A woman can choose to not have a baby no matter what anyone else thinks , including the father. So a woman does not have to deal with the consequences of her actions if she chooses not to.
But a man has no choice, he is forced to go along with whatever decision the woman makes, where is the equality there. Since we allow woman to skirt their responsibility, shoudln't men be afforded the same rights?
Also, what is up with the "keep it in his pats" comments. If we women had our pants on then men wouldnt be inclined to remove it from their pants in the first place.
2006-11-18 06:20:23 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Most abortions occur at 6 weeks, where the embryo doesn't have brainwaves or cerebral cortex. It basically looks like a salamander. This is not a baby. However, if the woman completes the pregnancy, a child is born with all the complete developments and cerebral cortex. That is a child. It would cause irreversible psychological damage to the child if his/her dad doesn't want to see them. It will screw them up for life. You're pro-life, will you support a man's option for the woman to have an abortion? He can't force her. Your reasoning contradicts your beliefs in abortion.
2006-11-18 14:45:57 · answer #1 · answered by cynical 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Is this a joke? I thought you were a MAN until paragraph 3 when you said "we women".
Paragraph 1 - are you talking abortion here or just not wanting to have a baby? A man can petition to the court to prevent an abortion from taking place. First he must prove the woman is pregnant & then he must prove he is the father. And if a woman chooses to have an abortion, I would definitely call that "dealing with the consequences", wouldn't you?
Paragraph 2 - Men "skirt their responsibility" much of the time. When they do, a woman is often 'forced' to get them to submit to a paternity test.
Paragraph 3 - Are you a woman hater, a lesbian, a virgin or are you REALLY a man?
2006-11-18 14:47:30 · answer #2 · answered by Nancy L 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I see where youre coming from, but its a tough decision. I think it sort of falls into line as far as the child is concerned. I feel the same as you, that it takes two to tango and if the woman either gets pregnant against the will of the man or without the consent of a man, he should not be responsible. But... there is the innocent child to consider. Do we allow the child to suffer because the father wants nothing to do with it? I think thats the hard one. I would say the suggestion would be is someone come up with a pill for a man that would render his sperm infertile. Therefore he no longer had to rely on the woman claiming she was on birthcontrol or getting pregnant without his consent.
2006-11-18 14:25:27 · answer #3 · answered by BigEasy 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, many men are forced to run from any child support responsibilities they may have too! Those poor guys.
The Federal Office of Child Support Preliminary Statistics for 2004 reports over $107 Billion in accumulated unpaid support (up from $100 billion in 2002) is due to 17 million children in the United States. The government child support agency collection rate, the percentage of cases receiving one or more payments was 50%, which is down from 68% in 2002. Additionally:
50% of all white children growing up in single parent households who do not receive support live at or below the poverty level.
60% of all Hispanic children growing up in single parent
2006-11-18 15:04:02 · answer #4 · answered by Middleclassandnotquiet 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are missing the crux of the argument.
Before conception, everyone involved has an equal say.
After birth, nobody has any say -- it's all up to the courts.
During pregnancy (and pre-viability), the woman is the only person involved in the equation. And she has an absolute right to choose whether she remains involved in the process. The man has no say because he is not biologically involved during gestation.
The legal issues involving financial support are completely separate from the physical issues of biological support. The woman is the only one providing biological support during the pregnancy, so is the only one who can opt out of that.
It's just a side-effect that stopping providing biological support also makes the financial support argument moot for both of them.
2006-11-18 17:29:27 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I don't know why the double standard, but I agree with you. No wonder men are confused.
2006-11-18 14:24:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