But what of the many married couples who do not want children ever (for any one of many reasons)? Should they have to be celibate for life?
I think in this society we need to strike a balance between those that think of sex as a totally spiritual thing and a mere appetite. In a healthy marriage (or any other relationship) it is usually somewhere in between.
Surgical sterilization is an option of course, but that is not foolproof! My dear husband has a work associate who did just that and now has a child. (Yes, they tested for paternity and it is his!) They did not want kids because of a genetic problem of theirs. Luckily, the child is okay. And they did not want to abort- they just wanted not to conceive in the first place.
MaryAnnQ, your story made me go though a half box of tissues. I admire your strength and love for your son. For what it’s worth, my thoughts and prayers are with you. What a woman!
PR (still pregnant…and the air conditioning is on the fritz till Tuesday! Yikes!!)
We went all through this on the old board a few months ago, and I should KNOW better than to jump in again. ::sigh::
There’s an old saying about how you gotta pay the piper if you wanna call the tune. You wanna have sex? Great, but be prepared to pay the consequences, even if they aren’t what you wanted. That’s what being grownup is all about. That’s what accepting responsibility is all about.
Y’know, the REASON that sex is such a strong drive is because of babies.
Once you’ve had sex with someone, and made a baby, you’ve got consequences to deal with. Mom didn’t make that baby all by herself, y’know? Biology being what it is she’s the one who decides whether to have the baby or abort it. If a man doesn’t like that idea, that’s kinda tough. Life is tough, and life is full of consequences of our actions – or the actions of others around us that affect us – that we have to deal with, whether we like them or not, and whether we would have chosen them or not.
I have very little use for any man who fathers a child and doesn’t live up to that responsibility, and no, I have no personal experience with that. Well, except I’ve thrown a deadbeat dad or two out of my office when he’s come to see if there’s some legal loophole out of paying now that he’s been caught and is years behind in support.
Grow up, people. Think of someone other than yourselves. The whole concept proposed – being able to walk away without accepting any responsibility – is selfish and immature. It’s a reflection of the “Me” generation, and it is both disappointing and repulsive to think that someone would even make the argument.
-Melin
I’m a woman phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That’s me
(Maya Angelou)
Thank you all for your support. I’m doing ok. I so glad that my family was there for me. My mom babysat while I went back to school and still babysits while I work. They let me move back home until I’m on my feet again. because of bills that he stuck me with (the bill collectors don’t know where he is so they bug me), it took a long time. I’m happy to say that i will be out soon. I console myself with the fact that i don’t live there for free (I pay rent, utilities, babysitting, etc.).
I’m lucky, too in that his family is on my side. I see a lot of them because my sister married his brother (he’s the total opposite of my ex). They find out his job/paying support status and report him.
Sorry that i went on like that. I guess that I wanted to see in writing that things are looking up for me!
MaryAnn
Sometimes life is so great you just gotta muss up your hair and quack like a duck!
Actually, the concept being discussed is more mature than our culture’s current take on reproductive rights. What’s culturally immature is dragging out an old saw about paying the piper when faced with a new question.
When two people willingly engage in safe sex and one accidentally gets pregnant, the pregnant one is the only one with choices. This is the inequity that Stoidela is attempting to address.
Obviously, what we need is the most effective birth control device ever concieved: a four-part no-carbon-required form completed, signed by both parties, witnessed, notarized and on file in the district courthouse prior to the unlocking of either chastity belt.
I will never support abortion. I think it is the most cruel, coldest “choice” to make, and to me is the most disgusting form of murder on such a helpless human. If a woman does not want the baby, adoption is the best answer, I say this because I am adopted, I was placed in a good home with loving parents. My biological mother knew she could not properly care for me, and gave me away to a couple that could not make children of their own. I got to go to school, make friends, grow up and get married, and now I have a baby son of my own. I never would have had this chance if some young girl made the “choice” to abort me. I still do not know who my biological parents are, but they gave me the greatest gift of all… life.
