Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
If they are pushing for women to not have the ability to terminate the pregnancy, and the life of the child is of the upmost import, logically you would think they would support ways to increase the likelihood that this child is brought into this world and supported throughout. On the hook for solely figuring that out might be harsh, but in favor of programs that help that along isn't unreasonable.
Not that that addresses my supposition because pregnancy isn't on men. And I may have forgotten but I don't think I weighed in on support. However since I'm in now I would point to the Republicans blocking new federal regulations on child support that would have reduced the burden in some cases and was considered a good step toward actually increasing overall payment rates. Paul Ryan was part of that.
From your exchange with Tim, we dont think of this in the same way. I was thinking more on the lines of people refusing other forms of birth control and just saying f-it I will just get an abortion if it comes to that. Everyone i knew that ended up getting one were in a situation like Tim where they were careful, and took the decision very seriously and it weighed on them.
But child support is, and a huge majority of men support laws requiring it. The assumption that people vote for whatever makes things most convenient and advantageous for their gender without regard to moral considerations has no evidence to support it and quite a bit of evidence in opposition.
These are generally the people I am talking about. The people that aren't responsible enough to take precaution. And yes, I know people that nonchalant about it. As I said to Tim, scum of the earth is probably too strong as it puts one decision as what defines the person. That's not fair. But it disgusts me and saddens me to know there are people out there with such little regard for human life.
If a woman can terminate a pregnancy by choice without the man's consent then should a man be free from paying child support if he wants the abortion and she refuses?
No. You fathered the child, so you have an obligation to help support it. Abandoning it in utero isn't morally different to me than abandoning a kid when he's 2 or 7 or 13.
I don't disagree, for the record. Just talking out the full scenario from both sides.
Why is it a woman's decision? It was both of their decision to have the baby. It's up to both of them to support the baby. Why can only one of them decide to terminate the baby?
Why are you asking these questions? You already know the answer: because it’s her body. That’s the whole legal and moral basis for a woman’s right to have an abortion in the first place.
I would agree, but like I said - I've never known anyone to take that flippant of an attitude towards the topic.
I'm challenging the moral ruling. Once the woman chooses to engage in having the baby with a man, then I think the baby (or fetus) belongs to both parents. It's not a mole she can go get removed just because.
You’re entitled to that opinion. Obviously many share it. I disagree, strongly object to some of your terms, and find your “mole” analogy to be offensive.
LOL at finding removing a mole offensive. Many find terminating the child offensive. But the point (as you already know) is the child either belongs to both parents or it doesn't. If both are responsible for support then both should have a decision in whether it terminates or not.
Actually they dont always go in with the intention to have children. In real world use condoms are about 85% effective. In real world use the Pill is about 90% effective. So even with the two in combination an unplanned pregnancy can happen.
Sure. Both parties involved enter the sexual act with the same intention. The accident occurs. Why is it now the choice of solely one party what happens to the child? Why does the woman get to terminate the pregnancy because of the accident but the man cannot terminate support because of the accident and he's screwed for 18 years? If we're going to have the discussion Cav seemed to want to have then the choice should be equal since the act was equal.
If every male approached the situation mindful of the responsibilities of both parties that you point out there would be far fewer abortions IMO.
When you have an abortion because you aren't ready to have a child, or you want to focus on a career, or any other selfish reason, that's using abortion as a form of birth control.
Actually, women should be educated that their responsibility begins prior to the sexual act as well. Why is that education only needed for one partner, in your opinion?
It's pretty obvious both parties need to be educated.
My solution is both parties should be involved in terminating a child. And if one party wants to keep the child they are responsible for the child. What, exactly, were your solutions other than saying the man's life doesn't change but the woman's does and men need to be educated that their responsibility starts before having sex (but didn't state women did). Where is your solutions-oriented thinking?
But only one party can carry the child. And it isn't the man. So no the man doesn't get the right to demand his partner be a broodmare because he says so.
I understand the train of thought, but disagree with the concept. It’s like saying people who support amnesty for illegal aliens should provide them housing/jobs/etc.
Yep, the whole idea that women are aborting willy-nilly is absurd. It’s an emotionally charged decision and not exactly convenient.
I dont understand this. One baby out of say 10 is successful, what about the other 9? that is the point of the OP? If honest the GOP is looking to take down social benefits as well. How many unwanted kids do we want to have in the system?
Fair enough. Then on the other hand if the man wants to terminate and woman decides to keep it then woman should not force the man to be a bank for her decision. Let's be consistent with where we apply education and accountability.
What do you mean? Who are they in relation to me? I have a few family members, plus coming across many at a co-op I used to volunteer at.
So these people refused to use other forms of birth control, in favor of abortion in the event pregnancy occurred?
Refused? Can't say....I don't even know how that would work, but they certainly chose not to use it, and most of them unapologetic about it. These people exist. I don't know what to tell you guys
I know some women who've had abortions. I've been lucky I guess as I've never met anyone whose contraceptive strategy was "I'll just get an abortion". Everyone I've known wasn't really happy about it. Mostly they felt shame and were embarrassed no matter how it happened. Plus having accompanied a couple of friends, who would have otherwise been alone, I can't see how anyone would want to go through that more than once. It is not a fun recovery. In fact there is nothing about it that you would think anyone would want to do twice.Refused? Can't say....I don't even know how that would work, but they certainly chose not to use it, and most of them unapologetic about it. These people exist. I don't know what to tell you guys
I'm with you. It's baffling to me even after seeing it with my own eyes. I don't know the numbers behind it. They don't really matter to me...one's too many IMO. But I have seen it at every charity stop I've made, in three different states, north to south. That said, I've only ever seen three repeat visitors.
Well I checked with the CDC. About 56% of abortions in the last 10 years have been for women who have never had an abortion. About 44% had 1 or more. An added data point about 58% of women getting an abortion had 1 or more prior live births in that span.The Commish said:
No. It doesn't work that way. It's not going to be a fair deal, because the man and woman are not equal partners. The woman has to bear the child, therefore she gets 100% of the right to decide whether or not to have an abortion. The man gets no say whatsoever unless the woman wants him to have a say. And if the woman has the child, the man is responsible for child care. What the man wants or doesn't want is irrelevant.Ramblin Wreck said:
I want to be clear. I am NOT saying this is "common". I don't really know if it is or not. I don't really care if it is or not. One is too many IMO. I didn't mean to say anything other than how I feel about the decision to choose this route as a form of birth control. If it's 1 or 10,000, it doesn't change my opinion on that sort of decision making.
That’s pretty stupid in a world of equality. But your stuck in your antiquated mindset so we are done here. Hopefully we see parenting more equally moving forward.
So if the woman has the child she is not responsible in any way for child care? WOW
Depends on the context. I have known multiple women who had abortions in their late teens due to unprotected sex and they made difficult decisions. With these women it was a one time thing and they made the appropriate adjustments in their life to not let this happen again. If that's using it as birth control (I don't view it that way) then it is likely relatively common. I have also know one truly despicable person that did use it as a form of birth control in every sense of the word, but as I alluded too that person was really an awful human being all the way around.Terminalxylem said:
That isn't what he meant and I'm sure you know that. He meant he is responsible for supporting the child. We've been talking about that for a while now. The context is pretty apparent.
Yeah, I definitely don't see it that way. If people realize they aren't ready and are using the pill/condoms/etc , they happen to still get pregnant and decide to have an abortion I don't that as using it as a form of birth control. It's also taking into account the future of the possible child, so it's not entirely selfish either.shader said:
