whether that be aborting the child or keeping it -- her mistake, her decision.

Edited by Drea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a woman does not tell him for months or years, why didn't she in the first place? Why is she all of a sudden in need of money? She was fine at first, so what happened to cause her to suddenly need the support of the man?

So what if she is in need now. Why question it? The money "she" needs is for the health and well being of the child. Expand your mind a bit. It is not about them, it is about the child.

Should we punish men for having sex with willing (old enough and unprotected) women?

Who is being punished? You have some weird ideas.

But here is one you would inevitably moan about later. Every single man who impregnates a woman will ask the woman to abort, of course the majority will not.

But thats okay, it is only a ruse to get out of paying paternity. See how wonderful that logic is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
edited to answer AW's questions

If a woman does not tell him for months or years, why didn't she in the first place? Why is she all of a sudden in need of money? She was fine at first, so what happened to cause her to suddenly need the support of the man?

Any number of reasons. She lost her job, the child had unexpected medical bills, she wants better for her child than she's been giving on her own. Surely you can understand that people's circumstances can, and often do, change over time.

Many men are not "allowed" to see their children for the reasons I stated already.

What reasons? Where did you state them? As I said, no court will deny a man visitation (unless he'd be unfit), so I repeat-- All a man has to do is get a court order. No fit father is "not allowed" to see his children.

Should we punish men for having sex with willing (old enough and unprotected) women?

How is supporting a child he helped create, by willingly having sex, "punishment?" Seems to me you're fine with punishing the totally innocent child, which is really difficult to understand, in light of this comment.

The thread is about abortion. A man has no say in whether or not his fetus is aborted so why should he have to pay if she decides to keep it -- he does not get to make this decision, she does.

She has all the power to destroy his life forever. She chooses to have a child and put this burden upon herself. He has two choices -- abstaining from sex or using a condom. Her choices are multitude: Abstinance, The Pill, Vaginal Condom, Sponge, Birth Control Patch, Birth Control Shot, Rhythm Method, IUD, Morning After Pill, Abortion.

So what's wrong with choice #2? :rolleyes: Seems like a perfectly good choice to me, especially since it would protect him from STDs. You talk about his life being destroyed forever (he doesn't have to support the child forever and he'd actually have a child out of the deal), but an STD would be more likely to destroy his life since some are actually life threatening.

And while the man doesn't get to make the decision regarding abortion, as I already pointed out, he'll neve have to carry a child to term or have an abortion himself, either. Again. Life isn't fair, and sometimes it's not fair to the man, and sometimes it's not fair to the woman. However, they are both adults, so they need to deal with the consequences of their actions. Again. The child is the only innocent victim in this scenario.

Btw, if men could opt out of supporting their children, who do you think would pick up the tab? The goverment; ie: the taxpayers.

And if a grown woman is too stupid to use these methods (or combination of) then she really should suck it up and do the responsible thing -- whether that be aborting the child or keeping it -- her mistake, her decision.

As I already pointed out, no birth control is 100% effective. 'Interesting' that in your mind two people willingly having sex is only a "mistake" for one of them; that only one partner should do the responsible thing. That says to me that you must think men are "too stupid" (to use your words) to be responsible for their own actions. I don't know how else to read that.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what if she is in need now. Why question it? The money "she" needs is for the health and well being of the child. Expand your mind a bit. It is not about them, it is about the child.

But she didn't seem to "need" or want the father in the first place so why come to him later. She made her bed (by having the child without telling him) and now she can lay in it.

Who is being punished? You have some weird ideas.

Weird? What is weird about men not paying for 20 years for a one-nighter?

Why don't you just call men "wallets" and be done with it -- that's all you believe they are put on this planet for is to pay for irresponsible women. (all those who get pregnant from a one nighter are irresponsible -- unless of course their plan is to find a sperm donor and raise the child alone.

But here is one you would inevitably moan about later. Every single man who impregnates a woman will ask the woman to abort, of course the majority will not.

Huh?

I don't think the man who takes a woman home from the bar really wants to have a baby. You sound like my g/friend's mom from years ago "If she didn't want a baby, what was she doing screwing?"

thts okay, it is only a ruse to get out of paying paternity. See how wonderful that logic is?

The woman is ultimately responsible if she gets pregnant. It's her body. It's her choice. All the guy can do is pray the condom works and pray that if it doesn't, the woman just goes away quietly to have an abortion or raise her mistake on her own.

She lost her job, the child had unexpected medical bills, she wants better for her child than she's been giving on her own. Surely you can understand that people's circumstances can, and often do, change over time

Of course, but in the beginning she made the choice to keep it without a father. And now that times are tough he has to pay...?

no court will deny a man visitation (unless he'd be unfit
Untrue. Many times a woman cries "abuse" and the courts believe her.

How does a weekend father wipe his 2 year old daughter's ass without touching it? The police ask "did daddy touch your bum?" Happens more often than you'd think.

That is why father's advocacy exists.

You see the world through beautiful rose coloured glasses. Must be a lovely veiw. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking from the prespective of a woman raising her son without ANY help from the father, I can certainly see both sides.

I think often men do get taken for a bit of a ride, I also think some men shirk their responisbility - or are far more trouble than they are worth (my own case).

If a woman, say, has a one night stand - uses birth control - but it fails - then gets pregnant and decides on her own to keep the child - WHY should the man be liable? Really?

I guess in the final analysis I agree with Drea.

If the chick gets herself knocked up and can't afford to take care of a child - should the man (who may NOT have consented pay??)

Damn good question. I'm not talking Dead Beat Dads - I'm talking one off cases.

There are always alternatives - adoption, abortion. Milking someone for $$ because you are careless - NOPE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
If a woman, say, has a one night stand - uses birth control - but it fails - then gets pregnant and decides on her own to keep the child - WHY should the man be liable? Really?

Because he was there during the creation of the child? Because the child is 50% his? Because the child deserves it?

If the chick gets herself knocked up and can't afford to take care of a child - should the man (who may NOT have consented pay??)

I'm confused here. Are you saying the man may not have consented to having sex? And I love the "gets herself knocked up" wording. One would think she did it all by herself.

There are always alternatives - adoption, abortion. Milking someone for $$ because you are careless - NOPE.

What about the man paying for the support of an innocent child because the man was careless too? Sounds like an alternative to me.

Seriously. Reading some of these posts, one would think the woman is the only one having sex; that the woman is the only one who should take responsiblity for preventing a pregnancy. One would think an innocent child doesn't matter at all.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
QUOTE: She lost her job, the child had unexpected medical bills, she wants better for her child than she's been giving on her own. Surely you can understand that people's circumstances can, and often do, change over time

Of course, but in the beginning she made the choice to keep it without a father. And now that times are tough he has to pay...?

Um, yeah. Since someone has to pay, I'd say the father would be the logical one to do so.

QUOTE: no court will deny a man visitation (unless he'd be unfit)

Untrue. Many times a woman cries "abuse" and the courts believe her.

How does a weekend father wipe his 2 year old daughter's ass without touching it? The police ask "did daddy touch your bum?" Happens more often than you'd think.

Give me a break. Charges of abuse have to be proved in court. No police officer is simply going to ask "did daddy touch your bum" and accuse him of child abuse and be convicted of it by the court. Since you are smart enough to figure out that he can't "wipe his 2 year old daughter's ass without touching it" I think the police, and the courts, are smart enough to figure it out, too. But since this evidently happens more than I'd think, perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide me with statistics, along with a source backing them up. Until you do, your claim means nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever.

Women never get pregnant on purpose...

Men always want babies with their Saturday night "chew your arm off dates"...

Right AW?

The thread is about abortion. Men do not have a choice, women do. If a woman doesn't want the child, she can abort or give it up. What can the man do if he doesn't want the child?

Edited by Drea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused here. Are you saying the man may not have consented to having sex? And I love the "gets herself knocked up" wording. One would think she did it all by herself.