A woman cannot force a man to be a father, she can only make him pay for child support. There is not a thing wrong with that, if you are willing to have sex, you are also willing to take responsibility for anything resulting from sex. Kind of like robbing a bank, you are willing to face the consequence of prison for that, which is why most of us are not bank robbers. Sure, sex feels great, but it was never intended as a form of entertainment, humans made it that way. Its true function is to procreate, and nothing more, so dont be suprised if pregnancy is a result. The only time I would think it is unfair for the man is if the woman (assuming she is some conniving trash, looking for an easy life) intentionally tried to get pregnant by him, say by means of drugs, so as to collect a check from some poor guy. (that goes both ways)
I feel that fertilized egg is entitled to the same consideration as a near-term baby. I hardly think that because I, at one point in my development, did not resembled the person that I am now, that I was eligible to be killed. There are plenty of circumstances to cause unintended abortions, without looking for more to make our lives more convenient. I understand that you see an inconsistency in my opinion in cases of rape. It is my opinion, though, that the woman did not make the choice to have sex in that case, and therefore should not bear the consequences unless she is willing. It goes without saying that the father is not likely to provide for his child.
Yes, I will agree that the sex drive is one of our most powerful and basic instincts. But the control over our basic instincts is what sets us apart from other beasts. If you can control yourself from having sex on the floor in a busy supermarket, you should be able to further control yorself, enough to think about the fact that sex means babies.
I don’t really disagree with your basic premise, that things are not equal for both sexes in the determination of what happens to the results of a sexual encounter. What you propose may indeed be a fine idea. But there are enough babies born now to people who know to use protection, but don’t because they just can’t be in control of themselves. I hardly think that these people will take the time to fill out a form to indicate their preferences before jumping in the sack.
Men have less choices? Then let them take more care. Why is it the woman who seems any more to be the one to carry the condoms? Why can’t these men act like men, and take responsibility for their own action, or inaction?
The only ones I feel sorry for in these cases are the unwanted children. I know, that could be turned against my arguments concerning abortion. But I hardly feel that we are competent to guess which unwanted child is going to be a valuable addition to society, and which is not.
Prairie Rose;
Married people? What are you talking about? The question was if a man fathers a child he doesn’t want, should there be a legal means for him to abandon all respnsibility for it. Are you suggesting that this be permitted within the context of marriage? “Well OK, Honey, I’ll feed the first two but you’re on your own with this third one”.
Many people on this thread have mentioned the scenario wherein the man is manipulated somehow by the woman and tricked into becoming a father. Lying and manipulating people is reprehensible, but people do it. This is a good reason to be VERY CAREFUL about who you decide to jump in the sack with.
We all make our choices. The consequenses of bad choices most often really suck. Because of this, it is good policy to think things through before you take action. If you are not ready to live up to the possible consequences, don’t do it.
Sometimes I get so fed up with our society. If people would put half the effort into fulfilling their responsibilities as they do into trying to avoid them we wouldn’t have these problems.
“I think it would be a great idea” Mohandas Ghandi’s answer when asked what he thought of Western civilization
Nor would you ever know you hadn’t, because you would never have existed, so there’s really no comparison, so who cares?
Melin:
Again, who cares what is and isn’t “acceptable” where you come from? It happens. Susan Smith ring any bells for you? Hell, we don’t even need to get that drastic–I can point to my sister, who at one point signed over custody of her 7-year-old son to his father, so she could leave town with no responsibilities with her drug-dealing boyfriend. It happens. Women are not made perfect through the process of pregnancy, and I’ve seen you post long enough, Melin, to know that you know that.
Jvanhorn:
So, following your thought through to its logical implications, you are willing to state that you favor life imprisonment or execution both for mothers who have abortions and doctors who perform them? (I would assume an abortion would be considered first degree murder.)
Melin:
I assume you are equally hostile towards deadbeat moms?
I think there are moral middle grounds predicated around the idea that we as modern humans are capable of controlling our reproductive activities and that it is immoral to force one to assume the mantle of parenthood against his orher wishes. To state that men must either abstain from sex or be made parents against their wishes is silly. Reproductive choice and freedom is either available to all, or it is not a right.
The day I see discussion of the emotional scars on the male when the female opts for an abortion is the day I’ll seriously consider this as an argument.
