Could abortion be considered a double standard?

You seem to want to detach the 9 months of a woman’s life (and the emotional connection developed in carrying a child to term) from the equation all together... this is extraordinarily chauvinistic.

You're essentially saying: "My one minute of exertion entitles me to require the woman to do what I say for the next 9 months", as if the woman’s self-determination, body and emotions don't enter the situation at all, or take second place to your desires.

Man's desire does not trump the woman's body.

And as much as pro-lifers want to say it's different, the potential child's future life (or whether it even has one) is completely dependant on the woman in the early stages of pregnancy.

I can hear that you were hurt by your partners decision to not include you in the decision to abort, but did you ever think that your partner when you were 16 didn't tell you about the pregnancy because she knew you would act like this?... completely non supportive of her decision and future life.

Your personality as coming across in this thread suggests that you would have been very domineering, and required her to "bear your child"... at the expense of her body, her time, her education, her options in life... all to fulfil your perceived "right" to a child that took you a minute of exertion.

Her decision was probably always going to be not to subject herself to pregnancy at such a young age, and stunt her life’s development... and rather than supporting her in a very difficult decision, you would have argued with her for your own wants.

As much as you may want "total equality" in this area, women and men will never be equal on this issue. Without legislating the woman's rights away, and relegating her to be an incubator, the final word will always rest with the woman, regardless of what a man thinks.

The financial issue is a social issue, and only recently, historically, has the man been legally responsible to support the child. I think there should be a contractual option that either of the parents (if agreed by both) can relinquish sole responsibility to a single parent... though I can imagine that such a law could be abused, which is likely why we have a catchall that requires the support of both parents.

originally posted by: Annee

Had grandfather's DNA tested. Guess what. Not fathers biological dad.

Because the grandfather's DNA didn't match the child's? There's another more logical explanation for that you know.

I couldn't help but chime in, I have children and would have another between them but decided the best thing at the time was to make that decision...but it was a decision my wife and I decided together. The OP is right, by there being a double standard but like people are saying a man cannot bare a child, only donate a seed. I believe it should be a decision made by both parties, you don't get pregnant all by yourself, like my mom says "It takes two to tango". There are many scenarios when it comes to getting pregnant, but I think the theme is, oh its just one time, we wont get pregnant, and then BAM, test turns out positive. I think as long as its consensual then both parties should be obligated to come to a decision. You know, this is one situation that can't be compared with anything, unless you add morality to the equation and then its still grey. Now, as I say both parties should be obligated to come to a decision, the mother obviously should have the final say.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Annee

Had grandfather's DNA tested. Guess what. Not fathers biological dad.

Because the grandfather's DNA didn't match the child's? There's another more logical explanation for that you know.

What?

originally posted by: amsterdamn87
I think as long as its consensual then both parties should be obligated to come to a decision.

Idealism is a nice word.

Some people want to make this a law.

originally posted by: Annee
Do you support mandatory DNA testing to prove paternity?

Every single time, also the time limits in law today are horribly short and fail to take into account that the woman might give a wrong name and address for the father.

a reply to: WanderingSage

You said in an earlier post you 'have christian morals'. Surely the church teaches that sex is purely for pro-creation. So did you have sex in order to have a child or merely for pleasure?

You can't have it both ways and you are forgetting something very important in that women can die in childbirth, not something men have to be concerned about. OK its not everyday in the West but childbirth is a risk and can be dreadfully painful and unpleasant for many women. I wonder if you had to go through that yourself it might alter your perspective somewhat.

You also don't seem to think logically in that a woman has to give up her career, provide a home after, when perhaps not able to work either at her old job or could loose her job simply because of her parental responsibilities.

There are so many different decisions a woman has to consider when getting pregnant especially when not in a steady relationship with a regular partnership. A lot of forced relationships are not happy ones with the child being resented, is that really what you would have wanted. Surely its better to wait until you have a loving, strong partnership before you worry about getting someone you actually love pregnant and providing a happy home for your child.

a reply to: Annee

Sorry, we're way off topic here. I don't want to pry and I certainly don't want to upset the almighty Phage lol.

What do you think about the scenario I laid out earlier where the woman killed the kid just to hurt the father? That was never addressed.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
You seem to want to detach the 9 months of a woman’s life (and the emotional connection developed in carrying a child to term) from the equation all together... this is extraordinarily chauvinistic.

Get your point. Don't think its chauvinistic but the term has expanded to become a check word for just about any male projection. And this thread is full of terms like "sperm donor" which for me is about as bad as calling a woman a "hose bag".

The warning should be for men these days to watch their ass. If you are really concerned about your DNA key opening life in an egg, in a womb, just be apprised that the container unit can operate under its own operating program.

For the folks that mocked the men'sfather's rights movement... Real classy move there...

Let's ignore the lives destroyed financially by a woman falsely labeling some poor schmuck a dad.

Let's also ignore the dad's that have spent years and every penny they had trying to be a part of their child's life only to have the courts ignore them.

Then there are those father's so distraught over the mother cutting them out of their children's lives who is now broke after years of fighting to be in their children's lives that they see no other option but to commit suicide on the court house steps.

There is a very real need for a men's rights movement that has nothing to do with controlling women.

a reply to: Logarock

And this thread is full of terms like "sperm donor" which for me is about as bad as calling a woman a "hose bag".

Saw the term used once and in its context it was appropriate.

The warning should be for men these days to watch their ass.

Their ass has little to do with it.

a reply to: Irishhaf

I happen to fall exactly into the group you are discussing, "fathers who got the short end of things" category and I openly criticize the type of thinking displayed in this thread as a straw man argument on several levels...

It's thinly veiled pro-life rhetoric, masquerading as something else.

It's an appeal to emotion, trying to present a total shift of power to a single side as an argument for equality.

It's a mess of false equivalencies.

When my parents divorced the legal pendulum was too far one way, and my father - a rather wealthy man - got away with not paying child support at all, and no court would force him to. In fact a Judge told my mother to "Get a third job" and "learn to manage money better".

By the time I got divorced, things had swung too far in the other direction and all my ex had to say was "He scares me" for a judge to see her as totally in the right.

What is being proposed by the OP is simply another massive swing to one side and does not benefit the child at all. It's all about ego, and that is just sad.

a reply to: Phage

A good deal of males see themselves as much more than sperm donors. Its not only the truth its their right.

From the beginning of legalized abortion its been about diminishing the male in the thing and in all cases that the woman wants to project her option. So a man should watch his ass if he really cares about his progeny.

a reply to: Annee
So you disagree? Or am I misunderstanding?

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: Irishhaf

I happen to fall exactly into the group you are discussing, "fathers who got the short end of things" category and I openly criticize the type of thinking displayed in this thread as a straw man argument on several levels...

It's thinly veiled pro-life rhetoric, masquerading as something else.

It's an appeal to emotion, trying to present a total shift of power to a single side as an argument for equality.

Well when we have the law adjudicating all leverage to one side then it just naturally polarizes the discussion. And even in these discussions it hardly ever about the child its about the adults. The idea itself has never been about the child which ever or whatever is facilitating.

a reply to: Hefficide

I get what your saying but only 1 person has touched on it in this thread, in the rush to condemn him.

Young man, Christian belifs probably wanted to have kids... Due to an incident he can no longer have kids.

Now this one time he had a chance to be a dad was taken from him without so much as a heads up. It appears to me that fact haunts him now.

The lack of empathy in this thread depresses me

I think, at the very least, a conversation would be appropriate. An honest one at that.

a reply to: Irishhaf

I get what your saying but only 1 person has touched on it in this thread, in the rush to condemn him.

If the person you're referring to is me, please remember that I utterly deplore and condemn the OP's opinions. Ethically, biologically, legally, he hasn't got a leg to stand on. I was merely trying to explain to others why it was so hard for the OP to understand what is quite clear to the rest of us, and suggesting that we not judge him too harshly.

You spoke earlier of the 'men's rights' movement. I have never engaged in a custody battle, but I imagine that being legally sundered from one's children must make one insupportably angry and sad. And if your former One and Only now can't stand the sight of you and can't bear the thought of letting you near the children either, she can probably make it stick and there'll be damn' little you can do about it. Any attempt to force the issue — whether in court or through other means — will put you in real trouble.

All very traumatic, I concur, and quite probably unfair in a number — perhaps even the majority — of cases. But those laws exist for a reason, and the reason is that so many men cannot control themselves or their behaviour, or imagine (like the OP) that they have 'rights' they actually don't.

The fact is that a good many ex-husbands are dangerous to their ex-wives and to their children — and, lest we forget, themselves. The law recognizes this, just as it recognizes the asymmetric contributions of men and women to childbearing and child-rearing, and it provides accordingly. It may be hard on ex-husbands, but it is legally and socially correct.

Call it the price of youthful folly, and learn to grin and bear it.

Or else, follow Philip Larkin's advice:

Get out as early as you can
And don't have any kids yourself.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Reinforcing irrational or overly emotionally based positions is antithetical to empathy I think. It's like the family pet dying and telling the kids that you took Sparky off to a farm, rather than telling them the truth. I never saw those sort of white lies or coddling as sympathy or mercy... but as a show of weakness from the parents - something that they claim to be doing out of empathy when the real motive is their own selfish need not to have to deal with upset kids.

If the op simply said "This happened to me. It hurts like Hell and it's unfair!" I would offer wholehearted support. But this conversation is not that conversation.

a reply to: Hefficide

Apples and potatoes... Sounds like he is mid twenties still trying to come to grips with everything that has happened to him.

If I was to make a wag at it, he either made a mistake and now can't have kids, or a piece of equipment malfunctioned causing an incident where he can't have kids.

For a young guy hitting an age where society says you should be looking to have kids, he is probably having trouble truly accepting his fate, which is bringing up unresolved issues from the girlfriend getting an abortion a decade ago.

So his current emotional state is magnifying issues from tge earlier event.

IE he is emotionally charged, and most emotionally charged young people can't present a solid logical argument.

Least that's my wild axxed guess...

My advice if he is still in is to go talk to the folks at mental health so he can talk through it with a professional.