Men and Abortion

I did

I know women always have the final say, and most likely always will, but to deny someone the right to a child is as bad as denying someone the right to give up a child. The debate is a double edged sword - you can't have male rights without taking womens and vice versa.

Originally posted by JackofBlades
to deny someone the right to a child is as bad as denying someone the right to give up a child.

No one is denying you the right to have a child. They're just denying you the right to use their body to do it. For a man to have a child, he must find a woman who agrees to use her body to do it in.

Originally posted by riley

How then do you FORCE a woman to continue a pregnancy without physically FORCING her to..? You are the one that proposed it.. either you believe they should be or believe they shouldn't.. but you might want to ask yourself how 'humane' you really are.. in essence you are suggesting slavery become revived.

very easy you have a judge inform her that she will carry this child to term, if she somehow ends said pregnancy or purposly does things to harm the fetus than she will be faceing murder or other applical charges. is this slavery? not realy they can be considered entering into the chance that pregnancy will occure as a concequince of sex. so it can be considdered volinteered by haveing sex.

now someone mentioned about a motherly bond being formed at birth, that would make it cruel to seperate her from the child. well she was going to kill it so she should give up all rights with that. the possibility to grant her visitation could be looked at by the courts. mabe if she gets pregnant again she will remember that before considering abortion. at least she would know that the child she so selfishly wanted to kill was still alive.

now when men can carry the child to term then mabe this can be looked at again. and if the mother was to lazy to carry the child, instead of an abortion the guy could take over.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You're proposing the law make abortion illegal so that she either is forced to go through with it or must pay afterward.

I just don't see how people can think that's fair... :shk:

She isn't forced to go through pregnancy, since she wasn't forced to conceive in the first place. That was her choice at the time, and comes with repercussions and responsibility, just as is does for a man.

As to the woman paying support, that's a different issue. Personally I have no problem with a woman who chooses to give up her child not paying support to the man. I don't even have a good rational reason for this, other than, as a man, I guess my own pride would stop me from ever relying on someone else so financially support me or those I am responsible for.

I can quite understand those who would expect the mother to pay support though.. after all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Originally posted by drogo

Originally posted by riley

How then do you FORCE a woman to continue a pregnancy without physically FORCING her to..? You are the one that proposed it.. either you believe they should be or believe they shouldn't.. but you might want to ask yourself how 'humane' you really are.. in essence you are suggesting slavery become revived.

very easy you have a judge inform her that she will carry this child to term, if she somehow ends said pregnancy or purposly does things to harm the fetus than she will be faceing murder or other applical charges. is this slavery? not realy they can be considered entering into the chance that pregnancy will occure as a concequince of sex. so it can be considdered volinteered by haveing sex.

now someone mentioned about a motherly bond being formed at birth, that would make it cruel to seperate her from the child. well she was going to kill it so she should give up all rights with that. the possibility to grant her visitation could be looked at by the courts. mabe if she gets pregnant again she will remember that before considering abortion. at least she would know that the child she so selfishly wanted to kill was still alive.

now when men can carry the child to term then mabe this can be looked at again. and if the mother was to lazy to carry the child, instead of an abortion the guy could take over.

so.....if her work is deemed to be dangerous for the baby, she should be forced to put herself in a position of dependancy.....

if her diet is considered to be harmful, she should be forced to change her habits...

if lifting her three year old is deemed to be harmful.....she should just let the boy run into the road and get run over by the car!!!

just how far should we go???

Originally posted by drogo
now when men can carry the child to term then mabe this can be looked at again.

Exactly. When men can carry and birth babies, then they can have their 'say' about it.

Originally posted by nowthenlookhere
Personally I have no problem with a woman who chooses to give up her child not paying support to the man.

That's called sexism.

OK, i said i wouldn't get involved in this any more because i'm prone to losing it and falling into a trap of being mean, with that in mind, i'm gonna try to stay calm.

First of all, to the person that is constantly suggesting that when a man and women begin to have sex, he makes the decision to wear a condom or not that is his only decision as far as the whole pregnancy goes....what the 'chunk'?

In this senario, the woman has made the same choice. If she does not wish the man to go ahead without the condom and he does, that is sex against her will, which is rape.

BUT if she doesn't mind this, infact allows it and both parties have intercourse and the result is a pregnancy, then both are accountable for the action, so both should be involved in the childs upbringing, even if its only child support.
I have no issue that if the woman wants to keep the baby, there should be upheld requirements from the father as he was part of the act.

My issue is when the Father wishes to keep the child, and the mother aborts.
Like someone said earlier, if the father is willing to support the mother everyway she needs through the pregnancy and after that is willing to take the child away with them and not ask for any help, the woman should allow the 9 Month pregnancy to go through, unless there are medical complications.

This comment caught my eye however.....

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
l0rds0fcha0s - What are you proposing the 'say' consist of? Making a woman go through a 9 month pregnancy and childbirth then giving up the child? Do you realize what you're asking a woman to do?

What if she changes her mind once she sees the child? You guys have absolutely NO IDEA what it's like to hold a life within your body. You have no idea the bond that forms during that 9 months. Then you want to force her to bear the child and hand it over to you? How realistic is that?

And to an extent, how is this a bad thing?
Not the giving up a child, but the mother becoming attached to it during the pregnancy.
Isn't it a good thing that both parents would wish to be apart of the childs life.
I don't care about the legal stuff about giving over a child, infact if the situation where a mother plans to abort decides to allow the pregnancy for the father goes ahead, there should be some allowance for this possibility as the bond would be made essentially.

No, its a mixed up world when someone is using a possible bond developing between a mother and child as a reason to justify abortion.

If we live in a world where its OK for a woman to abort without the consent of the father, we should live in a world where its ok for a father to leave the mother and child without having to pay IF he has stated catagorically he doesn't want a child.
Having said that, I am of the mind that as contraception is not 100% BOTH parties who have CONSENTED sexual Intercourse should both acceot the responsibilities of the possible outcome.

Ohh and the person who is making out that a woman who is pregnant that has no medical worries and has not been raped chooses to have an abortion but the father wishes to keep it and has subsequently turned that argument into a forced Slavery thing....erm, no.

For a start, if the woman doesn't want the child, she should be more forceful about the sexual arrangements as the man is showing signs he is willing to deal with the outcome.
Secondly, BOTH parental signatures should be required for this procedure unless thats impossible due to lack of knowledge or death of father.
IF there aren't two signatures without a genuine reasons then the Doctor should say no.
There are ways of enforcing this.
Firstly, teh Doctor should be held accountable(as well as the mother), I'll tell you right now, if the Doctor can be implicated in anyway, he will make sure these things are followed.
All abortion should be transfered through a Family Doctor so that any they are aware of both signatures.
IF then the woman takes it upon herself tohave an illegal abortion, then she has commited a crime so there are legal ramification.
Not one of these suggests that a woman be held down against her will for the term of the pregnancy.

Life isn't a side effect of Sex, Life is the reason for it.


EDIT:

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's called sexism.

So is the fact that a man has no say in this matter....hasn't stopped the women here enforcing their belief he has no choice.

[edit on 22/7/2006 by JebusSaves]

Nice post Jebus and I personally liked the chunk. Were you throttling a stress relief ball as you wrote

I agree with everything you said, particularly about forming the attachment after birth. Many mothers are worried that their baby will not 'like' them at birth, or that they will be bad mothers or a whole lot of other things, however the majority suddenly change their entire lifestyle around the second they hold their child in their arms.

Ohh and the person who is making out that a woman who is pregnant that has no medical worries and has not been raped chooses to have an abortion but the father wishes to keep it and has subsequently turned that argument into a forced Slavery thing....erm, no.

Thank you! The (so-called) enslavement doesn't begin until she has also agreed that sex without a condom, or coil, or diaphragm, or femidom or pill is absolutely peachy (you notice the WIDE range of contraceptives open to women).

Originally posted by JebusSaves
First of all, to the person that is constantly suggesting that when a man and women begin to have sex, he makes the decision to wear a condom or not that is his only decision as far as the whole pregnancy goes....what the 'chunk'?

You have totally misunderstood my point. What I'm saying is that as regards being pregnant, carrying a child and giving birth, a man biologically simply doesn't have that choice. That's the way it is.

So, for him to avoid getting into a situation that he has no control over, he needs to make sure not to get a woman pregnant.

I'm not addressing the woman's responsibility here, just the man's. Of course the woman has responsibilities, and if I were taking to a group of women, I would go into those. But since this thread is about MEN and abortion, I was addressing the men. To assume that I'm saying the woman has no responsibility as regards birth control is just incorrect. She is even more responsible because it will be her body (at the very least) that is affected.

BUT if she doesn't mind this, infact allows it and both parties have intercourse and the result is a pregnancy, then both are accountable for the action, so both should be involved in the childs upbringing, even if its only child support.

That's assuming a child results from the pregnancy.

My issue is when the Father wishes to keep the child, and the mother aborts.

I understand your position on it, I just disagree.

Isn't it a good thing that both parents would wish to be apart of the childs life.

Ideally, yes. If there is a child.

No, its a mixed up world when someone is using a possible bond developing between a mother and child as a reason to justify abortion.

That's not at all what I said. I was asking would you force a woman to carry and bear, then give up a child?

Life isn't a side effect of Sex, Life is the reason for it.

So... people who aren't breeding shouldn't have sex?

There are so many 'shoulds' in your post, I lost count. I'm just glad you're not in a position of power to control women and their reproductive organs.

So is the fact that a man has no say in this matter....hasn't stopped the women here enforcing their belief he has no choice.

Talk to the creator if you believe in such a thing. Biologically, men can't carry and bear children. It's not a matter of choice, it's a matter of biology. He made his choice when he let his sperm go inside her. After that, it's her choice. That's just the way it is, regardless how you think it 'should' be.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You have totally misunderstood my point. What I'm saying is that as regards being pregnant, carrying a child and giving birth, a man biologically simply doesn't have that choice. That's the way it is.

So, for him to avoid getting into a situation that he has no control over, he needs to make sure not to get a woman pregnant.

I'm not addressing the woman's responsibility here, just the man's. Of course the woman has responsibilities, and if I were taking to a group of women, I would go into those. But since this thread is about MEN and abortion, I was addressing the men. To assume that I'm saying the woman has no responsibility as regards birth control is just incorrect.

She is even more responsible because it will be her body (at the very least) that is affected.

Not at all misunderstanding your point. You claim that any rights regarding the foetus are lost the moment he ejaculates inside her to the moment of a child birth(if the outcme of the ejactulation results in pregnancy). If the man has no choice then, he should not be forced into a situation later.
HOWEVER, because BOTH parties agree at the moment of ejactulation that contraception is not required, then BOTH should have equal say in what happens to the child. At the point of a disagreement, the one who is willing to look after the child SHOULD take priority IF they can assure(legally if required) that they intend to take on full responsibility AND if its the father, that he looks after the needs of the mother while she is pregnant.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's assuming a child results from the pregnancy.

Hence why i actually put the words 'result in a pregnancy' in that comment.
There is NO point in discussing Men and Abortion IF we aren't talking about the sexact resulting in pregnancy

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Ideally, yes. If there is a child.

As we are on about the whole pregnancy ending with a child, your comment with the exception of 'Ideally, yes' really says nothing. We are on about the resulting child so there is no IF.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's not at all what I said.

I was asking would you force a woman to carry and bear, then give up a child?

No, you said it would be unfair to do this. I agree on that part, BUT I never said she HAD to give up the child she wished to murder 9 months before birth. I said that if she had a change of heart then its a good thing and their should be allowances for this in any agreement between father and mother.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So... people who aren't breeding shouldn't have sex?

Didn't say that did I.
I said 'Life isn't a side effect of sex, its the reason'
IF they are not in to sex for breeding purposes they should take every step necessary to ensure that they do not create a child. Then IF they do, and both agree that they don't want it, then no one can stop them from having an abortion.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
There are so many 'shoulds' in your post, I lost count. I'm just glad you're not in a position of power to control women and their reproductive organs.

Yes, because someone who values life, for instance the life of an unborn child, or the rights of BOTH parents is such a bad person.
Yes, there are so many 'shoulds' because last time i checked, the things i suggest weren't how things were.
If they were like that, then they wouldn't be shoulds.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Talk to the creator if you believe in such a thing. Biologically, men can't carry and bear children. It's not a matter of choice, it's a matter of biology. He made his choice when he let his sperm go inside her. After that, it's her choice. That's just the way it is, regardless how you think it 'should' be.

I do happen to believe in a 'Creator', or God as i prefer, and i'm confidently sure when he created life and made it so that both sexes had to be together to create life he didn't mean for one to have all the rights and one to have none, especially when it comes to terminating a new life created by them both

[edit on 22/7/2006 by JebusSaves]

"then BOTH should have equal say in what happens to the child. At the point of a disagreement, the one who is willing to look after the child SHOULD take priority IF they can assure(legally if required) that they intend to take on full responsibility AND if its the father, that he looks after the needs of the mother while she is pregnant."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

so, what exactly do you mean by this.......


because I am reading it like this......

the doctor decides her job is endangering the child, so the father can make her quite her job, he'll look after her needs. of course, he can't afford her apartment and his, so well, I guess she can give up her apartment and live in his. she can also disregard whatever it is she feels that she needs and accept his assessment of her needs.....
she can become dependant on him.....hopefully by the time the child is born, she will become attached to it, but in this dependant state, she will not be able to break free from him and regain her apartment back...she will be forever his, or at least his until the child is old enough that she can hold a job, of course by the time this happens, she will be pregnant again!!!


I'm also getting the impression that well, most of the relationships we are talking about are not married couples. why in God's name are so many of yous having sex without first making this commitment to each other to begin with??? you're opening yourselves up for these kinds of problems!

-------------------------------------------------------



"obey your husband in all things"-- Biblical version

"because you are dependant on him, obey him"-- Islamic version....

I think way too many men want to believe that God wishes the man to hold all the cards.....l


[edit on 23-7-2006 by dawnstar]

[edit on 23-7-2006 by dawnstar]

too danged early in the morning I guess....

[edit on 23-7-2006 by dawnstar]

1. Me, I like the thought that if either parent wants the child, then the child should live. It's wanted. If neither wants it, then it should go for private adoption, while still in the womb. If no one wants to adopt it, then maybe, jsut maybe, there should be talks of abortion.

2. Why would women give up their rights on this? Some of the earliest diary recorded abortions were done because there was either no contraceptives, or the Catholic Church said it was a no-no, and women were dying from their child every 10 months regime. Certainly, if I was under the same trap, I'd think about abortion. (and I'm firmly against killing children like this)
2.b. Killing children is what keeps most women at work...and they buy that freedom with the death of their child. (they seem to be living with it just fine *shrugs*) Apparantly, a man wanting his baby keeps her from her freedoms.

there's no appearantly about it......

motherhood has the habit of decreasing the ability of the mother to earn her keep in the world, thus making her dependant on another, usually the father.
there are things that could be done about this, like increasing the wages at the lower end of the payscale, fathers could participate more in the actual mudane day to day responsibilities of caring for a family, something could be done with the healthcare system so that it's easier and cheaper for stay at home mothers to be insured, men could acknowledge the work that she is doing and her right to some of his income, ect. ect....

but it's easier I guess for men to just gripe and complain about how they're getting the short end of the stick and threaten to force women back into their traditional roles like they are here.

it is men that devalued the child when they refused to recognize the labor the women were doing to raise that child and keep that house and decided that hey, since he is working all day to pay for this family, she should at least have the obligation to do as he says!! she's dependant on him for crying out loud....

what's the matter, you learning just how dependant you are of her now?

Originally posted by dawnstarwhat's the matter, you learning just how dependant you are of her now?

What?!?

1. Dude, if that's directed at me, I'm a chica, and damn well know how dependant I'll have to be to have kids and suport them. Got me a nice doscile man I can boss around too...

2. Since all raising the minimum wage ever did was increase the price of cheap things sold by the minimum wagers in order to support their wage hike without cutting profits for the owners, most wage increases is way out of line. It wouldn't do anything but make me have to find an alternative to buying diapers.

2.b. If I do a man's job, I want a man's wage. If I do a similar job, but don't do as much as the man, I don't deserve the wage. There's a lot of jobs out there where the woman gets paid less that I can sure enough point out where they did a similar job, but not near as much productivity resulted~sometimes, that's where a lot of women complain, too. It doesn't mean that that is always the situation, but sometimes it is. If I'm out of work, for medical reasons, then I'm not going to get a raise for time not worked. Simple enough. If I don't want kids or am unwilling to subjugate myself, when needed, to my spouse, in order to have kids, I just won't have sex.

3. There's prices to pay on both sides of the coin. I'm not going to take my stupidity out on a baby. If it means life isn't going to play nice, then so be it. I'll work when I can. I'll work when I have to, and I'll be submissive when it's necessary for the welfare of my kids.

4. This is more a matter of balancing the father's rights agaisnt the mothers and right now it's not balanced...and it's not good for either party. Certainly isn't good for the kid, wich, out of most cases when the argument comes up, winds up being born before either partner decides anything.

and if a company needs a living, breathing human being to do a job, they should be obligated to pay a wage that will keep that human living and breething, if they expect a future generation to pick up the workload after this generation retires, they should be accomodating to the idea of having to support the children a little. they shouldn't be expecting their employees to go elsewhere and find someone else to depend on for what is lacking out of their paycheck!!!

there is a problem in our society, a major one. there's always been inequality when it comes to the men/women issue. for most of history, women have born the burden in order to preserve harmony.....to the point of losing just about all or her freedom!!!

it's obvious to me that this wasn't an equal system....not for the men either, who ended up working from first light till dark, away from their families, in order to support them.

and it's just as obvious now that there's plenty of room for improvement!! ya know, I went many years working from the time I got up, till the time I went to bed, I worked 8-10 hours a day, came home, and tended kids, cleaned house, cooked food, helped with homework, ect. ect. ect....
ya know what, I went hungry every day at work.....sometimes begged for cigarettes, went without healthcare.....but my taxes paid for the "poor".
my husband didn't make enough money....okay...

well, my husband also felt that he didn't have to help out with all these other things either. and, he accused me of wasting his money when I bought things with the money I earned on things he didn't feel were worthy but I did....(materials I intended to use to create jewelry that I could then sell......I knew what the signs my body were sending me meant...)

well, to make a long story short....I worked just about all my waking hours, lived on four hours sleep, ate one meal a day, and finally found myself having major problems trying to walk....all this for a wage that was half of what my husband made, not enough to support me, let alone the three kids, and that my husband thought was his money....... when the foot finally broke, I found myself lying in bed, my leg in a splint, no health insurance, a doctor wanting a $2,000 down payment to fix the thing, and my husband coming home from work, and saying no dishes down, guess there's no supper huh?? and running over to a friends to eat....

No one brought me food!!




and I had to just accept it all, since I didn't make enough to strike out on my own.

no, what we have now isn't any way equal either...

but the answer, isn't to go backward to the time where women just had to accept whatever the men through at them, with no alternatives...

so, instead of sitting on our butts and griping and complaining about how unfair it is, well, and trying to direct us backward....maybe we could put some energy into finding a better way of life, for all of us!!!

[edit on 23-7-2006 by dawnstar]

Originally posted by JebusSaves
Not at all misunderstanding your point. You claim that any rights regarding the foetus are lost the moment he ejaculates inside her to the moment of a child birth(if the outcme of the ejactulation results in pregnancy). If the man has no choice then, he should not be forced into a situation later.

But he already made his choice to take the chance of creating a child that he would be held responsible for when he ejaculated inside a woman. That's so simple, I don't understand why you don't get that. He had a choice and he made it. He doesn't have a choice about the abortion but he has a choice about the creation.

What you're suggesting is similar to a person deciding to gamble in Vegas, but once he loses, he decides he doesn't want to take the gamble after all. At that point, only the casino has a choice about it. They can keep his money or give it back to him. HE ALREADY TOOK HIS CHANCE - HE ALREADY EXERCISED HIS CHOICE and will have to deal with the consequences of that choice, whatever they are.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's assuming a child results from the pregnancy.

Hence why i actually put the words 'result in a pregnancy' in that comment.
There is NO point in discussing Men and Abortion IF we aren't talking about the sexact resulting in pregnancy

You're confused. Read carefully what I said. I'm not saying the sex act "results in pregnancy" I'm saying assuming the pregnancy "results in a child". In other words, if the pregnant woman decides to have the child that these 2 made together, then yes, it's best (in most cases) if both parents contribute to the child.

I do happen to believe in a 'Creator', or God as i prefer, and i'm confidently sure when he created life and made it so that both sexes had to be together to create life he didn't mean for one to have all the rights and one to have none, especially when it comes to terminating a new life created by them both

If God meant for the man to have these rights, don't you think he would? Did God make a mistake? I mean, he made sure that 2 people were needed to create this fetus, why didn't he make sure that the man would somehow have to continue contributing for the child to grow and survive? He didn't. He gave that ability totally to the woman. As regards gestation and birth, God gave that to woman only. So, you are just arguing with God's choice.

[edit on 23-7-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by dawnstar
and if a company needs a living, breathing human being to do a job, they should be obligated to pay a wage that will keep that human living and breething, if they expect a future generation to pick up the workload after this generation retires, they should be accomodating to the idea of having to support the children a little. they shouldn't be expecting their employees to go elsewhere and find someone else to depend on for what is lacking out of their paycheck!!!

I agree. The problem is that there are some jobs that cannot afford to give a living wage, period. Drive up the wage, and then you have to drive up the prices of products to meet the price of the wage. Simpe supply and demand.

These jobs should not be sought out by a mother of 6 kids. This woman is often a high school drop out becuase she chose to f*** around and keep the kid. She shouldn't have had sex in the first place. Second, she shouldn't have dropped out. It's a lot easier to get temporary government help than permanant help.

When there is no choice, I want to help those. When there is choice but massive stupidity, I want to make them inffertile, take their kids away from them, and set them to some real back-breaking labor to support those children while those same kids are getting a real education, so that way the madness will stop.

Women who are willing to work and don't job hop (a sign that they can't stick to a program) should be getting the federal aid, not some lard a** who can't even remember last child's father. Take their kids from them, a least on a trial basis. If they want the kids, they'll work for them.

Abortion is just a cure for the symptom, when either parent want is, not a cure for the cause. (Except for the few extreme cases where you can die from the pregnancy~ but that's why you are supposed to go to a Gyna well before you get preggers, anyway.)

Same thing with fathers, make them WORK for their kids.

I'm not against help, I'm against the Government puropsedly breeding stupidity.

hmmm......my three kids all have the same father, my husband....
the job I have now isn't enough to support a women and her one child, I know, since my coworker fits that description and she's relying on the gov't to pay her rent...she's also making a little more money than I am..
the company is own by two individuals....one recently took a nice long vacation (a month volunteering for the park service) and the other is now off enjoying some time in paris.....they are making enough profit!!!
your taxes are helping their employees stay alive and well while they enjoy their nice vactions!

