Why is it that women can opt out of taking care of a child but men can't?

[Deleted]

Waiting for a decision made by someone else than the woman. Should've probably said that from the beginning. She shouldn't have to wait for someone else to decide. I very much doubt a woman would perform an abortion on a fully healthy baby if she's in no danger, it's rare that abortions even happens in the last week where it's allowed freely. It's even more rare that abortions happens in the additional time limit where you have to obtain permission for an abortion and then it's mostly because of risk to the mothers health or defects on the fetus.

It would just make the process faster instead of delaying it until someone else has made a decision.

That is correct, and i find it hard to disagree.

But purely for monitoring and ensuring abuse does not occur, i'd wish for abortions approaching the limit, or at the limit, to be looked over at least.

The vast majority of women do not abort in the late-term, or do so when nearing the end of the legally mandated time-limit; But for those that do, i'd wish for it to be overlooked by someone specialized in the area at least.

Not to approve it, but to understand why it's being carried out so late in comparison to others; And to see if other external influences are playing a factor (Financial, emotional, ect)

[Laize]

Who said anything about fault here. We're not talking culpability we're talking RESPONSIBILITY. No wonder you're finding it hard

Yes. She is wholly responsible for the kid being born.

She should be wholly responsible for its care.

Not sure what you're not understanding, here.

[Deleted]

Yes. She is wholly responsible for the kid being born.

She should be wholly responsible for its care.

Not sure what you're not understanding, here.

Why should she be wholly responsible for its care when the man contributed to its existence? I'm not interested in either parent pushing over their responsibility on society. If you can find someone else than society to take over the responsibility, fine, but until then, no.

[AeneasBK]

Yes. She is wholly responsible for the kid being born.

She should be wholly responsible for its care.

Not sure what you're not understanding, here.

I'm not failing to understand anything I'm just surprised you actually think a mans responsbility to his child ends once he's wiped his cock on the sheets.

[minteK917]

Waiting for a decision made by someone else than the woman. Should've probably said that from the beginning. She shouldn't have to wait for someone else to decide. I very much doubt a woman would perform an abortion on a fully healthy baby if she's in no danger, it's rare that abortions even happens in the last week where it's allowed freely. It's even more rare that abortions happens in the additional time limit where you have to obtain permission for an abortion and then it's because of risk to the mothers health or defects on the fetus.

It would just make the process faster instead of delaying it until someone else has made a decision.

Id have to say no..... im for abortion and i live in a country with some of the most loose abortion laws, everything points out to what you said being completely wrong. 31 abortion per 100 birth each year. You however dont need any therapeutic permission here for the first 16 weeks, the only limit is as 21 week + and its not even because of legal matter, the doctor institution simply wont abort someone past 21 week unless the women health is at risk, the law itself is so lose you could legally abort at any time. Most of the fully aborted fetus are healthy fetus and no one is in danger at all, they are just half of unplanned/unwanted pregnancy in the statistics of life.

Again i am for abortion and i am not displeased in any way by my country choices, but to say that women dont perform abortion if no danger, would be very unrealistic, when its the opposite, most abortion are done for all the other reasons more than danger.

[Deleted]

Id have to say no..... im for abortion and i live in a country with some of the most loose abortion laws, everything points out to what you said being completely wrong. 31 abortion per 100 birth each year. You however dont need any therapeutic permission here for the first 16 weeks. Most of the fully aborted fetus are healthy baby and no one is in danger at all, they are just half of unplanned/unwanted pregnancy.

Again i am for abortion and i am not displeased in any way by my country choices, but to say that women dont perform abortion if no danger, would be very unrealistic, when its the opposite, most abortion are done for all the other reasons more than danger.

High abortion rates sink as people learn how to practice safe sex.

The vast majority of abortions that happens when the woman is in no danger happens before week 9. Of the remaining ones most happens before week 15, if I remember correctly. Very, very few actually happens the last week it's allowed. The abortions that are done past the freely allowed limit are done because of health risks or defects. I think it's safe to assume that there would be no abortions taking place in the 8th month of pregnancy even if it was legal, for any other reason than health reasons or defects. This would just simply easen up the delay due to paperwork.

[Laize]

Why should she be wholly responsible for its care when the man contributed to its existence? I'm not interested in either parent pushing over their responsibility on society. If you can find someone else than society to take over the responsibility, fine, but until then, no.

No, he contributed to its conception. She's the one who brought it to term. The man had no say in the matter. You cannot be held responsible for something you had no choice in.

Hypothetical. You have a car. The engineers say it's not ready for shipment. The CEO goes ahead and ships it anyway. Months later it winds up killing a bunch of people for a defect the engineers hadn't yet worked out.

Certainly the CEO (the one responsible for the shipment) is culpable, but do you hold the engineers responsible too? Of course not.

I'm not failing to understand anything I'm just surprised you actually think a mans responsbility to his child ends once he's wiped his cock on the sheets.

And I'm surprised you think a man should be held responsible just because a woman wants to keep the kid.

I'm surprised you think consent to sex means consent to parenthood despite the fact that this very idea is what feminist groups have been fighting against for ages.

[minteK917]

High abortion rates sink as people learn how to practice safe sex.

Again not true at all, Women contraception use is 80% in Canada and only around 60% in the US. Yet our abortion rate is one of the highest, because the laws are loose. Abortion arent used because of dangers, not at all. Most abortion are done earlier than 16 week, because well you know if you want it or not before that. Like i said none of this has to do with risk, its people deciding not to give birth for personal reasons. They dont wait longer, because theres no reason to and its covered by universal healthcare, so why wait all the way to 21+ week and have the doctor tell you he wont risk it?

Like i said people would logically think what you said, but its not whats happening in practice.

[Shadowmelded]

Yes. She is wholly responsible for the kid being born.

She should be wholly responsible for its care.

Not sure what you're not understanding, here.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this, both biological parents owe a duty of care to their child, regardless of how they feel about the child. This is to protect the most vulnerable party; the child. Withdrawing financial support in an attempt to force someone to abort a child or face destitution or perpetual reliance on the state is pretty awful. Nothing prevents you from attempting to sway the mother towards your point of view, coercion isn't permitted. Once the child is born your personal feelings towards it are moot, the child's welfare is the priority. Yes I know you're going to pull the "well if the state has a vested interest in it's welfare it should pay" thus completing this circular discussion, but once again the state does not owe the child any greater a duty of care than the rest of it's citizens unless it is the legal guardian.

[AeneasBK]

I'm surprised you think consent to sex means consent to parenthood despite the fact that this very idea is what feminist groups have been fighting against for ages.

*shrug* I'm not a feminist group. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person that was taught that if you have sex with someone you are accepting the consequences of that action, regardless of what they are. Were you really brought up by your parents to believe that you can fuck anyone you like and once you're done it isn't you're responsibility any more? Serious question.

- - - Updated - - -

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this, both biological parents owe a duty of care to their child, regardless of how they feel about the child. This is to protect the most vulnerable party; the child. Withdrawing financial support in an attempt to force someone to abort a child or face destitution or perpetual reliance on the state is pretty awful. Nothing prevents you from attempting to sway the mother towards your point of view, coercion isn't permitted. Once the child is born your personal feelings towards it are moot, the child's welfare is the priority. Yes I know you're going to pull the "well if the state has a vested interest in it's welfare it should pay" thus completing this circular discussion, but once again the state does not owe the child any greater a duty of care than the rest of it's citizens unless it is the legal guardian.

Dude the answer to this thread was on page 2 lol. The rest of this is just boredom manifest.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post25425319

[Shadowmelded]

Dude the answer to this thread was on page 2 lol. The rest of this is just boredom manifest.

Lol I know, I'm fairly bored as well :P Also surprised by how many people get so venomous when promoting Men's Rights.

[AeneasBK]

Lol I know, I'm fairly bored as well :P Also surprised by how many people get so venomous when promoting Men's Rights.

ITS TOTALLY UNFAIR! THE DECK IS STACKED AGAINST US! I MEAN HOW MANY WOMEN ARE IN THE ARMY HUH? HUH??!!

Amidointirite?

[Shadowmelded]

ITS TOTALLY UNFAIR! THE DECK IS STACKED AGAINST US! I MEAN HOW MANY WOMEN ARE IN THE ARMY HUH? HUH??!!

Amidointirite?

Needs more insinuations that women aren't operating in good faith.

[Laraven]

So your argument is responsibility is hard, and that he expects too much from women when it comes to actually controlling their bodies.

Geez after all that feminism nonsense I hear you just completely shot it down.

When you start icing down your balls to lower your potency, I will start checking my cervix for mucus and taking my temp daily. Deal?

[Deleted]

When you start icing down your balls to lower your potency, I will start checking my cervix for mucus and taking my temp daily. Deal?

I don't think even doing that would be a certain way to check it.

[Mormolyce]

When you start icing down your balls to lower your potency, I will start checking my cervix for mucus and taking my temp daily. Deal?

I think this is my favourite post in this whole benighted thead.

[Vexxilus]

Oh my. Just stop. Most women don't even have normal cycles to start with. And if you think women spend time taking our temperatures and monitoring our cervical mucus you're not being very realistic. This is just too much. I will forget you suggested such a silly thing if you stop trying to say it is a liable method for birth control, or even a realistic tool to go by. Because it's not, never was and never will be.

