My view: I'm not Pro-Life, too many times the argument is turned around to something completely absurd. I'm Pro-Child. Ever have one? It'll change your views pretty damn quickly.
inb4 rape scenario
My question has never been answered
1. Have the baby and keep it knowing she will be the sole provider.
2. Have the baby and put it up for adoption
3. Abortion (if that is not a non-option for her)
The only thing that changes for the woman is option one and that is only that she would not have the financial backing of a man.
Now when a woman over looks the man's wishes for whatever reason it does violate a man's reproductive rights because he no longer has a choice in with who and when he becomes a father.
How is giving a man the option to "walk away" before a child is even conceived hurts the woman or the child? How?
I've answered that question at least 2 dozen times.
It hurts them because they will be worse off financially?
---------- Post added 2012-12-02 at 03:22 AM ----------
---------- Post added 2012-12-02 at 03:30 AM ----------
This was my first exposure to men's rights movement:
The man is not telling her to abort, give the child up for adoption, or anything else, I don't really know where you are getting that from. The goal of what I am suggesting is that men be given a legal option to have their wishes up held in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Yes, if a person engages in an activity that involves a risk (pregnancy) they should be held responsible for the outcome of that decision but in the spirit of compromise I have given an option. And with in that option is the option for the woman to walk away find a sexual partner that shares her same values and ideals when it comes to an unwanted pregnancy, she is in no way forced to have sex with the man. If she chooses to still have sex with a man knowing that he does not have to pay child support and she will have to foot the bill how is that unfair to her when she willingly choose that option?
The fact that you produced the child really has little bearing on your obligation to take care for it. A parent can very easily throw their hands up and say "I'm not dealing with this!" and give their kid to the foster system.
---------- Post added 2012-12-02 at 04:31 AM ----------
A woman not dealing with her pregnancy, results in a baby. If a man gets drunk when he has a baby on the way, nothing us wrong. A woman doing the same causes irreversible damage. A woman throwing her hands in the air and saying she is not dealing with it, has extremly different results than when a man does it.
---------- Post added 2012-12-02 at 04:36 AM ----------
Why does this only mention women specifically:
"Irreverible damage" say what?A woman not dealing with her pregnancy, results in a baby. If a man gets drunk when he has a baby on the way, nothing us wrong. A woman doing the same causes irreversible damage. A woman throwing her hands in the air and saying she is not dealing with it, has extremly different results than when a man does it.
I'm really starting to get sick of all this treatment of pregnancy as a life-threatening medical condition. Chances of death or injury due to pregnancy is minimal. Pregnancy is classified as a "disability" or a "illness" simply so that existing law can be applied to it and people don't have to think real hard and make new laws.
As for throwing her hands in the air, I was referring to after birth. Although it's rare, you can give up your children at times beyond birth. It's just more difficult. And if someone really didn't want to have their kid and the System wouldn't willingly take it, they can become a horrible parent and the System will take the child.
I'm not saying throwing her hands in the air will make the pregnancy go away. We've already established that even for a man this won't work out well either, since the woman could just get the courts on his ass about it.
---------- Post added 2012-12-02 at 08:22 AM ----------
Choosing when and if you become a father is the essence of reproductive rights.
Last edited by Laize; 2012-12-02 at 08:22 AM.