If it is your body & your choice why the he'll do I have to pay for the next 18 years?

[martybegan]

Or the woman can simply keep her legs crossed. Problem solved. For some reason you think women are somehow unable to control their sexuality, but men somehow can.

Indeed she can. But if she doesn't and he doesn't, then they are both equally responsible. But they do not equally carry the kid. If there is an abortion, they don't equally have the procedure. If there is a problem with the pregnancy, they don't equally undergo treatment. They are not equally at risk. So to make it equal, she gets to make the decisions about the pregnancy. After that, they are equally responsible. If the man doesn't like that arrangement, it is his responsibility to keep it in his pants. Once he pulls it out, he signs on for the whole ride whether he thinks it fair or not.

You are confusing legality and biology. Again, you are placing an undue burden on one gender of the other.

A question, if an ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) ever gets passed, and removes gender from the law, how do you give women these additional rights over men?

And if you want that to be the case, Men have to get some legal benefit as an equalizer, or you are basically admitting legally women are inferior and require additional protections.

No. The same legal burden is on both of them. You just don't think it's fair you don't get an equal say in the biological part of the equation, even though you accept no responsibility in it. She takes all the risks, but you think you should be able to make the decisions. The only thing I am admitting is the woman's body belongs to her and you get no say. Whether you think that is fair is of no consequence.

But only one has the legal ability to remove their responsibility. What I am saying is both should have an EQUAL decision. If a woman wants responsibility for her body, she can have it, but she should also accept the total responsibility of the decision to keep a baby if the male does not want it. The final decision would always be hers.

You want to deny men the same choice just because they are men. That you don't get the sad irony of this is your own problem.

That would not be EQUAL. That would be incredibly UNEQUAL. If a pregnancy goes bad the worst that can happen to the woman is she is dead. The worst that can happen to a man is he collects the insurance money and moves on with his life. Physical damage to the woman from giving birth is normal. Physical damage to the man just doesn't happen. You are ignoring the fact that the man has no skin in the game at all when it comes to the pregnancy, and simply focusing on money. Your position is that because that part doesn't impact you, then it doesn't count. You are wrong. It is all that does count. You don't take the risk so you don't get a say. If you don't think that is fair, I'm told homosexuality is a choice.

All the more reason for women to be more selective of who they sleep with, and how much protection they use. You again keep bringing up biological issues with childbirth, and keep ignoring the main question, why should a woman be able to terminate their responsibility for a fetus unilaterally while a man cannot? We are obviously talking about an unplanned (by at least one party, usually both) pregnancy.

We have spent the past few decades trying to make sex as easy and meaningless as possible. What you want is only one side to be unable to deal with the consequences after the fact, and have that side soley decided by gender. That is discrimination.

 

[FA_Q2]

It may not make sense to you, but giving one party a choice, and the other party none, and then holding the other party responsible regardless of their choice simply isn't fair.

Both parties have a choice on the use of their own body. If a man wants to be the one deciding if he's going to use his body to bring a fetus to term then he should get pregnant.

Worse, your very premise of financial responsibility is nonsense. You say its 'choice'. You're wrong. The premise of financial responsibility is the child. If the child exists, the responsibility exist. It doesn't matter if a man wants the child. Or doesn't want the child. Or agrees with the mother. Or disagrees. None of that is the basis of his responsibility.

The child's existence is. And he's responsible for any child of his that's born. Whether or not he wanted it to be born.

But only one side has the ability to say "I don't want this child." In an equal world, both sides would have, and should have the right.

If and when a man's body gets pregnant- then the man can decide whether or not to continue the pregnancy or terminate it.

But once a baby is born- both the mother and father are equally responsible.

Again you bring biology into it, when in a gender neutral society, gender cannot be an issue. Again, only the mother gets a real choice, and only because of her gender. Again, its discrimination, and you can't get it through your head.

From a legal standpoint, if you remove gender from the equation, why should the male have any less rights than the female? And I get the point that the man cannot force the woman to carry. Why should the man be forced to pay if he doesn't want the kid, tells her so before the end period for an abortion to be legally done, and thus gives her the option to keep the child OF HER OWN FREE WILL or abort it if she doesn't want to keep it on her own?

A gender neutral society is not a biologically blind society.

Last time I respond to you in this thread- clearly you just are not willing to accept that both the woman and the men have responsibility and control for their own actions and bodies, and if a child is born- both are equally legally responsible for the resulting child.

Any man not willing to accept that reality, can avoid having sex with women and he will never have the issue.

That is not true either by the way. The woman may give the child up for adoption or even drop it off at the fire station/hospital in some states if they so choose.

 

[martybegan]

You keep saying that- but what we keep saying is that both men and women are equally responsible.

When having sex- both are equally responsible deciding whether to have sex and whether to use protection- both are equally responsible for the consequences of those decisions(pregnancy/std's)
After having sex- both are responsible for their own bodies- uniquely only the woman can get pregnant- so we either allow a woman to control her body- or we do not allow it. She is responsible for whatever decisions she makes with her body though.
After a baby is born- both are responsible for the baby.

Exactly. What Marty and others are arguing for is unequal responsibility. Where a woman is responsible for every child she bears. But a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

Or, even more laughably....that a man has control over his own body AND that of a woman. While a woman has no control over a man's body, nor her own.

Neither of these situations is 'equal'. Both are comically unequal. The former proposal overwhelmilngly encouraging abortion by dramatically reducing the resources available for raising a child. The latter making women into mere meat puppets controlled by men. Where a man has complete control over the reproduction of any woman he impregnates. While a woman lacks the ability to control even her own body.

Um, no. There's a reason that every single state, without exception, has rejected this nonsense proposal: its a stupid idea. So stupid that its idiocy transcends politics. With those on the right and the left both recognizing how awful it is. And every state legislature, democrat or republican, rejecting it.