I didn't say women had to do that but the option is there and it is actually far more reliable than you are trying to make it out to be. The point being that women have more control over whether they get pregnant or not so if they do become pregnant the responsibility isn't the 50/50 split you make it out to be.

As far as being a "liable" (reliable? viable?) method for birth control, I gave the failure rates. I would rather have a woman keeping track and wave me off during her ovulation window and have that extra 75% chance as a backup if a condom fails. But hey, fuck it right? We can just say it's the man's fault that the woman was ovulating and is medically impossible to have known any better.

And why must a women make ANY decisions once she becomes pregnant? She shouldn't have to. And if she simply does nothing, then what? The man gets to "get off" on any responsibility?

The woman should inform the man that she is pregnant so that they can talk and see where they both stand on the matter. That gives her plenty of time to decided if she wants to get an abortion or give the baby up for adoption if the man doesn't want to be a parent. Her choice to keep and raise the child solo should not be based on getting financial support from the man, but on her own wants and ability to support them herself.

Once abortion is off the table the woman still has far more say in the child than the man. She can simply not name a father and give it up for adoption, or drop it off at a safe haven, if she so chooses. That gives her the ability to remove any and all responsibility for the child that you seem to be so against men being able to do. That's all men want, the exact same right that a woman has. Equality right?

[Laraven]

I didn't say women had to do that but the option is there and it is actually far more reliable than you are trying to make it out to be. The point being that women have more control over whether they get pregnant or not so if they do become pregnant the responsibility isn't the 50/50 split you make it out to be.

As far as being a "liable" (reliable? viable?) method for birth control, I gave the failure rates. I would rather have a woman keeping track and wave me off during her ovulation window and have that extra 75% chance as a backup if a condom fails. But hey, fuck it right? We can just say it's the man's fault that the woman was ovulating and is medically impossible to have known any better.

The woman should inform the man that she is pregnant so that they can talk and see where they both stand on the matter. That gives her plenty of time to decided if she wants to get an abortion or give the baby up for adoption if the man doesn't want to be a parent. Her choice to keep and raise the child solo should not be based on getting financial support from the man, but on her own wants and ability to support them herself.

Once abortion is off the table the woman still has far more say in the child than the man. She can simply not name a father and give it up for adoption, or drop it off at a safe haven, if she so chooses. That gives her the ability to remove any and all responsibility for the child that you seem to be so against men being able to do. That's all men want, the exact same right that a woman has. Equality right?

So what you're saying is you don't want to ice down your balls?

[ddsad2212]

I may be mis-understanding something here but this is simply saying. Due to a female been easily able to drop responsibly for the child due to putting it up for adoption or abortion a man should have an equal right to in some way do similar. If that is correct can someone answer me this because I was unable to really get a clear answer. If in an unmarried relationship or lack there of does a man have fully equal rights to the child as the mother? Honestly I can see why this is an issue and I personally do believe the man should have the right to "drop" out I feel my lack of knowledge (as well as from reading most of these comments damn near all of yours) would be inherently mis-informed and think I'd need a real look at the laws etc before I could decide, but that'll never happen:P

[Laraven]

I didn't say women had to do that but the option is there and it is actually far more reliable than you are trying to make it out to be. The point being that women have more control over whether they get pregnant or not so if they do become pregnant the responsibility isn't the 50/50 split you make it out to be.

And the man has just as much control over his body making a women become pregnant... It actully is 50/50. Infact, if it's not, then more fault should be placed with the men. Because during conception, your sperm invades our body! Keep your swimmers to yourself and not one gets hurt. No? Don't like that way of thinking? Tough.

- - - Updated - - -

The woman should inform the man that she is pregnant so that they can talk and see where they both stand on the matter. That gives her plenty of time to decided if she wants to get an abortion or give the baby up for adoption if the man doesn't want to be a parent. Her choice to keep and raise the child solo should not be based on getting financial support from the man, but on her own wants and ability to support them herself.

Once abortion is off the table the woman still has far more say in the child than the man. She can simply not name a father and give it up for adoption, or drop it off at a safe haven, if she so chooses. That gives her the ability to remove any and all responsibility for the child that you seem to be so against men being able to do. That's all men want, the exact same right that a woman has. Equality right?

Inform the man. Check. Talk to man. Check. See where both stand. Check. Give her time to decide???.... WHY MUST SHE DECIDE ANYTHING? She is already pregnant. You think it's normal or natural to abort or give up children to adoption? Getting a pregnant is a mistake already completed. Period!

IF she decides to abort fine. But the normal process is to have the fucking child. It's not a choice to have and solo raise the child. She didn't get pregnant by herself or on purpose. This is only the normal process of becoming pregnant. Anything else is a minority, and extreme. I'm just saying, you get a girl pregnant, 90% she is having this child.

Abort, give up, drop child off at safe heaven... you can have equal rights, when you have equal morals.