We all hear about how traumatic a decision it is for the female, and I don’t dispute that. But, just as the male gets screwed out of any real input into the decision-making process, he also gets completely shoved to the side when the discussion turns to how painful the decision was. Think of all the times you’ve heard this topic discussed, and tell me if you’ve ever once heard the male side of the story - except, of course, for the typical male-bashing, stereotypical, “Yo, man, I tol’ dat bitch to go get an abo’shun” crap you see in child-support propoganda.
That said… I don’t think the male should be allowed to claim irresponsibility after the fact. I do, however, think he should be able to before the fact. By that, I mean concrete, documented evidence that a sexual relationship has been entered into, in which the male refuses any responsibilty (as well as any paternal rights) in the event of a pregnancy, and in which the female explicity agrees that she’s entering the relationship, accepting those terms.
Don’t get me wrong. People need to be responsible. But there is a gender-based discrimination in this area; the male effectively has no rights. Remember that the support-paying parent (regardless of gender) must continue payments, even if the support-receiving parent illegaly refuses to allow court-ordered visitation, or spends that money on heroin, or the kids still starve anyway because they’re using that check to buy stereo equipment… and then remember who wins most custody cases.
Now there’s an intelligent way to get single mothers off the welfare rolls and to reduce the number of impoverished children.
You are basically giving men permission to screw around without responsibility. To hop into the sack with as many women as they can get without protection, because after all, he can have all that hot sweaty fun and then make the choice not to contribute a penny toward supporting a child that may result from the union.
Yep, this will help clear up those welfare lines, you betcha. This will ensure that little tummies of those whose daddy had the “right” to shirk his responsibility, won’t go to bed hungry.
It’s not a perfect world. Everyone is not as responsible as you are, Stoidela. It’s a sad fact that the children are the one’s who will suffer the most. However, I think your plan sucks from yet another point of view. I, as a taxpayer, am not too thrilled at the concept of paying even higher taxes to support the children whose fathers won’t. Enough of my hard earned money already goes to support the welfare programs that are picking up the slack from the low-life fathers who have turned their backs on their financial duties.
Are you willing to pay increased taxes to help raise the kids whose father made the choice not to contribute? I sure as hell don’t want to.
I could not care less if the woman has 100 choices and the man has none. Life ain’t fair and it certainly isn’t equally divided in any area. (Should we get into glass ceiling or equal pay issues?)
If two people have sex there are certain responsibilities that come with it. The woman has the greater responsibility in that she must accept that consequences that might come with a pregnancy, whether than means raising the child, abortion, or adoption. None are easy choices. The man has the responsibility to contribute towards raising the child that may result from the sexual encounter, or at least provide monetary support.
If neither are willing to accept their responsibilities, then for the sake of any future babies and for the sake of my wallet, they should keep their legs closed and their pants zipped up.
If that is too much to ask and they can’t control themselves any better than a couple of pigs in heat, then for hellsake, get the “snip”.
>^,^<
KITTEN
He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius
Hey Phil, go back and reread the post I wrote and then apologize to me for the misattribution, huh?
And yes, I have no use for ANYone who shirks their responsibility to their child, whether male or female, married or single. However, basic biology says that it is the woman who gets pregnant and therefore has the greater choice about whether that child is coming in to the world. Biederman, Stoidela, you think that’s unfair, go complain to Mother Nature. What’s also “unfair” is the fact that it is so easy for a man to disappear from a child’s life, and shirk that responsibility, and less so for women to do so. I understand that there are exceptions to every rule, but the numbers bear me out. Yes, there are “deadbeat” moms out there, but check out the statistics before you come back and tell me about them; the most recent report from the L.A. County child support enforcement division of the District Attorneys office suggests that there are – and I’m generalizing this figure because I don’t have it directly in front of me and am going by recall – something like 999 deadbeat dads for every 1 deadbeat mom.
Everything in life carries risk, Phil. You could die in your own bathtub, y’know? When you get in the car you assume the risk of accident. You take all the precautions you can against it, and you do the mental cost-benefit analysis and figure that the odds are with you, and you drive to work, or school, or wherever. You go swimming at the ocean you assume the risk of an undertow, or cramps, or the jellyfish or the shark. Same thing with everything we do. Why should sex be any different?