The woman has control. In my view the man has to make it clear, prior to the legal end of the time window for an arbitrary abortion if he intends to support the child or not. If not, this gives time for the woman to make a CHOICE, support the kid herself or have an abortion.

Currently women have total sexual reproductive freedom (pre-third trimester) and men do not. I thought equality was the goal here? If it isn't, then all the nasty stuff said about feminism being about superior rights over equal rights becomes far more significant.

No. You accepted responsibility the moment you chose to have sex.

And a woman has a legal "out" of that responsibility. Why besides the fact they are men, are men denied a similar legal "out"?

Because men don't get pregnant and therefore can't have an abortion.

an abortion is a physical procedure that results in the legal removal of any parental responsibility. Why shouldn't men have the same legal procedure available that then places the decision entirely on the woman, who now has all the required information to make her own choice?

 

[koshergrl]

You keep saying that- but what we keep saying is that both men and women are equally responsible.

When having sex- both are equally responsible deciding whether to have sex and whether to use protection- both are equally responsible for the consequences of those decisions(pregnancy/std's)
After having sex- both are responsible for their own bodies- uniquely only the woman can get pregnant- so we either allow a woman to control her body- or we do not allow it. She is responsible for whatever decisions she makes with her body though.
After a baby is born- both are responsible for the baby.

Exactly. What Marty and others are arguing for is unequal responsibility. Where a woman is responsible for every child she bears. But a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

Or, even more laughably....that a man has control over his own body AND that of a woman. While a woman has no control over a man's body, nor her own.

Neither of these situations is 'equal'. Both are comically unequal. The former proposal overwhelmilngly encouraging abortion by dramatically reducing the resources available for raising a child. The latter making women into mere meat puppets controlled by men. Where a man has complete control over the reproduction of any woman he impregnates. While a woman lacks the ability to control even her own body.

Um, no. There's a reason that every single state, without exception, has rejected this nonsense proposal: its a stupid idea. So stupid that its idiocy transcends politics. With those on the right and the left both recognizing how awful it is. And every state legislature, democrat or republican, rejecting it.

The woman has control. In my view the man has to make it clear, prior to the legal end of the time window for an arbitrary abortion if he intends to support the child or not. If not, this gives time for the woman to make a CHOICE, support the kid herself or have an abortion.

Currently women have total sexual reproductive freedom (pre-third trimester) and men do not. I thought equality was the goal here? If it isn't, then all the nasty stuff said about feminism being about superior rights over equal rights becomes far more significant.

No. You accepted responsibility the moment you chose to have sex.

And a woman has a legal "out" of that responsibility. Why besides the fact they are men, are men denied a similar legal "out"?

Because men don't get pregnant and therefore can't have an abortion.

Abortion is their out. If a man really doesn't want to pay for a baby, he should do what men have been doing since abortion became legal...force his woman into a clinic, where they'll kill that puppy, no questions asked, and no cops called.

And if she refuses..just kill her. It's the progressive way.

 

[Ravi]

Indeed she can. But if she doesn't and he doesn't, then they are both equally responsible. But they do not equally carry the kid. If there is an abortion, they don't equally have the procedure. If there is a problem with the pregnancy, they don't equally undergo treatment. They are not equally at risk. So to make it equal, she gets to make the decisions about the pregnancy. After that, they are equally responsible. If the man doesn't like that arrangement, it is his responsibility to keep it in his pants. Once he pulls it out, he signs on for the whole ride whether he thinks it fair or not.

You are confusing legality and biology. Again, you are placing an undue burden on one gender of the other.

A question, if an ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) ever gets passed, and removes gender from the law, how do you give women these additional rights over men?

And if you want that to be the case, Men have to get some legal benefit as an equalizer, or you are basically admitting legally women are inferior and require additional protections.

No. The same legal burden is on both of them. You just don't think it's fair you don't get an equal say in the biological part of the equation, even though you accept no responsibility in it. She takes all the risks, but you think you should be able to make the decisions. The only thing I am admitting is the woman's body belongs to her and you get no say. Whether you think that is fair is of no consequence.

But only one has the legal ability to remove their responsibility. What I am saying is both should have an EQUAL decision. If a woman wants responsibility for her body, she can have it, but she should also accept the total responsibility of the decision to keep a baby if the male does not want it. The final decision would always be hers.

You want to deny men the same choice just because they are men. That you don't get the sad irony of this is your own problem.

That would not be EQUAL. That would be incredibly UNEQUAL. If a pregnancy goes bad the worst that can happen to the woman is she is dead. The worst that can happen to a man is he collects the insurance money and moves on with his life. Physical damage to the woman from giving birth is normal. Physical damage to the man just doesn't happen. You are ignoring the fact that the man has no skin in the game at all when it comes to the pregnancy, and simply focusing on money. Your position is that because that part doesn't impact you, then it doesn't count. You are wrong. It is all that does count. You don't take the risk so you don't get a say. If you don't think that is fair, I'm told homosexuality is a choice.

All the more reason for women to be more selective of who they sleep with, and how much protection they use. You again keep bringing up biological issues with childbirth, and keep ignoring the main question, why should a woman be able to terminate their responsibility for a fetus unilaterally while a man cannot? We are obviously talking about an unplanned (by at least one party, usually both) pregnancy.

We have spent the past few decades trying to make sex as easy and meaningless as possible. What you want is only one side to be unable to deal with the consequences after the fact, and have that side soley decided by gender. That is discrimination.

While it is a fetus, it is the sole responsibility of the woman. There you have it. Once it is born it becomes the responsibility of both parents.

All the more reason for women to be more selective???????????? LMAO what about men?

 

[PratchettFan]

Indeed she can. But if she doesn't and he doesn't, then they are both equally responsible. But they do not equally carry the kid. If there is an abortion, they don't equally have the procedure. If there is a problem with the pregnancy, they don't equally undergo treatment. They are not equally at risk. So to make it equal, she gets to make the decisions about the pregnancy. After that, they are equally responsible. If the man doesn't like that arrangement, it is his responsibility to keep it in his pants. Once he pulls it out, he signs on for the whole ride whether he thinks it fair or not.

You are confusing legality and biology. Again, you are placing an undue burden on one gender of the other.

A question, if an ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) ever gets passed, and removes gender from the law, how do you give women these additional rights over men?

And if you want that to be the case, Men have to get some legal benefit as an equalizer, or you are basically admitting legally women are inferior and require additional protections.

No. The same legal burden is on both of them. You just don't think it's fair you don't get an equal say in the biological part of the equation, even though you accept no responsibility in it. She takes all the risks, but you think you should be able to make the decisions. The only thing I am admitting is the woman's body belongs to her and you get no say. Whether you think that is fair is of no consequence.

But only one has the legal ability to remove their responsibility. What I am saying is both should have an EQUAL decision. If a woman wants responsibility for her body, she can have it, but she should also accept the total responsibility of the decision to keep a baby if the male does not want it. The final decision would always be hers.

You want to deny men the same choice just because they are men. That you don't get the sad irony of this is your own problem.

That would not be EQUAL. That would be incredibly UNEQUAL. If a pregnancy goes bad the worst that can happen to the woman is she is dead. The worst that can happen to a man is he collects the insurance money and moves on with his life. Physical damage to the woman from giving birth is normal. Physical damage to the man just doesn't happen. You are ignoring the fact that the man has no skin in the game at all when it comes to the pregnancy, and simply focusing on money. Your position is that because that part doesn't impact you, then it doesn't count. You are wrong. It is all that does count. You don't take the risk so you don't get a say. If you don't think that is fair, I'm told homosexuality is a choice.

All the more reason for women to be more selective of who they sleep with, and how much protection they use. You again keep bringing up biological issues with childbirth, and keep ignoring the main question, why should a woman be able to terminate their responsibility for a fetus unilaterally while a man cannot? We are obviously talking about an unplanned (by at least one party, usually both) pregnancy.

We have spent the past few decades trying to make sex as easy and meaningless as possible. What you want is only one side to be unable to deal with the consequences after the fact, and have that side soley decided by gender. That is discrimination.

When it comes to birth, biology is all there is. That is why the man gets no say. He isn't the one carrying the kid. When you change that, then you will have a point. Until then, you have nothing.

 

[martybegan]

You are confusing legality and biology. Again, you are placing an undue burden on one gender of the other.

A question, if an ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) ever gets passed, and removes gender from the law, how do you give women these additional rights over men?

And if you want that to be the case, Men have to get some legal benefit as an equalizer, or you are basically admitting legally women are inferior and require additional protections.

No. The same legal burden is on both of them. You just don't think it's fair you don't get an equal say in the biological part of the equation, even though you accept no responsibility in it. She takes all the risks, but you think you should be able to make the decisions. The only thing I am admitting is the woman's body belongs to her and you get no say. Whether you think that is fair is of no consequence.

But only one has the legal ability to remove their responsibility. What I am saying is both should have an EQUAL decision. If a woman wants responsibility for her body, she can have it, but she should also accept the total responsibility of the decision to keep a baby if the male does not want it. The final decision would always be hers.

You want to deny men the same choice just because they are men. That you don't get the sad irony of this is your own problem.

That would not be EQUAL. That would be incredibly UNEQUAL. If a pregnancy goes bad the worst that can happen to the woman is she is dead. The worst that can happen to a man is he collects the insurance money and moves on with his life. Physical damage to the woman from giving birth is normal. Physical damage to the man just doesn't happen. You are ignoring the fact that the man has no skin in the game at all when it comes to the pregnancy, and simply focusing on money. Your position is that because that part doesn't impact you, then it doesn't count. You are wrong. It is all that does count. You don't take the risk so you don't get a say. If you don't think that is fair, I'm told homosexuality is a choice.

All the more reason for women to be more selective of who they sleep with, and how much protection they use. You again keep bringing up biological issues with childbirth, and keep ignoring the main question, why should a woman be able to terminate their responsibility for a fetus unilaterally while a man cannot? We are obviously talking about an unplanned (by at least one party, usually both) pregnancy.

We have spent the past few decades trying to make sex as easy and meaningless as possible. What you want is only one side to be unable to deal with the consequences after the fact, and have that side soley decided by gender. That is discrimination.

While it is a fetus, it is the sole responsibility of the woman. There you have it. Once it is born it becomes the responsibility of both parents.

All the more reason for women to be more selective???????????? LMAO what about men?

But a woman can decide to let it stop at being a fetus without input from the man, who's 1/2 owner of it. Why can't a man, with proper notification to the woman prior to the end of the 2nd trimester, (or even 1st) inform her of his desire not to have a child, sever his responsibility, and then leave the woman with an informed choice to keep it on her own, or abort?

 

[martybegan]

You are confusing legality and biology. Again, you are placing an undue burden on one gender of the other.

A question, if an ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) ever gets passed, and removes gender from the law, how do you give women these additional rights over men?

And if you want that to be the case, Men have to get some legal benefit as an equalizer, or you are basically admitting legally women are inferior and require additional protections.

No. The same legal burden is on both of them. You just don't think it's fair you don't get an equal say in the biological part of the equation, even though you accept no responsibility in it. She takes all the risks, but you think you should be able to make the decisions. The only thing I am admitting is the woman's body belongs to her and you get no say. Whether you think that is fair is of no consequence.

But only one has the legal ability to remove their responsibility. What I am saying is both should have an EQUAL decision. If a woman wants responsibility for her body, she can have it, but she should also accept the total responsibility of the decision to keep a baby if the male does not want it. The final decision would always be hers.

You want to deny men the same choice just because they are men. That you don't get the sad irony of this is your own problem.

