English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Women have the option of being a parent after sex by means of abortion and/or adoption. She doesn't need permission from the biological father to do so, she just needs someone to say they are the father and sign the papers. So if a woman can choose to be or not be a parent after sex, why shouldn't a man have that same privilege? Many will say he had the option to use protection or not have sex. The woman has these same options but she also has the option of changing her mind after. I'm not saying take that away from women. I'm just saying men should have that same option. If abortion was illegal then both parties would have the same rules. As it is now, there is one rule for woman and another for men. The question is more about equality; equal rights. No one is going to force a woman into parenthood, physically, emotionally, mentally or financially. Why is it ok to force a man? If you think its justified inequality then just say that, people will respect that.

2007-04-04 02:51:35 · 19 answers · asked by The Questioner 1 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

Some very good responses. Some very one sided response. Not all addressed the equal rights issue. I have a problems with women having children men don't want and women getting rid of could-be children that men do want. If a woman wants a child by herself (w/o the mans consent), by all means have it. That doesn't mean he should be obligated. Becoming a parent is something both should agree on. There are too many cases of men killing pregnant women b/c they don't want to pay child support. If men had the right to choose, how many unwanted babies would there be? Would more women have abortions? Would more women be more cautious when having sex?
Sidebar: How easy is it for a woman to get preg? Are all 28-31 days of the month possible impregnation days?
If i give a woman money and she buys a house with it, am I obligated to that house? If she uses it to have someone killed, am I convicted? (only if I know she is specifically doing that). Men don't give sperm to make a child.

2007-04-04 03:34:01 · update #1

I don't know if you know but men can be raped. In these cases, they are still responsible. With society the way that it is, what man will rush to admit he was raped? Women don't even rush to accuse someone of raping them. A woman can take a filled condom and impregnate herself with it and he will be responsible. A woman can give oral sex w/o a condom and use that to get pregnant. Most women won't do this (I hope) but it can be done and the man will still be obligated if the woman chooses to make him obligated.
In summation: If a woman wants to have a child, by all means have one. If she doesn't, ok she doesn't. To say that it's "OK" for a woman to choose after getting pregnant but it's irresponsible for a man to do so is hypocrisy. To say, "Damn, that was a mistake, I don't want to be a parent." and not become a parent should be the option of both or neither. Either argue for the childs rights or the parents rights, not the genders rights. Laws should not be based on gende

2007-04-04 03:48:37 · update #2

The reason our children are messed up these days is in part because some of us think that there can/should be no equality in parenting. Children that do the best in life have two active parents, a mother and father. Oddly enough, studies show that men raise children better than women do. I don't know that the numbers are great enough to make an honest comparison but there is much to say for the men in our children's lives. To feel that women should have more say is very sexist. They should have equal say, if they should have equal responsibility and rights and they should. It doesn't take a villiage to raise a child, it takes good, dedicated parents. One should not think they can/should do it w/o the other. If you choose to do it w/o the other, do so. Saying, "I'm going to do this by myself" but request/require child support, is not doing it by yourself. That's why its called "support".

2007-04-04 04:30:50 · update #3

If a man gets AIDS, he can't say he doesn't it want it. This is almost a good response since it hits on a very good point. The point of equality. The fact is, she wouldn't be able to say she doesn't want it either. So would you say that she should be able to say "No, take this AIDS back, I don't want it" but the guy shouldn't? The issue is about equality. I don't want to tell the woman what to do, I also don't want her telling me what to do. She can't be forced to have and/or support the child. Men shouldn't be forced to do so either. Some want to make the claim that nature dictates the rules. That is false. The law of the state/country is different from nature. If nature dictated the rules, women would have their children when they wanted and men would be obligated when they wanted. These laws aren't correcting or balancing nature. Women will ALWAYS have the upper hand since they say whether a child will be born or not. That should be the extent of the inequality.

2007-04-05 07:22:09 · update #4

19 answers

men have the same responsibility to safeguard against unwanted pregnancy as women. i have seen this too many times, guys will refuse to use protection for personal pleasure, then blame the girl when she gets pregnant. it is the female that has the life growing inside of her. its the female who must suffer the pain and discomfort of an abortion. it is the female who carries most of the guilt for making the wrong decisions. if a woman has the heart and courage to give birth to, and raise a child from a father who wants no part of what he has helped conceive, then i commend her for her convictions. most men should pray for the strength and courage that a woman such as that possesses. to answer your question, NO. the man made the choice when he opted to play super stud instead of using common sense.

2007-04-04 03:08:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

There can be no equality in parenthood. The part done by the man in no way equals that of the woman.
If you care to be a parent, marry the woman and produce children like it's always been done. If you do not want to be a parent just stay away from sex, real simple.

2007-04-04 03:06:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

He has the right to terminate his parental rights and by doing so he is basically saying " I don't want to be a parent ".
Yes there are ways of making a man pay for the child even when he doesn't want to and yes a lot of women will force the issue- However it is wit this in mond that BOTH women and men need to be fully certain that they can handle the consequences of a pregnancy BEFORE they have sex.

The responsibility is on BOTH parties involved and should not be one sided.

2007-04-04 02:56:16 · answer #3 · answered by bootsjeansnpearls 4 · 3 1

Sex is normally not for making children, it is an unavoidable by product. The main product is the pleasure .

Without pleasure the man or woman will not be interested in sex for which they have to go after the other partner , persuade and make them interested in sex and may even spend some money for the same.

Just imagine sex without pleasure. Only when you want children you have to go the woman or vice versa.

And once man discharges or ejaculates his part is over in conception and have a very passive part in the decision making to have a baby or not. Unless he forces the concerned woman , she is the only decision maker to have the baby .

2007-04-12 00:43:07 · answer #4 · answered by rajan l 6 · 0 0

Interesting thought.
That reminds me of another law. Until the mid 1900s it was legal for a man in Texas to kill his wife if he found her having sex with another man. The law was repealed when women started fighting for equal right to do so.
Maybe somone should take a case up the chain sueing for property rights as half of that "fetus" is property of the man. Wonder if hey would start cutting aborted fetuses in half at that point....
Sad to even think of a baby as property though.

Liberals will go to all lengths to save some endangered species or some wildlife along the Mexican border. They will campaign to hav eus stop eating meat and beign cruel to animals but they support and fight for the right to kill babies. What kind of sense does that make. What does that say about their value of human life.

2007-04-04 03:07:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

A father has every option to not be a parent after birth, and sadly too many opt out of their childs life. Monetary responsibility isnt an option however.
If you dont like that system, I suggest you keep your dna out of other peoples bodies.

2007-04-04 02:56:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I see where you are coming from, but it seems too often it would be a difference of oppinion. and since the mother has the same consequences as the father PLUS pregnancy and childbirth, it becomes their decision.

What happens if the father wants to keep it and the mother doesnt. Will she be forced through pregnancy? It just makes the situation too complicated.

2007-04-04 02:58:49 · answer #7 · answered by applecakey 2 · 0 1

Ahhh...but the right to choose isn't about being a parent, it's about being able to do what one wishes with their own body (in theory). In that regard, men and women ARE equal concerning abortion.

2007-04-04 02:56:42 · answer #8 · answered by Michael E 5 · 0 1

Biologically this is impossible. The zygote may be made up of the man's DNA, but it resides inside the woman's body. He has no right to force an abortion or bar one from being proformed.

2007-04-04 02:54:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Interesting Question.

~

2007-04-11 11:07:42 · answer #10 · answered by fitzovich 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers