And the answer is: life’s unfair, suck it up. The simple fact that pregnancy occurs in a woman’s body gives her a higher level of control over the situation. If you don’t like that, don’t have sex with a woman unless you’re 100% sure of what she will do should a pregnancy occur.
Or because the woman doesn’t want to be pregnant. Pregnancy is not a benign condition, it is stressful physically and emotionally. Parenting is also an extremely successful and all-consuming endeavor. Financial concerns are certainly in the mix but it’s a mistake to presume that “support” is the primary motivator in women’s decisions to terminate pregnancies. And again, if men consider it unfair that women have the ultimate say over what occurs with their own bodies, well, that’s just tough. Come up with some better solution that neither cedes a woman’s control of her body or denies a child the support of both parents. Then you can talk about unfair decisions.
What I don’t understand about the idea of males being able to ‘vote’ on an abortion is what happens when the father is unknown or unfindable. What is the woman can’t get a hold of the man? What if there are several possible fathers and she doesn’t know which of them is it? What if she doesn’t even find out she’s pregnant until 5 or 6 months in? What if she does find out earlier, but keeps it a secret until 5 or 6 months in? From what I understand, none of these situations are exceptionally unusual, and abortion is pretty time-sensitive. It seems like you’d end up with a lot of men who would feel that they were entitled to a say in the abortion decision, but didn’t get it. Would they get out of paying child support?
Agreed, and we won’t have a better answer until somebody invents an artificial womb. And if a man want’s to have sex with women, but reallly, really doesn’t want to be on the hook for child suport he can always get a vasectomy. Yes, it’s unfair that the only male contraceptives are condoms or sterilization, but again that’s biology. Scientists are working on male pills or LARC and it’ll probally be available long before artificial wombs.
No, the issue is what each gets to decide about their own body. It’s just that simple. The man’s choice ends when his body is no longer involved. The woman still has a choice after pregnancy because it still involves her body. This is very easy to understand if you try a little bit.
Yes he does. He can choose not to put his sperm in someone else’s body.
I don’t see it that way at all! (FTR I completely agree with BigT). All he’s saying is that women have a “second bite at decision apple” regarding the pregnancy. And to the person who said that “men should be more careful about who they put their sperm in”, shouldn’t women be more careful about who they ALLOW to put sperm in them? (and yes, rape IS NOT “allowing” men to put sperm in them)
Not really. They just have the ability to make the choice later than men. That’s not unfair. That’s dictated by biology. Biology isn’t fair. Men have full choice as long as their own bodies are involved. and so do women. Nothinmg is taken away from men because women can make the final choice later.
Not to the same degree because they can terminate a pregnancy. In both cases, individuals are making choices about their own bodies, and their own bodies only.
I know that Denmark “export” sperm to Belgium (fertilization by an anonymous donor at a single woman’s request is forbidden in France, so women go to Belgium to have it done. A friend of mind who went through the procedure was told that the sperm would likely be Danish.
Now, I wouldn’t know if it’s true in the USA also but anyway it let me wonder why there would be so many sperm donors in Denmark.
I remember a thread, several years ago, stating that a US state (western coast, I think) had passed a law making a rape of having sex with a drunk partner (ensuing discussion of course about the situation where both are drunk). I don’t remember anything more, but somebody else might.
No. There is no law in any state that having sex with a drunk partner per se is rape. There are statutes that call it rape if the person is incapicitated to the point that they can’t understand what’s going on, give consent or resist. There are statutes specifying rape if a substance is given to a victim without their knowledge. There are no statutes defining having sex with a partner who is merely intoxicated by their own choice - but not to the point of incapacitation - as rape.
Not nearly enough of a douche, istm. If it had been me I would have fucked off and worked on a cruise ship or something for a while. No way I’m giving up a big chunk of my money for 18 years because I was tricked into an “agreement”. I couldn’t care less if I technically owe it to the kid and not her.
And in the event that it dawned on me that I did want a child I would sue for full custody so I would actually have one, instead of just flushing my money down the toilet that is this woman.
If the decision was fully his he would be able to force her to have an abortion against her will. Having a veto is only half the decision power – you are able to say “No” against a “Yes” but you are still unable to say “Yes” against a “No”.
That was an either/or. If I wanted a child I would want to raise him. If I didn’t, I would leave, before she could file the paperwork. People, men and women alike, have decided they don’t want to raise their kids since the beginning of time. A kid whom I have no intention of raising is not getting my money. There’s plenty of people out there who want to adopt. If mom can’t do it without me, when she knows full well beforehand that is the case, then she should give it up. eta: that’s really in the best interest of the child anyways. A loving couple who wants it versus two strangers fighting over money.