That would not be EQUAL. That would be incredibly UNEQUAL. If a pregnancy goes bad the worst that can happen to the woman is she is dead. The worst that can happen to a man is he collects the insurance money and moves on with his life. Physical damage to the woman from giving birth is normal. Physical damage to the man just doesn't happen. You are ignoring the fact that the man has no skin in the game at all when it comes to the pregnancy, and simply focusing on money. Your position is that because that part doesn't impact you, then it doesn't count. You are wrong. It is all that does count. You don't take the risk so you don't get a say. If you don't think that is fair, I'm told homosexuality is a choice.

All the more reason for women to be more selective of who they sleep with, and how much protection they use. You again keep bringing up biological issues with childbirth, and keep ignoring the main question, why should a woman be able to terminate their responsibility for a fetus unilaterally while a man cannot? We are obviously talking about an unplanned (by at least one party, usually both) pregnancy.

We have spent the past few decades trying to make sex as easy and meaningless as possible. What you want is only one side to be unable to deal with the consequences after the fact, and have that side soley decided by gender. That is discrimination.

When it comes to birth, biology is all there is. That is why the man gets no say. He isn't the one carrying the kid. When you change that, then you will have a point. Until then, you have nothing.

You are the one with no legal point. All you can do is appeal to biology and emotion, and not give a single credible reason why a man, when he properly notifies a woman in time for a legal abortion, should be held responsible for a child he doesn't want. If a woman can get rid of one they don't want, the man should have the same option. Fair is Fair.

 

[Ravi]

No. The same legal burden is on both of them. You just don't think it's fair you don't get an equal say in the biological part of the equation, even though you accept no responsibility in it. She takes all the risks, but you think you should be able to make the decisions. The only thing I am admitting is the woman's body belongs to her and you get no say. Whether you think that is fair is of no consequence.

But only one has the legal ability to remove their responsibility. What I am saying is both should have an EQUAL decision. If a woman wants responsibility for her body, she can have it, but she should also accept the total responsibility of the decision to keep a baby if the male does not want it. The final decision would always be hers.

You want to deny men the same choice just because they are men. That you don't get the sad irony of this is your own problem.

That would not be EQUAL. That would be incredibly UNEQUAL. If a pregnancy goes bad the worst that can happen to the woman is she is dead. The worst that can happen to a man is he collects the insurance money and moves on with his life. Physical damage to the woman from giving birth is normal. Physical damage to the man just doesn't happen. You are ignoring the fact that the man has no skin in the game at all when it comes to the pregnancy, and simply focusing on money. Your position is that because that part doesn't impact you, then it doesn't count. You are wrong. It is all that does count. You don't take the risk so you don't get a say. If you don't think that is fair, I'm told homosexuality is a choice.

All the more reason for women to be more selective of who they sleep with, and how much protection they use. You again keep bringing up biological issues with childbirth, and keep ignoring the main question, why should a woman be able to terminate their responsibility for a fetus unilaterally while a man cannot? We are obviously talking about an unplanned (by at least one party, usually both) pregnancy.

We have spent the past few decades trying to make sex as easy and meaningless as possible. What you want is only one side to be unable to deal with the consequences after the fact, and have that side soley decided by gender. That is discrimination.

While it is a fetus, it is the sole responsibility of the woman. There you have it. Once it is born it becomes the responsibility of both parents.

All the more reason for women to be more selective???????????? LMAO what about men?

But a woman can decide to let it stop at being a fetus without input from the man, who's 1/2 owner of it. Why can't a man, with proper notification to the woman prior to the end of the 2nd trimester, (or even 1st) inform her of his desire not to have a child, sever his responsibility, and then leave the woman with an informed choice to keep it on her own, or abort?

I think a signed contract is in order BEFORE sex. Then everything is spelled out clearly and no one gets to weasel out.

 

[dilloduck]

No. The same legal burden is on both of them. You just don't think it's fair you don't get an equal say in the biological part of the equation, even though you accept no responsibility in it. She takes all the risks, but you think you should be able to make the decisions. The only thing I am admitting is the woman's body belongs to her and you get no say. Whether you think that is fair is of no consequence.

But only one has the legal ability to remove their responsibility. What I am saying is both should have an EQUAL decision. If a woman wants responsibility for her body, she can have it, but she should also accept the total responsibility of the decision to keep a baby if the male does not want it. The final decision would always be hers.

You want to deny men the same choice just because they are men. That you don't get the sad irony of this is your own problem.

That would not be EQUAL. That would be incredibly UNEQUAL. If a pregnancy goes bad the worst that can happen to the woman is she is dead. The worst that can happen to a man is he collects the insurance money and moves on with his life. Physical damage to the woman from giving birth is normal. Physical damage to the man just doesn't happen. You are ignoring the fact that the man has no skin in the game at all when it comes to the pregnancy, and simply focusing on money. Your position is that because that part doesn't impact you, then it doesn't count. You are wrong. It is all that does count. You don't take the risk so you don't get a say. If you don't think that is fair, I'm told homosexuality is a choice.

All the more reason for women to be more selective of who they sleep with, and how much protection they use. You again keep bringing up biological issues with childbirth, and keep ignoring the main question, why should a woman be able to terminate their responsibility for a fetus unilaterally while a man cannot? We are obviously talking about an unplanned (by at least one party, usually both) pregnancy.

We have spent the past few decades trying to make sex as easy and meaningless as possible. What you want is only one side to be unable to deal with the consequences after the fact, and have that side soley decided by gender. That is discrimination.

When it comes to birth, biology is all there is. That is why the man gets no say. He isn't the one carrying the kid. When you change that, then you will have a point. Until then, you have nothing.

You are the one with no legal point. All you can do is appeal to biology and emotion, and not give a single credible reason why a man, when he properly notifies a woman in time for a legal abortion, should be held responsible for a child he doesn't want. If a woman can get rid of one they don't want, the man should have the same option. Fair is Fair.

problem is that pro choicers think the fetus is part of a woman's body ( depending on what is being argued of course )

 

[martybegan]

But only one has the legal ability to remove their responsibility. What I am saying is both should have an EQUAL decision. If a woman wants responsibility for her body, she can have it, but she should also accept the total responsibility of the decision to keep a baby if the male does not want it. The final decision would always be hers.