-Melin
I’m a woman phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That’s me
(Maya Angelou)
This attitude slays me. It lays bare the truth underlying your concern for the “child” - which is horseshit - and shows what your true issue is: those sluts that open their legs! If they are going to willingly have sex outside of marriage, let them PAY THE PRICE! An unwanted pregnancy carried to term is evidently the punishment such women deserve for being so wanton. “You CHOSE to have sex WILLINGLY? Then no way are you going to abort that precious innocent life within you! Oh, you were FORCED? Oh, okay, go ahead and kill that thing growing in your belly.”
The fetus is innocent, it is life, it is human…the means by which it came into being don’t matter IF your real concern is to protect life. What you are saying here is the only life worth protecting is life that came about because the woman wanted sex. So your claims of wanting to protect innocent life don’t wash. You want to punish what you perceive to be slutty women.
And as for men taking more care…in a perfect world, that might be true. But we all live in THIS world, and in THIS world, the woman is the one who ends up pregnant. She should do what is necessary to protect HERSELF if she doesn’t want to be. That’s what I did.
Lucky:
And how would one be very careful about this? It’s easier to be careful about avoiding diseases…at least you can ask to see an AIDS test or inspect the person’s body for suspicious sores. But dishonesty and manipulativeness don’t reveal themselves until it is too late, as a rule.
PLdennison:
Diane:
Men who want to do that do it already. Except the way things are now, some women think they can change that by getting pregnant. Stupid women, but they believe that anyway. Perhaps if the law didn’t let her, SHE might think twice.
I give you as evidence all the “deadbeat dads” in the NBA. There was alot of press abotut hem last year. Some of them are total assholes who have fathered multiple children with one woman, and have taken off long after the fact. Screw them, they are completely out of line and should be dealt with harshly. But what about the guys who blew into town, took the babe up on her offer, and now have her knocking at the door for some of those basketball millions for her and her poor baby? It’s a story that happens every day, and if I was a man it would righteously piss me off.
Ya know, I get really sick of hearing this. It’s such a bunch of crap. Do you have any idea how much of your hard earned money goes to welfare of the kind you are objecting to? A few cents, maybe a couple of bucks. The anger and outrage over our taxes going to single mothers is so completely out of proportion to what it actually costs that it’s infuriating. If you don’t like paying for welfare, worry about the welfare that is REALLY costing you, in the form of corporate welfare, and entitlements to people who dont’ need them.
It’s easy to focus our anger on the poor, the uneducated, the irresponsible welfare moms. They have no power base. They don’t contribute to the politicians coffers, and most of them probably dont’ vote. So let’s go after them! But it’s an illusion. Welfare is a truly minute portion of the federal and state budgets.
So yeah, I’m happy to have my taxes go to illiterate, unemployable moms who were stupid but human and have now brought children into this world. I’d like to see more money spent on programs to help these women and their kids.
Oddly enough, I’m about to start arguing against my personal beliefs, or rather, what I would hope I would personally do in a similar situation. I do this because of the theory of equality. I’m sorry the words “Life isn’t fair” don’t wash with me. Hell, what would have happened had the north said that to the slaves in the south. We have a history, and a proud history at that, of fighting inequality and injustice.
I’m sorry, I must have missed something. When was it, exactly, that sex became a one sided thing. I’m just asking because the number one argument against this idea is the root that it gives men a “right to be irresponsible.” I contest that if a man is not going to use a condom, the woman should not sleep with him or find an alternate means of control, hey…now that’s novel.
The whole point of this, in the first place, was that the woman has total control.
Aside from that, as many personal examples conclude, men who are going to be irresponsible in as much as support goes, are going to do it no matter what laws exist. Why not create a law that gives the woman the knowledge that this will happen before hand, instead of the guy just up-and-leaving some day. Not only that, but a law of this nature would certainly dissuade those who would attempt to trap a man by getting intentionally pregnant.