No, but I have known women who KNEW that their bf's did not want children, or were certainly not interested in having them at the time or with that particular woman - why then if they allow themselves to get pregnant - to force the man into a relationship he does not want and has said so - why should he be held liable???

What about the man paying for the support of an innocent child because the man was careless too? Sounds like an alternative to me.

Okay, let's define some parameters - let's say the guy provides the spermicide and condom - to the best of his ability he pulls out. He is adamant for not wanting children, he may even state this before sexual union has occured - yet SHE does get pregnant. Does he really have responsibility? If so, then perhaps the answer is that he should not have ever had sex in the first place.

Interesting conundrum eh?

Seriously. Reading some of these posts, one would think the woman is the only one having sex; that the woman is the only one who should take responsiblity for preventing a pregnancy. One would think an innocent child doesn't matter at all.

No, absolutely not - every case is unique. Some chicks DO get pregnant just to 'keep' a guy. Some women get pregnant because they simply want a baby - yet have no clue what that really means. Some men shirk their responsiblities - certainly. Some men don't. But, let me say this: If I were a man, and some woman came back at me after years and years and said I owed her child support for a child I never knew I even had - I would not be a happy camper about it. I certainly may take an interest in that child - but in NO way do I think I would be responsible finacially for it - unless of course I then wanted to be.

Is that any clearer???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
Whatever.

Women never get pregnant on purpose...

What does that have to do with anything?? The man still consented to the sex, and the child is still innocent, and the child still deserves to be supported.

Men always want babies with their Saturday night "chew your arm off dates"...

Right AW?

I honestly don't know what a "chew your arm off date" is, but if they're having a baby with any kind of date at all, they obviously wanted to have sex with her.

How do you think those really ugly fat ones get pregnant anyway? I've often wondered (when I see some one really disgustingly ugly with a child) "who **cked you!?"

What does that have to do with anything? The child doesn't deserve support because its mother, in your opinion, is "really ugly" and "fat?" Obviously someone "**cked" her, and I'm guessing it wasn't at gun point. So I really don't think what she looks like has any bearing on the issue. :rolleyes: a thousand times over

The thread is about abortion. Men do not have a choice, women do. If a woman doesn't want the child, she can abort or give it up. What can the man do if he doesn't want the child?

What a man can do if he doesn't want a child is use a condom before he has sex or choose not have sex-- or else pay support for the child while it's a minor if he chooses to have unprotected sex.

Like I've said, men aren't stupid, helpless creatures with no control over their sexual urges. Like the women involved, they have choices, and they have to live up to their responsibilities and choices. But again, you can't seem to grasp the fact that the innocent child deserves the support. It's not about the man, it's not about the woman. It's about the child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a man can do if he doesn't want a child is use a condom before he has sex or choose not have sex-- or else pay support for the child while it's a minor if he chooses to have unprotected sex.

Like I've said, men aren't stupid, helpless creatures with no control over their sexual urges. Like the women involved, they have choices, and they have to live up to their responsibilities and choices. But again, you can't seem to grasp the fact that the innocent child deserves the support. It's not about the man, it's not about the woman. It's about the child.

QFT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I've said, men aren't stupid, helpless creatures with no control over their sexual urges.

Oh reeeeeaaaalllly?

:rolleyes:

But if they are confronted by someone who "begs for it", who could blame them right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a man, I resent the implication that we are all governed by our dicks.

I was being entirely facetious BD.

In another thread AW had commented on how men should not be held responsible when faced with a willing partner... and now she is saying the opposite... I was just calling her on it.

I have advocated for men (liase with lawyers, family maintenance) regarding family issues. Seems men get the short end of the stick in family maintenance agreements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
I was being entirely facetious BD.

In another thread AW had commented on how men should not be held responsible when faced with a willing partner... and now she is saying the opposite... I was just calling her on it.

Quote/link to the post you are referring to. I never said any such thing, and I resent something I never said being attributed to me. I'm getting fed up with people on this board saying I said things I most definitely never said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...