You want to deny men the same choice just because they are men. That you don't get the sad irony of this is your own problem.

That would not be EQUAL. That would be incredibly UNEQUAL. If a pregnancy goes bad the worst that can happen to the woman is she is dead. The worst that can happen to a man is he collects the insurance money and moves on with his life. Physical damage to the woman from giving birth is normal. Physical damage to the man just doesn't happen. You are ignoring the fact that the man has no skin in the game at all when it comes to the pregnancy, and simply focusing on money. Your position is that because that part doesn't impact you, then it doesn't count. You are wrong. It is all that does count. You don't take the risk so you don't get a say. If you don't think that is fair, I'm told homosexuality is a choice.

All the more reason for women to be more selective of who they sleep with, and how much protection they use. You again keep bringing up biological issues with childbirth, and keep ignoring the main question, why should a woman be able to terminate their responsibility for a fetus unilaterally while a man cannot? We are obviously talking about an unplanned (by at least one party, usually both) pregnancy.

We have spent the past few decades trying to make sex as easy and meaningless as possible. What you want is only one side to be unable to deal with the consequences after the fact, and have that side soley decided by gender. That is discrimination.

While it is a fetus, it is the sole responsibility of the woman. There you have it. Once it is born it becomes the responsibility of both parents.

All the more reason for women to be more selective???????????? LMAO what about men?

But a woman can decide to let it stop at being a fetus without input from the man, who's 1/2 owner of it. Why can't a man, with proper notification to the woman prior to the end of the 2nd trimester, (or even 1st) inform her of his desire not to have a child, sever his responsibility, and then leave the woman with an informed choice to keep it on her own, or abort?

I think a signed contract is in order BEFORE sex. Then everything is spelled out clearly and no one gets to weasel out.

That would actually clarify things immeasurably, but would probably not hold up in court in our current legal environment if the woman ends up on the dole. At that point the state comes after the man to pay up, and ironically (and probably somewhat confusingly) I am OK with that as well.

 

[Skylar]

Then a woman should have no right to force a man to pay for a kid she want's to keep, and he doesn't. With great power comes great responsibility.

Nope. And if you don't think that is fair, then talk to the person who came up with the division of labor on making babies. You don't want the responsibility, then get snipped or keep it in your pants. But don't pretend that how babies are born is an equal thing between men and women. It isn't and the women don't get to make you carry it half way because it's not fair. The man gets no say, and that's just too bad.

Or the woman can simply keep her legs crossed. Problem solved. For some reason you think women are somehow unable to control their sexuality, but men somehow can.

You keep saying that- but what we keep saying is that both men and women are equally responsible.

When having sex- both are equally responsible deciding whether to have sex and whether to use protection- both are equally responsible for the consequences of those decisions(pregnancy/std's)
After having sex- both are responsible for their own bodies- uniquely only the woman can get pregnant- so we either allow a woman to control her body- or we do not allow it. She is responsible for whatever decisions she makes with her body though.
After a baby is born- both are responsible for the baby.

Exactly. What Marty and others are arguing for is unequal responsibility. Where a woman is responsible for every child she bears. But a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

Or, even more laughably....that a man has control over his own body AND that of a woman. While a woman has no control over a man's body, nor her own.

Neither of these situations is 'equal'. Both are comically unequal. The former proposal overwhelmilngly encouraging abortion by dramatically reducing the resources available for raising a child. The latter making women into mere meat puppets controlled by men. Where a man has complete control over the reproduction of any woman he impregnates. While a woman lacks the ability to control even her own body.

Um, no. There's a reason that every single state, without exception, has rejected this nonsense proposal: its a stupid idea. So stupid that its idiocy transcends politics. With those on the right and the left both recognizing how awful it is. And every state legislature, democrat or republican, rejecting it.

The woman has control.

Over her own body? Absolutely. Just as the man has control over his. They each have equal authority over their own bodies. What they don't have is authority over each other's body. Nor should they. Your premise of 'control' is that if a man can't control a woman's body, he shouldn't be responsible for any child he fathers.

Um, nope. That's nonsense. As its based on unequal control of one's body and unequal obligation. While our current system is based on equal control of one's body and equal obligation.

In my view the man has to make it clear, prior to the legal end of the time window for an arbitrary abortion if he intends to support the child or not. If not, this gives time for the woman to make a CHOICE, support the kid herself or have an abortion.

And your view is wrong. As his obligation isn't based on his power or his choice. But on the child's existence. If the child exists, his obligation exists. If he didn't get a say in whether the child was born, his obligation still exists if the child exists. If he didn't have the power to stop the child from being born, the child still exists and his obligation exists.

Power, choice, etc. are spectacularly irrelevant in terms of financial responsibility. And a man's lack of them have no bearing on his responsibility.

The child's existence does. Your argument fails on the basis of control of one's body, unequal obligation, and a false basis of obligation. There's a reason that 50 of 50 States reject your reasoning.

 

[martybegan]

But only one has the legal ability to remove their responsibility. What I am saying is both should have an EQUAL decision. If a woman wants responsibility for her body, she can have it, but she should also accept the total responsibility of the decision to keep a baby if the male does not want it. The final decision would always be hers.

You want to deny men the same choice just because they are men. That you don't get the sad irony of this is your own problem.

That would not be EQUAL. That would be incredibly UNEQUAL. If a pregnancy goes bad the worst that can happen to the woman is she is dead. The worst that can happen to a man is he collects the insurance money and moves on with his life. Physical damage to the woman from giving birth is normal. Physical damage to the man just doesn't happen. You are ignoring the fact that the man has no skin in the game at all when it comes to the pregnancy, and simply focusing on money. Your position is that because that part doesn't impact you, then it doesn't count. You are wrong. It is all that does count. You don't take the risk so you don't get a say. If you don't think that is fair, I'm told homosexuality is a choice.

