Why is abortion illegal for men but not women?

Reply to post by arriana

I keep seeing that its the mans fault if he didnt use a condom so tough luck. How about we take that out of the equation. Lets say that he DID use a condom but it failed. He took precautions would it still be fair that he would have to take care of a child he is unprepared to care for and didnt want? I dont think so.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by CobraCommander


maybe that's a potential option, however i don't see people carrying around sex contracts as a possibility. seems rather Orwellian to me.

Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by Wolvo

 

He's not justifying the method the attacker used. But he is pointing out that there are much deeper issues behind the reported attack. Why should a man be forced by law to be a father, when women have no such obligation?

Why cant men ever be raped and impregnated with a baby they did not ever ask for?
Get to work on that and we can talk.

cobra...saw your edit....point taken and understood. thank you for clarifying.

Originally posted by Wolvo
reply to post by CobraCommander

 

Its your child to, aswell as the womens, if your pushing the women into abortion its both your 'mistake'. If money and child maintanence are your only concern thats just wrong, you keep mentioning money. You have to help that child grow, help it. Its not 100 percent you HAVE to pay support money, you can have an agreement with the mother to the billing or maybe she will even say dont sweat it.

edit on 31-5-2011 by Wolvo because: (no reason given)

You are being truly naive. I don't know if that is intentional or genuine.

I know an awful lot of fathers out there who are ordered to hand over their paychecks and never get to be a part of the kids lives.

Also, it makes no difference what your "agreement" with the mother may be. She can change her mind whenever she feels like it and sue you. And of course, as I already said, she will be forced to by the state if she ever needs public services.

Originally posted by CaDreamer
reply to post by CobraCommander

 

maybe that's a potential option, however i don't see people carrying around sex contracts as a possibility. seems rather Orwellian to me.

Someone else said "just give up parental rights" as if that were true and possible, giving some BS story about thier cousin Joe-Bob or something. But anyway, if that were indeed the case, there would be a large measure of equality in choice.

If the man wants parental rights, he has to pay child support. No support, no rights. So you don't really need to carry around a sex contract, and women would be more inclined to take responiblity for their own sexuality rather than leaving it up to the man.

reply to post by acmpnsfal


I have been ignoring the failure rate of condoms for one simple reason, they have a VERY low failure rates. Yes sometimes they fail, but its rare. The same can be said for the contraceptive pill, it also has a VERY low failure rate, but yes it does happen. Actually the two methods are both way over 99% effective, but when they fail, no its not fair on either party. When they do fail, it is a more complex situation than is being discussed at this time.

Originally posted by Antiquated1


Why cant men ever be raped and impregnated with a baby they did not ever ask for?
Get to work on that and we can talk.

I dont see your point as it pertains to this discussion.

reply to post by CobraCommander


I'm not being naive at all, i know a fair few fathers, I'm one myself. I also know a few single mothers on the social who of which dont recieve maintanence, through personal choice.

reply to post by CaDreamer


Cheers.

Originally posted by arriana
reply to post by acmpnsfal

 

I have been ignoring the failure rate of condoms for one simple reason, they have a VERY low failure rates. Yes sometimes they fail, but its rare. The same can be said for the contraceptive pill, it also has a VERY low failure rate, but yes it does happen. Actually the two methods are both way over 99% effective, but when they fail, no its not fair on either party. When they do fail, it is a more complex situation than is being discussed at this time.

There is NO reason in the world why a woman who does not want to get pregnant should ever get pregnant even if she isn't using any contraceptive at all. She still knows when she is ovulating. A man has no way of knowing that.

She could have gone on the pill, patch, shot, used the ring, foam, sponge, spermicide, diaphragm, implant, or female condom, insisted that the man wear a condom or simply elected to not have sex with a man who had no intention of being a father to a child. (Here's a hint ladies, if he didn't put a ring on it, he doesn't wanna be your baby-daddy.) A woman can also choose to abstain when she is most fertile and ovulating, and obviously much more likely to become pregnant. Short of that, the woman can still resort to the morning-after pill, and ultimately it is her choice, the woman's choice alone, whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.

Originally posted by CobraCommander

Originally posted by Antiquated1


Why cant men ever be raped and impregnated with a baby they did not ever ask for?
Get to work on that and we can talk.

I dont see your point as it pertains to this discussion.

In a thread about why can't men have abortions, you do not get my point?
Take a biology class. The closest men can come to having an abortion is harming the mother of the baby. There is no way around that. Your premise about parental rights hangs on giving up a huge part of reality. So if men want abortion rights, then they need to figure out a way to get pregnant. Then, once men can cry that they are pregnant due to rape they will have all my sympathy about their parental rights. At the moment they already have that handy little option of keeping their pants on in the first place.

See, when you get a little older you will learn about the birds and the bees. This is where boys learn one great fundamental truth. If you do not want to have a baby, do not get a girl pregnant. It is really easy to just not have sex. It is not as easy to not get raped and knocked up against your will. Get it?

Men, dont want a kid? Dont put your hoohoo in anyone's hooha. Is this too sciency?

reply to post by CobraCommander


maybe, perhaps. would like to hear what a few women, informed women, have to say about that. seems equitable. that would dramatically increase abortions and adoptions though and i am not for that.

Not an Obamaite but he put it rather well he said we need to reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make.

until men realize that every sperm is a potential financial liability and treat them like they do their credit score, this issue will not be solved.

Originally posted by CobraCommander

Originally posted by arriana
reply to post by acmpnsfal

 

I have been ignoring the failure rate of condoms for one simple reason, they have a VERY low failure rates. Yes sometimes they fail, but its rare. The same can be said for the contraceptive pill, it also has a VERY low failure rate, but yes it does happen. Actually the two methods are both way over 99% effective, but when they fail, no its not fair on either party. When they do fail, it is a more complex situation than is being discussed at this time.

There is NO reason in the world why a woman who does not want to get pregnant should ever get pregnant even if she isn't using any contraceptive at all. She still knows when she is ovulating. A man has no way of knowing that.

She could have gone on the pill, patch, shot, used the ring, foam, sponge, spermicide, diaphragm, implant, or female condom, insisted that the man wear a condom or simply elected to not have sex with a man who had no intention of being a father to a child. (Here's a hint ladies, if he didn't put a ring on it, he doesn't wanna be your baby-daddy.) A woman can also choose to abstain when she is most fertile and ovulating, and obviously much more likely to become pregnant. Short of that, the woman can still resort to the morning-after pill, and ultimately it is her choice, the woman's choice alone, whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.

The Rhythm Method? HA! Thats a joke. Do they not teach you this stuff in school anymore? Shall I give you a full run down of why calender based contraception methods are almost completely ineffective? Just how much would you like to know about the menstrual cycle, and what can affect it?

Originally posted by Wolvo
reply to post by CobraCommander

 

I'm not being naive at all, i know a fair few fathers, I'm one myself. I also know a few single mothers on the social who of which dont recieve maintanence, through personal choice.

Just because you know of a few former couples who still have amicable relationships does not mean that is the norm for one thing. For another, it is still on the woman's terms and a state-sanctioned bias. If the father and the mother were to suddenly have some sort of falling out, she could sue for support, and win custody by default of course too.

If you know mothers on the dole who aren't getting money from the father, it's either because the father is "unknown" to the system or is mentally incompetent collecting SSI.

Originally posted by Antiquated1

In a thread about why can't men have abortions, you do not get my point?
Take a biology class. The closest men can come to having an abortion is harming the mother of the baby. There is no way around that. Your premise about parental rights hangs on giving up a huge part of reality. So if men want abortion rights, then they need to figure out a way to get pregnant. Then, once men can cry that they are pregnant due to rape they will have all my sympathy about their parental rights. At the moment they already have that handy little option of keeping their pants on in the first place.

See, when you get a little older you will learn about the birds and the bees. This is where boys learn one great fundamental truth. If you do not want to have a baby, do not get a girl pregnant. It is really easy to just not have sex. It is not as easy to not get raped and knocked up against your will. Get it?

Men, dont want a kid? Dont put your hoohoo in anyone's hooha. Is this too sciency?

Round and round with the same old tired argument. If she didn't want to get pregnant, she should not have slept with the guy.

Aside from that, it is not "HER" body we are talking about here. It is the body of an unborn child that is just as much the man's as it is the woman's. Abortion is not about gender, it is about life and death.

reply to post by CobraCommander


Because it's the woman's body that's carrying the fetus, she has the rights over her body and if she says the fetus goes than I suppose the fetus goes. Don't get me wrong I'm not fond of abortion but I'm also not fond of telling women what they can and can't do with their wombs.

Shouldn't this be obvious really?

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by Wolvo

 

It's meant to confuse by taking two different topics and combing them into one... A: assault and battery vs B: the right for a man to have some say in whether a woman chooses to have an abortion or have the baby. The meshing of these two topics is for shock-value and is quite disgusting.

edit on 31-5-2011 by LadySkadi because: (no reason given)

This sums it up in a nutshell.

And anyone who can't tell the difference needs to remove themselves from the gene pool.

Using this scenario as a catalyst to launch a debate about a completely different topic is pretty much as pathetic as it gets.

Originally posted by CobraCommanderAside from that, it is not "HER" body we are talking about here. It is the body of an unborn child that is just as much the man's as it is the woman's. Abortion is not about gender, it is about life and death.

You carry the baby to term then. Equal rights yea?

i only want one thing from the government. i pay my child support happily, and often go without food or other necessities myself so my children can eat, even sold my car because i could no longer afford it.

The thing i want from my government is to either force my ex to pay taxes on the income i provide her to care for my children or allow it as a tax deduction to assist low income fathers who are doing the right thing.

exes don't have to claim any of the money received in child support, the payer of the support is still taxed though. exes don't have to claim or pay federal income tax on alimony either. its optional.

if child support was deductible it would make it much easier to live for those who it impacts the hardest. i am a professional i earn over 50k a year i take home approx 24k of that. the rest goes to child support and a Cadillac insurance plan for my kids.

that would make it equitable, that would make it fair, that would make it a regular normal thing that men didn't mind doing at all.

Add taxes to the amount taken from me in that 26k a years that i never see, I forgot to include that in my formula