The existance of male parental rights...

[LetThereBe]

It is a possibility. It is not something every woman could choose to do.

Nor is avoiding child support something every man would choose to do.
The only difference is that a man is not even allowed that "possibility"

If a child is born of two people and they both bear responsibility for that child. They both chose to have sex and so . She has a veto that may be morally repugnant to her, but it is her body.

It is her body so she gets a "veto" in that she can choose not to give birth.
It is his bank account, so he gets a "veto" in that he can choose not to pay support.

That is the fair way.

With your suggestion one has all of the control (a "veto" via an abortion) but they split the responsibility. In our way each has a veto for their own responsibility.

[el ايمان]

And I will make it simple. He chose to take that risk.

He took the risk that she would get pregnant. That doesn't entitle her to his money.

Not at all. Very few woman want to have an abortion. I am saying that both should avoid sex if they are not prepared for that eventuality.

The man should avoid sex if he doesn't want to be forced to pay for child support, and the woman should avoid sex if she doesn't want to... decide to make the man pay child support? Neither should avoid sex, we should just adjust our legal system so that sex isn't an activity in which women ensnare men and force significant legal obligations onto them.

You calling it a parasite is very telling. It is a potential human.
I never suggested the man was forcing her to.

Telling that I think logically, perhaps.

I fail to see how that addresses what you said.

Because the "greater cost" she pays is not inevitable. She has multiple opportunities to eliminate this cost from herself.

Just going to claim it with no argument?

With the knowledge that she will be a single mother, she has an entire trimester to decide not to be a single mother. The father doesn't. The choice to wreck her body was entirely hers, as was the choice to care for a child for 18 years; the man had no part in any of those decisions, therefore her "greater cost" should not be paid by the father.

Not at all. The man needed to have sex with her. He had his choice.

His choice was to risk that she got pregnant. Her choices were to alter her body, not get an abortion, not put the baby up for adoption, raise a child for 18 years, take money from the man, etc. Remember, he did not choose to "have a baby". The choice to have the baby was entirely hers. It is unjustly unequal.

It is a possibility. It is not something every woman could choose to do.

Wrong. It is a choice that every woman can choose. It's just that many of them choose not to.

She did not. All she has is a possible option to veto. She can not do anything if he didn't have sex with her.

Review the above list of choices.

Nope. She has a veto because it is her body. He choose to have sex with this woman.

See above.

If a child is born of two people and they both bear responsibility for that child. They both chose to have sex and so . She has a veto that may be morally repugnant to her, but it is her body.

It is the unjustness of the current system. That statement doesn't even make logical sense "They both choose to have sex" therefore "the woman has more power".

[BlackSheep]

Again, you exclude an interim choice between having sex and the birth of the child.

Namely, the decision to carry or abort the child.

I didn't exclude it. I specifically mentioned it in the sentence you quoted.

If the woman is to have a choice as to whether or not she has a child, the man is entitled to the same choice.

They both have a choice as I mentioned clearly and I also explained that the choice of her body is hers.

Why do you seek to deny the man this choice?

I don't deny the man anything. it is her body. The man made his choice.

[Darklordabc]

I don't deny the man anything. it is her body. The man made his choice.

I think your avoiding the essence of the argument. The argument is, is child-support an apprioriate punishment for the act of cumming in a women? What your saying is a kin to, "the man stole the loaf of bread, and punishment for that crime is beheading [lets just imagine were in iran for aguments sake], therefore the blame is on him because he choose to steal the bread".

Given the nature of sex, and the overwhelming, intoxicating pull it has on men, it seems very unfair to treat is like its a legal contract. Its the equivalent of offering a crackhead some crack, but only if he signs a contract first. And its especially unfair since the women has 100% control of if she gives birth or not. Now if men had some control, and could decide to allow or veto abortion, then its a diffrent story.

This unfair policy was probaly created as a band-aid on the problem of women producing more babies and not being able to afford them. Obviously somebody has to pay for them, I would suggest welfare, but to make the men pay for it just because he cream pied some girl seems next to arbitary. Even the welfare option would have problems, perhaps we could have enforced temporary sterilzation on the women who had kids every year and was putting huge strain on the system.

[BlackSheep]

I think your avoiding the essence of the argument. The argument is, is child-support an apprioriate punishment for the act of cumming in a women? What your saying is a kin to, "the man stole the loaf of bread, and punishment for that crime is beheading [lets just imagine were in iran for aguments sake], therefore the blame is on him because he choose to steal the bread".

It is not punishment because it is not a crime.

Given the nature of sex, and the overwhelming, intoxicating pull it has on men, it seems very unfair to treat is like its a legal contract. Its the equivalent of offering a crackhead some crack, but only if he signs a contract first. And its especially unfair since the women has 100% control of if she gives birth or not. Now if men had some control, and could decide to allow or veto abortion, then its a diffrent story.

It is also unreasonable to ignore the powerful and overwhelming feelings women have towards their fetus. It is far less fair to allow a man to simply have sex with a woman ad not bear as much as the responsibility as her. Women have no more control than the man does and I would argue in many cases less.

The fetus develops in the woman's body. The veto is her's because the body is.

This unfair policy was probaly created as a band-aid on the problem of women producing more babies and not being able to afford them. Obviously somebody has to pay for them, I would suggest welfare, but to make the men pay for it just because he cream pied some girl seems next to arbitary. Even the welfare option would have problems, perhaps we could have enforced temporary sterilzation on the women who had kids every year and was putting huge strain on the system.

It has never been traditional in our society that a woman supports the children solely on her own. Child support was established to force men to support children they had abandoned.

Why do you simply put all the blame on women?

[Darklordabc]

Why do you simply put all the blame on women?

Because, as the feminists and lefts always say, its 100% percent her choice if the baby is born or not, that means 100% responsbility. Its like a contract, where the women has complete freedom to void, but the man has no choice. It is plainly an unfair proposal.

How can a man be responsbile for the birth of a child, in which he had zero say in. In principle, people should not be held responsbile for something in which they have no control over.

How about this as an ananology: A couple buy a plant and place it in the backyard (in this analogy, they could only ever afford this plant if they pooled their resources), it starts to grow based as a consequence of both their efforts. But the plant is on the womens property, and the man has no option to uproot and kill the plant, even through he may want too. If that plant grew so large as to cause damange to neihbouring property and a bill had to be payed, who should pay the bill? Both of them? because they both were responsbile for the intial tiny plant? Or the women because it was in her property, and she alone was the only one who could of prevented it from causing damage to the property?

[BlackSheep]

Because, as the feminists and lefts always say, its 100% percent her choice if the baby is born or not, that means 100% responsbility.

Can you support the claim "its 100% percent her choice if the baby is born or not"? I am left leaning and I don't say that.

Eve if 'they' do say that I see not bearing on what 'they' say in terms of responsibility.

Its like a contract, where the women has complete freedom to void, but the man has no choice. It is plainly an unfair proposal.

I am fine with the idea that if the man is carrying the baby, he has full control over the abortion.

How can a man be responsbile for the birth of a child, in which he had zero say in. In principle, people should not be held responsbile for something in which they have no control over.

He had 100% say. He could have avoided sex.

How about this as an ananology: A couple buy a plant and place it in the backyard (in this analogy, they could only ever afford this plant if they pooled their resources), it starts to grow based as a consequence of both their efforts. But the plant is on the womens property, and the man has no option to uproot and kill the plant, even through he may want too. If that plant grew so large as to cause damange to neihbouring property and a bill had to be payed, who should pay the bill? Both of them? because they both were responsbile for the intial tiny plant? Or the women because it was in her property, and she alone was the only one who could of prevented it from causing damage to the property?

The analogy is poor. A child is of them not bought by them. Property does not equate to her body. Killing a plant is not in the same ball park as terminating a potential human that if developed would be their child. A cost of raising a child is not even in the same ball park as 'damages'.

[brendand]

Ridiculous. Why should she be allowed to say "I want to have this child and I want this man to pay for it" that she made under deliberate, intentional actions(with established consequences)when the other party (of equally valid opinion) disagrees? We all know how the body works, and if a woman is not up to supporting a child on her own and has one, then tough shit.

Actually, it is imposed on the man by the woman who presses him for child support money. As explained earlier, she has more choices than he does.

Clever...

If you do not want the child, then you pay for your poor judgment in doing the act that ultimately risks creating one.

People pay for poor judgment all the time. If you can't control yourself and do drugs or rob a store, you either go to jail, or get away with it. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

Sorry if your lack of self-control or poor judgment lands you in an undesirable position. It happens to people all the time.

A man in this position is no victim of circumstance.

[el ايمان]

Can you support the claim "its 100% percent her choice if the baby is born or not"? I am left leaning and I don't say that.

I can. A woman has 100% of the choosing-power when it comes to deciding whether or not the baby is born; it is 100% her choice. Even though it takes a man and a woman to make a baby (with rare exceptions), the man doesn't have a say in whether or not the baby is born because he cannot have an abortion. A pregnant woman, however, has total control over the birth of the baby (again, excluding miscarriages or other accidents), and can choose to abort the baby or not abort it, leading to a birth.

It is 50% a woman's choice and 50% a man's choice to conceive a zygote, but it is 100% the woman's choice to bring the zygote to term. I'm assuming that is why so many of us are in favor of a plan for the man to state his intentions to support the baby early on in the pregnancy.

Spew . . .


A man in this position is no victim of circumstance.

Uh.. yes he is. Have you been reading the thread?

[brendand]

Have you been reading the thread?

Yes.

[BlackSheep]

I can. A woman has 100% of the choosing-power when it comes to deciding whether or not the baby is born; it is 100% her choice.

Ad so does a man. If he does not have sex there is 100% chance the child will not be born.

Even though it takes a man and a woman to make a baby (with rare exceptions), the man doesn't have a say in whether or not the baby is born because he cannot have an abortion. A pregnant woman, however, has total control over the birth of the baby (again, excluding miscarriages or other accidents), and can choose to abort the baby or not abort it, leading to a birth.

As specified she has the final veto as it is her body. The man can avoid it eve getting to that point.

It is 50% a woman's choice and 50% a man's choice to conceive a zygote, but it is 100% the woman's choice to bring the zygote to term. I'm assuming that is why so many of us are in favor of a plan for the man to state his intentions to support the baby early on in the pregnancy.

A woman has that option, it is not always a choice she can make. Assuming any woman can just choose to have an abortion is jut silly.

And either party has a 100% choice in having sex.

Uh.. yes he is. Have you been reading the thread?

Of course I have been reading it. Have you? I have explained my reasoning. It is a situation he has a 100% chance of avoiding. I don't normally refer to that as a victim of circumstance do you?

A man has sex with a woman by his choice. He knows that she has the legal option to have a abortion. He also knows that that is a very hard and emotional choice and there is no guarantee that she will abort. He takes a risk. He chooses to take that risk.

[el ايمان]

Ad so does a man. If he does not have sex there is 100% chance the child will not be born.

You are comparing apples to Styrofoam cups, and badly, I might add. A man does not have 100% choosing power of whether or not a baby will be born; having sex does not guarantee pregnancy. Only after a woman is pregnant can it be determined that a baby will most likely be born, a state in which she has 100% choosing power because the man cannot decide to get an abortion for her.

As specified she has the final veto as it is her body. The man can avoid it eve getting to that point.

This is the point of contention. Whether her choosing willingly to carry the baby to term entitles her to a portion of the man's salary for 18 years. Of course I disagree.

A woman has that option, it is not always a choice she can make. Assuming any woman can just choose to have an abortion is jut silly.

Were I a woman, I would be offended at how little you appear to think of my emotional fortitude. Any woman can just choose to have an abortion. It is an option legally available to all pregnant women. A women who does not have an abortion is not being forced to have a baby, she has the baby of her own free will.

Of course I have been reading it. Have you? I have explained my reasoning. It is a situation he has a 100% chance of avoiding. I don't normally refer to that as a victim of circumstance do you?

A man has sex with a woman by his choice. He knows that she has the legal option to have a abortion. He also knows that that is a very hard and emotional choice and there is no guarantee that she will abort. He takes a risk. He chooses to take that risk.

The point of my argument has not been that he should be able to abort the child for her, it is that the man should be given the opportunity to state his intentions to support (or not) the woman's child, effectively giving him the option to choose between being paying child support and not being involved in the child's life either way.