All the more reason for women to be more selective of who they sleep with, and how much protection they use. You again keep bringing up biological issues with childbirth, and keep ignoring the main question, why should a woman be able to terminate their responsibility for a fetus unilaterally while a man cannot? We are obviously talking about an unplanned (by at least one party, usually both) pregnancy.

We have spent the past few decades trying to make sex as easy and meaningless as possible. What you want is only one side to be unable to deal with the consequences after the fact, and have that side soley decided by gender. That is discrimination.

When it comes to birth, biology is all there is. That is why the man gets no say. He isn't the one carrying the kid. When you change that, then you will have a point. Until then, you have nothing.

You are the one with no legal point. All you can do is appeal to biology and emotion, and not give a single credible reason why a man, when he properly notifies a woman in time for a legal abortion, should be held responsible for a child he doesn't want. If a woman can get rid of one they don't want, the man should have the same option. Fair is Fair.

problem is that pro choicers think the fetus is part of a woman's body ( depending on what is being argued of course )

They can still believe that, what they can't go and say (in the concept of equality between the sexes) is that only women can decide if they want to keep the kid or support the kid or not. Either both sides should have the choice, or none should have the choice.

 

[Skylar]

That would not be EQUAL. That would be incredibly UNEQUAL. If a pregnancy goes bad the worst that can happen to the woman is she is dead. The worst that can happen to a man is he collects the insurance money and moves on with his life. Physical damage to the woman from giving birth is normal. Physical damage to the man just doesn't happen. You are ignoring the fact that the man has no skin in the game at all when it comes to the pregnancy, and simply focusing on money. Your position is that because that part doesn't impact you, then it doesn't count. You are wrong. It is all that does count. You don't take the risk so you don't get a say. If you don't think that is fair, I'm told homosexuality is a choice.

All the more reason for women to be more selective of who they sleep with, and how much protection they use. You again keep bringing up biological issues with childbirth, and keep ignoring the main question, why should a woman be able to terminate their responsibility for a fetus unilaterally while a man cannot? We are obviously talking about an unplanned (by at least one party, usually both) pregnancy.

We have spent the past few decades trying to make sex as easy and meaningless as possible. What you want is only one side to be unable to deal with the consequences after the fact, and have that side soley decided by gender. That is discrimination.

While it is a fetus, it is the sole responsibility of the woman. There you have it. Once it is born it becomes the responsibility of both parents.

All the more reason for women to be more selective???????????? LMAO what about men?

But a woman can decide to let it stop at being a fetus without input from the man, who's 1/2 owner of it. Why can't a man, with proper notification to the woman prior to the end of the 2nd trimester, (or even 1st) inform her of his desire not to have a child, sever his responsibility, and then leave the woman with an informed choice to keep it on her own, or abort?

I think a signed contract is in order BEFORE sex. Then everything is spelled out clearly and no one gets to weasel out.

That would actually clarify things immeasurably, but would probably not hold up in court in our current legal environment if the woman ends up on the dole. At that point the state comes after the man to pay up, and ironically (and probably somewhat confusingly) I am OK with that as well.

Nope. Because you're still working under the assumption that a man's personal choice and personal power are the basis of his obligation to pay for his child.

They're not. The child's existence is the basis. His obligation is to the child. Not to the mother. Thus, any contract made by the mother and father would be moot. As the party with the right to support didn't sign it.

 

[Skylar]

That would not be EQUAL. That would be incredibly UNEQUAL. If a pregnancy goes bad the worst that can happen to the woman is she is dead. The worst that can happen to a man is he collects the insurance money and moves on with his life. Physical damage to the woman from giving birth is normal. Physical damage to the man just doesn't happen. You are ignoring the fact that the man has no skin in the game at all when it comes to the pregnancy, and simply focusing on money. Your position is that because that part doesn't impact you, then it doesn't count. You are wrong. It is all that does count. You don't take the risk so you don't get a say. If you don't think that is fair, I'm told homosexuality is a choice.

All the more reason for women to be more selective of who they sleep with, and how much protection they use. You again keep bringing up biological issues with childbirth, and keep ignoring the main question, why should a woman be able to terminate their responsibility for a fetus unilaterally while a man cannot? We are obviously talking about an unplanned (by at least one party, usually both) pregnancy.

We have spent the past few decades trying to make sex as easy and meaningless as possible. What you want is only one side to be unable to deal with the consequences after the fact, and have that side soley decided by gender. That is discrimination.

When it comes to birth, biology is all there is. That is why the man gets no say. He isn't the one carrying the kid. When you change that, then you will have a point. Until then, you have nothing.

You are the one with no legal point. All you can do is appeal to biology and emotion, and not give a single credible reason why a man, when he properly notifies a woman in time for a legal abortion, should be held responsible for a child he doesn't want. If a woman can get rid of one they don't want, the man should have the same option. Fair is Fair.

problem is that pro choicers think the fetus is part of a woman's body ( depending on what is being argued of course )

They can still believe that, what they can't go and say (in the concept of equality between the sexes) is that only women can decide if they want to keep the kid or support the kid or not. Either both sides should have the choice, or none should have the choice.

Its a pretty simple concept. A man and a woman each have control over their own bodies. What you 'can't believe' is that a man doesn't have control over a woman's body. Well, believe it. She doesn't have control over his either. The 'fair' scenario you describe is a man having control over his own body AND having control over a woman's body. While a woman has neither control over a man's body, nor control over her own.

This is you call 'equal'.

Um, that's not equal.

 

[martybegan]

Nope. And if you don't think that is fair, then talk to the person who came up with the division of labor on making babies. You don't want the responsibility, then get snipped or keep it in your pants. But don't pretend that how babies are born is an equal thing between men and women. It isn't and the women don't get to make you carry it half way because it's not fair. The man gets no say, and that's just too bad.

Or the woman can simply keep her legs crossed. Problem solved. For some reason you think women are somehow unable to control their sexuality, but men somehow can.

You keep saying that- but what we keep saying is that both men and women are equally responsible.

When having sex- both are equally responsible deciding whether to have sex and whether to use protection- both are equally responsible for the consequences of those decisions(pregnancy/std's)
After having sex- both are responsible for their own bodies- uniquely only the woman can get pregnant- so we either allow a woman to control her body- or we do not allow it. She is responsible for whatever decisions she makes with her body though.
After a baby is born- both are responsible for the baby.

Exactly. What Marty and others are arguing for is unequal responsibility. Where a woman is responsible for every child she bears. But a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

Or, even more laughably....that a man has control over his own body AND that of a woman. While a woman has no control over a man's body, nor her own.

Neither of these situations is 'equal'. Both are comically unequal. The former proposal overwhelmilngly encouraging abortion by dramatically reducing the resources available for raising a child. The latter making women into mere meat puppets controlled by men. Where a man has complete control over the reproduction of any woman he impregnates. While a woman lacks the ability to control even her own body.

Um, no. There's a reason that every single state, without exception, has rejected this nonsense proposal: its a stupid idea. So stupid that its idiocy transcends politics. With those on the right and the left both recognizing how awful it is. And every state legislature, democrat or republican, rejecting it.

The woman has control.

Over her own body? Absolutely. Just as the man has control over his. They each have equal authority over their own bodies. What they don't have is authority over each other's body. Nor should they. Your premise of 'control' is that if a man can't control a woman's body, he shouldn't be responsible for any child he fathers.

Um, nope. That's nonsense. As its based on unequal control of one's body and unequal obligation. While our current system is based on equal control of one's body and equal obligation.

In my view the man has to make it clear, prior to the legal end of the time window for an arbitrary abortion if he intends to support the child or not. If not, this gives time for the woman to make a CHOICE, support the kid herself or have an abortion.

And your view is wrong. As his obligation isn't based on his power or his choice. But on the child's existence. If the child exists, his obligation exists. If he didn't get a say in whether the child was born, his obligation still exists if the child exists. If he didn't have the power to stop the child from being born, the child still exists and his obligation exists.

Power, choice, etc. are spectacularly irrelevant in terms of financial responsibility. And a man's lack of them have no bearing on his responsibility.

The child's existence does. Your argument fails on the basis of control of one's body, unequal obligation, and a false basis of obligation. There's a reason that 50 of 50 States reject your reasoning.

Again, how is it equal of only one side has an unimpeded choice? So you are saying the man is initially responsible, then loses all responsibility and authority for 9 months, and then suddenly becomes responsible again?

If the woman knows ahead of time the man wants nothing to do with a child, then its 100% on the woman to either support it, or abort it. Its the only logical conclusion you can reach if you want the inviolability of a womans right to choose coupled with equality among the sexes.

Pass an ERA and all of those states would then have to change their tune. Men couldn't obviously have a physical abortion, but remove gender from any accounting of the argument, and legal abortions would have to be allowed under equal protection.

 

[martybegan]

All the more reason for women to be more selective of who they sleep with, and how much protection they use. You again keep bringing up biological issues with childbirth, and keep ignoring the main question, why should a woman be able to terminate their responsibility for a fetus unilaterally while a man cannot? We are obviously talking about an unplanned (by at least one party, usually both) pregnancy.

We have spent the past few decades trying to make sex as easy and meaningless as possible. What you want is only one side to be unable to deal with the consequences after the fact, and have that side soley decided by gender. That is discrimination.

When it comes to birth, biology is all there is. That is why the man gets no say. He isn't the one carrying the kid. When you change that, then you will have a point. Until then, you have nothing.

You are the one with no legal point. All you can do is appeal to biology and emotion, and not give a single credible reason why a man, when he properly notifies a woman in time for a legal abortion, should be held responsible for a child he doesn't want. If a woman can get rid of one they don't want, the man should have the same option. Fair is Fair.

problem is that pro choicers think the fetus is part of a woman's body ( depending on what is being argued of course )

They can still believe that, what they can't go and say (in the concept of equality between the sexes) is that only women can decide if they want to keep the kid or support the kid or not. Either both sides should have the choice, or none should have the choice.

Its a pretty simple concept. A man and a woman each have control over their own bodies. What you 'can't believe' is that a man doesn't have control over a woman's body. Well, believe it. She doesn't have control over his either. The 'fair' scenario you describe is a man having control over his own body AND having control over a woman's body. While a woman has neither control over a man's body, nor control over her own.

This is you call 'equal'.

Um, that's not equal.

he has no control over her body whatsoever. He cannot make her have an abortion, nor make her carry to term. What he should have the right to do is inform her of his desire to not have the child. Then its her Choice to take care of it herself or abort it. The man's choice has only the impact of informing her that he will not be there to support any child.

 

[dilloduck]

When it comes to birth, biology is all there is. That is why the man gets no say. He isn't the one carrying the kid. When you change that, then you will have a point. Until then, you have nothing.

You are the one with no legal point. All you can do is appeal to biology and emotion, and not give a single credible reason why a man, when he properly notifies a woman in time for a legal abortion, should be held responsible for a child he doesn't want. If a woman can get rid of one they don't want, the man should have the same option. Fair is Fair.

problem is that pro choicers think the fetus is part of a woman's body ( depending on what is being argued of course )

They can still believe that, what they can't go and say (in the concept of equality between the sexes) is that only women can decide if they want to keep the kid or support the kid or not. Either both sides should have the choice, or none should have the choice.

Its a pretty simple concept. A man and a woman each have control over their own bodies. What you 'can't believe' is that a man doesn't have control over a woman's body. Well, believe it. She doesn't have control over his either. The 'fair' scenario you describe is a man having control over his own body AND having control over a woman's body. While a woman has neither control over a man's body, nor control over her own.

This is you call 'equal'.

Um, that's not equal.

he has no control over her body whatsoever. He cannot make her have an abortion, nor make her carry to term. What he should have the right to do is inform her of his desire to not have the child. Then its her Choice to take care of it herself or abort it. The man's choice has only the impact of informing her that he will not be there to support any child.

Women want the power over men. They have no interest in being equal in this regard.

 

[martybegan]

You are the one with no legal point. All you can do is appeal to biology and emotion, and not give a single credible reason why a man, when he properly notifies a woman in time for a legal abortion, should be held responsible for a child he doesn't want. If a woman can get rid of one they don't want, the man should have the same option. Fair is Fair.

problem is that pro choicers think the fetus is part of a woman's body ( depending on what is being argued of course )

They can still believe that, what they can't go and say (in the concept of equality between the sexes) is that only women can decide if they want to keep the kid or support the kid or not. Either both sides should have the choice, or none should have the choice.

Its a pretty simple concept. A man and a woman each have control over their own bodies. What you 'can't believe' is that a man doesn't have control over a woman's body. Well, believe it. She doesn't have control over his either. The 'fair' scenario you describe is a man having control over his own body AND having control over a woman's body. While a woman has neither control over a man's body, nor control over her own.

This is you call 'equal'.

Um, that's not equal.

he has no control over her body whatsoever. He cannot make her have an abortion, nor make her carry to term. What he should have the right to do is inform her of his desire to not have the child. Then its her Choice to take care of it herself or abort it. The man's choice has only the impact of informing her that he will not be there to support any child.

Women want the power over men. They have no interest in being equal in this regard.

I know this concept has not a snowball's chance in hell in the current legal system. Pass a ERA though, and all bets are off unless this is specifically excluded.

The problem is that now that the State is involved in raising and paying for kids born out of nothing but laziness and lack of preparedness (on both sides), the State will get its dime, regardless of whats fair.

 

[Skylar]

Or the woman can simply keep her legs crossed. Problem solved. For some reason you think women are somehow unable to control their sexuality, but men somehow can.

You keep saying that- but what we keep saying is that both men and women are equally responsible.

When having sex- both are equally responsible deciding whether to have sex and whether to use protection- both are equally responsible for the consequences of those decisions(pregnancy/std's)
After having sex- both are responsible for their own bodies- uniquely only the woman can get pregnant- so we either allow a woman to control her body- or we do not allow it. She is responsible for whatever decisions she makes with her body though.
After a baby is born- both are responsible for the baby.

Exactly. What Marty and others are arguing for is unequal responsibility. Where a woman is responsible for every child she bears. But a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

Or, even more laughably....that a man has control over his own body AND that of a woman. While a woman has no control over a man's body, nor her own.

Neither of these situations is 'equal'. Both are comically unequal. The former proposal overwhelmilngly encouraging abortion by dramatically reducing the resources available for raising a child. The latter making women into mere meat puppets controlled by men. Where a man has complete control over the reproduction of any woman he impregnates. While a woman lacks the ability to control even her own body.

Um, no. There's a reason that every single state, without exception, has rejected this nonsense proposal: its a stupid idea. So stupid that its idiocy transcends politics. With those on the right and the left both recognizing how awful it is. And every state legislature, democrat or republican, rejecting it.

The woman has control.

Over her own body? Absolutely. Just as the man has control over his. They each have equal authority over their own bodies. What they don't have is authority over each other's body. Nor should they. Your premise of 'control' is that if a man can't control a woman's body, he shouldn't be responsible for any child he fathers.

Um, nope. That's nonsense. As its based on unequal control of one's body and unequal obligation. While our current system is based on equal control of one's body and equal obligation.

In my view the man has to make it clear, prior to the legal end of the time window for an arbitrary abortion if he intends to support the child or not. If not, this gives time for the woman to make a CHOICE, support the kid herself or have an abortion.

And your view is wrong. As his obligation isn't based on his power or his choice. But on the child's existence. If the child exists, his obligation exists. If he didn't get a say in whether the child was born, his obligation still exists if the child exists. If he didn't have the power to stop the child from being born, the child still exists and his obligation exists.

Power, choice, etc. are spectacularly irrelevant in terms of financial responsibility. And a man's lack of them have no bearing on his responsibility.

The child's existence does. Your argument fails on the basis of control of one's body, unequal obligation, and a false basis of obligation. There's a reason that 50 of 50 States reject your reasoning.

Again, how is it equal of only one side has an unimpeded choice?

They both have unimpeded choice. The man over his own body. The woman over hers. If a man wants to choose whether or not he's going to carry a fetus to term, he should get pregnant. As that's the only power a woman possesses in the situation; over her own body.

you are saying the man is initially responsible, then loses all responsibility and authority for 9 months, and then suddenly becomes responsible again?

No you're saying that. I'm saying that a man is financially responsible for any child he fathers from the moment that child is born.

Its remarkably simple. And perfectly reasonable.

If the woman knows ahead of time the man wants nothing to do with a child, then its 100% on the woman to either support it, or abort it. Its the only logical conclusion you can reach if you want the inviolability of a womans right to choose coupled with equality among the sexes.

Save that a man wanting nothing to do with a child has nothing to do with his financial responsibility. You're premise is the same faulty nonsense you've been arguing from the beginning: that a man's obligation is based on his choice and power.

It isn't. His obligation to pay is based on the child's existence. If the child exists, his obligation exists. If he wants the child is irrelevant. If he doesn't want the child is irrelevant. Thus, the basis you claim a man should be absolved of financial responsibility is gloriously irrelevant to that responsibility. Nor has the slightest impact on it.

You're wrong about 3 times. First in unequal obligation. Second, in unequal control over one's own body. Third, in your fallacious basis of obligation. Logic simply has nothing to do with your claims.