And I’m sorry, I realize I’m not a woman, but for all of you who contest that a man doesn’t feel it when a woman choses to give up, or abort, his baby, fuck you. That’s as sexist a statement as they come. You have no clue what another person feels or believes, and its ridiculous that one would follow such a sterotype. Talk about ignorant.
Implementing a law of this nature puts a man on equal footing with a woman, what is the problem with that? Logically, any other argument doesn’t make sence.
Yeah, except for the fact that those “basketball millions” is not reality. Child support payments are computed using the income of both parents, and very seldom “millions”.
Oh come on. . . .
Sure, there are those men who are doing that already, but you know and I know that the minute men are given free-rein from responsibility, that number will increase dramatically.
On the other hand, I have great doubts that the number of unplanned pregnancies came from anything more sinister than uneducated couples or mere accidents. I would be interested in seeing you post some stats or cites showing a large number is due to “stupid” women trying to tame their man.
No - it isn’t the fact that my tax dollars go to support these programs that pisses me off. What pisses me off is the increased strain on public assistance that will be needed if your idea is implemented. You do realize that these programs are subsidized by tax dollars.
I don’t care if it cost me a few cents or a few hundred dollars, the fact that I, as a tax payer, will be the one given no choice in the financial duties to raising the additional kids that would come onto the welfare rolls if you take away their responsibility that came from their careless sex. I want to see more responsibility, not less.
It is outrageous to think that letting these men be irresponsible is going to teach dem stoopid gals a lesson and learn them to keep their legs closed. Yep, this will clear up the welfare rolls.
Here’s a novel idea.
Why not make BOTH parties 100 percent responsible for their action? Enforce the child support collection laws so that the custodial parent is able to adequately provide for the kids without relying on the State to fill in the financial blanks that the absent parent doesn’t fill. (Shall I tell you the nightmare my brother has had to go through TRYING to get child support from his 9 year old’s mother? He has yet to see a cent.)
If the guy is so opposed to financially supporting a child, then there are ways to get around it.
1 - Keep it in his pants.
2 - Double bag.
3 - Have surgery.
If he doesn’t then that is a risk he takes upon himself and he should be forced to provide assistance if a pregnancy results.
>^,^<
KITTEN
He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius
I’m gonna ask this one more time, and maybe you can give me an answer:
What is the logical, moral, ethical, emotional and legal difference between a woman saying, upon the birth of her unwanted child:
“I don’t want this kid. I can’t pay for it, I didn’t plan on it, and I don’t want it in my life. Here, State, take it off my hands and give it to someone who cares, cuz it ain’t me. Bye!”
Melin, I don’t believe I misattributed you; I quoted both you and Neobican in the same post. Whoops–found it–that was yepitsme, not you. Sincere sorriness.
I’m going to trust your recollection of the figures as an attorney, but suggest that there may be a greater number of deadbeat moms and that there is some enforcement bias that skews the figures slightly. Slightly And let’s not forget the recent rash of young mothers dumping their newborn infants in trash cans, something fathers obviously don’t have the opportunity to do and a state of affairs much sadder than nonpayment of support.
So if you are in an accident, are you morally required to lay there and die, because, hey, oh well, that’s the risk you take? Or are you permitted to take steps to alter the situation?
Part of the beauty of life is that we are not always required to accept only one choice among sets of consequences.
Realistically, the only thing a woman can “force” on a man if she chooses to have a baby that he doesn’t want is some financial support to the child. (And good luck getting it.) Well, sexual intercourse is about having babies, folks. You would think we’d have gotten used to this idea by now.
Someone suggested that all men have to do is abstain to avoid this, and the reply was that abstinence is pretty much impossible, at least for most of the people some of the time. I propose that there are plenty of ways of obtaining a reasonable amount of sexual gratification without risking pregnancy. So, really, all men have to do avoid any risk of an unwanted child is to avoid intercourse. If they can’t even do that, the small risk of someone coming after them for child support is just one they will have to take.
Stoidela’s argument is that women can have all the intercourse they want, and if they get pregnant they can “just” have an abortion. On what planet is this a safe, easy, casual choice with no physical, financial, or emotional risks or consequences? She has to kill a baby to “reject motherhood.” That hardly compares with signing a piece of paper saying “I’m outta here.”
This is where the “oh well, tough luck!” argument applies. Men can’t help it that just saying no to parenthood isn’t enormous hassle and burden to them that it is to women. So therefore they don’t get to say no at all?
I sure wish someone would answer my adoption question and quit saying “keep your dick in yoru pants or tough!”. We’ve heard it already.
And by the way, in case you missed it, I have actually had an abortion. And while I would never dare to think that my experience represents every woman’s experience, I can tell you that for me, it was not the huge trauma that you would have it be. It was physically uncomfortable for about 10 minutes. No emotional scarring, no bad dreams, no regrets years later, no nothing. I didn’t even have cramps afterwards! It was just an enormous relief.
If you were paying attention, you would have seen that your question has already been answered by me and a number of other posters.
Again -
There are certain risks that a man and woman take when they have sex. The woman takes the risk that she may become pregnant and have to make a choice to raise the baby, abort, or give it up for adoption. The father takes the risk that he may impregnate the woman and have to face the result of her decision, including financial support.
In answer to your question, “What is the logical, moral, ethical, emotional and legal (BTW - There are MAJOR legal differences) differences between a woman saying. . . . .” the answer is simple. It was the man’s decision to take his part of the risk, now he must face the consequences that came from his decision. She is dealing with the results of her own risk. It is biological differences that make the results different between the two. You may not think they are equal or fair, but life isn’t equal or fair.
Let me turn things around and ask you your own question using a different scenario:
What is the logical, moral, ethical, emotional and legal difference between a man saying, upon the abortion of his wanted child:
“I want this kid. I can pay for it, I didn’t plan on it but I will accept it, and I do want it in my life. Here, mom, you can’t abort. Carry this child to term and give it to me, someone who cares.”
So, according to you, which is it? Does the man have rights to not accept his child but no rights if he wants the baby? You’re talking out of both sides of your face.
Nine years ago, I sat in the abortion clinic filling out the paperwork to have an abortion. After talking about all of my options with the father, I made a personal decision to have the baby. Thank God for the 48 hour waiting period or I would have aborted that day. I now have a wonderful 8 year old son.
Being inside that clinic, making the choices that I had to make, was extremely emotional and traumatic even though I didn’t follow through with the abortion. I know that had I followed through, I would carry that decision with me for life. I have a few close friends who have gone through this experience. Although their abortions were the best choice, and they realize this, there are still some emotional scars that will never disappear.
Your callus attitude is just what the pro-lifers like to quote when they preach their “abortion birth control” accusations. It is the type of attitude pro-lifers like to paint of women who get abortions when in reality, it is an emotional, traumatic time in their life.
That isn’t really the answer that I’m looking for. All you are doing is stating the situation as it currently exists. Neither you or anyone has yet JUSTIFIED IT. And you apparantly dont’ even see the gross injustice of it: she gets three decisions, he gets to be at the mercy of hers. That’s just the way it is. Yeah, I know that, but WHY???
I think it’s because we’ve all simply be trained to think that it’s ok and no one has ever really stopped to examine the injustice and illogic of it.
But we can work towards making it MORE so, can’t we? Isn’t that what our system of laws is all about? Creating more fairness, justice, balance? Protecting everyone’s rights as much as possible?
This is easy. This is where biology really does count and makes a difference. In order for him to do this, she would be required to put her body through something she isnt’ willing to put it through. And each of us has absolute dominion over our own bodies. Period.
So I should fake things I don’t feel so as not to give the pro-lifers ammunition? I know alot of women who have had abortions, and the no-muss, no-fuss, no-regrets types far outnumber the anguished, tormented, it-was-the-most-horrible-experience-of-my-life women. (As a matter of fact, I dont’ know any of the latter. Some women are a little sad, but still no regrets. Even among those who have since become mothers. And excellent, loving mothers.)
For those of us who know ourselves, know what we want, what we are willing to do, to tolerate, to give, abortion is a no-brainer. I aborted at 7 weeks. I never think about “my baby that I killed”. And it’s unfortunate that this offends you, but it happens to be the truth. I never wanted to be a mother, even for a second. So there was no sorrow in cancelling my one opportunity.