1. Give me a way to help her directly. If she's willing to work for it, and she ain't popping out her own football team, I'll see what I can do to help her myeslf.

I point blank stated when they are willing to fight for the things they need for their kids, I'm more than willing to help them, so none of my comments were directed at her.

I'm thinking about some 15-40 people I've worked with since I first started working. Had programs that would get them out of mess of a life they created for themselves and wouldn't even try. Didn't even apply for the programs. I'm talking about minimum wage jobs in an area where there are more jobs than people. All you need is some half-mangled attempt to get a job better than minimum wage around here. You only need 1 person to support a hosehold down here, as long as you can find a babysitter. And I'm talking about with no education.

2. Do they own the company? I don't give a damn what they do with their profits/what they earn, as it is theirs to do things with. If they are cheating the company, or something similar, they need to be taken down any way possible that is not endangering everyone else. If they don't pay the right price for the services, look eslewhere for employment, and use them as experience. If you are in an economically tight area, and this is the only job y'all can get, then it ain't just the working mothers who are in trouble, it's hoseolds of any sort, altogether. Raising the mnimum wage would mean that one of you would likely lose your job, as well.

Originally posted by dawnstar

because I am reading it like this......

Well then, a suggestion, learn to read what i actually write, as opposed to changing the meaning.

Originally posted by dawnstar
the doctor decides her job is endangering the child, so the father can make her quite her job, he'll look after her needs. of course, he can't afford her apartment and his, so well, I guess she can give up her apartment and live in his. she can also disregard whatever it is she feels that she needs and accept his assessment of her needs.....
she can become dependant on him.....hopefully by the time the child is born, she will become attached to it, but in this dependant state, she will not be able to break free from him and regain her apartment back...she will be forever his, or at least his until the child is old enough that she can hold a job, of course by the time this happens, she will be pregnant again!!!

Where did i say at any point the woman has to quit her job and lose independance?
No Where.
A pregnant woman can work, if she so chooses, till her 7th month.
If she is in a job where she is forced onto maternity leave before that she is likely to be getting paid for this.
What i ACTUALLY said was 'that they intend to take on full responsibility AND if its the father, that he looks after the needs of the mother while she is pregnant".
This means, should the one parent wishing to have the child without the other one taking all responsibility for the child, then they should, also, if the father is the one who wants it, then he should make sure all the needs of the mother are cared for during the pregnancy itself.
Now, i'm not even going to go into how this can be achieved because EVERY SINGLE SITUATION is different.
Taking care of needs isn't just monetary, there are other things that she needs. This is not again, some sinister way to have a woman dependant on the man. IF the relationship is over why would either want that?
You are showing a very skewed example of life, but don't misinterpret my words to make my point of view out as something it is not.

Originally posted by dawnstar
I'm also getting the impression that well, most of the relationships we are talking about are not married couples. why in God's name are so many of yous having sex without first making this commitment to each other to begin with??? you're opening yourselves up for these kinds of problems!

What the 'Chunk'?
These are hypothetical situations, but in essence marriage has nothing to do with it.
I'm actually against sex before marriage, but thats not the point.
There are plenty of married couples that have this same dilemma of one person wanting a child and one not.
I really don't get your point at all.

Originally posted by dawnstar
"obey your husband in all things"-- Biblical version

"because you are dependant on him, obey him"-- Islamic version....

I think way too many men want to believe that God wishes the man to hold all the cards.....l

Not at all. Again you are skewering the argument to make this about the man.
This is actually about having equal rights in one situation that is fraught with endless issues that aren't equal.
In this situation the man has no rights what so ever.
Not one person has even suggested the entire decision be taken from the woman, just that the man should have equal say.
If you don't like that, fine its your opinion just never EVER complain when you are in a situation when you believe equal rights are being ignored in favour of someone else.