The Utter Insanity of Pro-Choice

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
From the responses in this thread from men it is clear abstaining is far from an option yet men still think after the fact they should have a say.

If a man takes precautions, that being using a condom then should said man still have to pay if a pregnancy comes about and a woman chooses to keep it? You are correct that abstaining isn't much of an option because the need to have sex was built into human beings and very few can simply not do it, the current situation with the catholic church kind of makes the point here.

So why should a man, who has used a condom, taking precautions to not have a child then be financially punished because someone else makes a choice he has no control over? Of course i will say again that it should be the woman, and only the woman who chooses whether to keep it or not.

I speak as a man who uses condoms properly and will soon be heading to the doctor for a vasectomy. Hey that's an interesting question, if a man has a vasectomy but it reverses itself (yes this happens) and a child comes about, should he also be forced to pay for it? I mean he has undergone surgery to prevent children, what more could you ask? Although i have to say i will still be using condoms even after they cut off the flightpath for the little life destroyers.

If a man fails to use a condom then quite simply, screw him, it's his fault and he should support any child that results from sex.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by MR BOB
funny also how we don't see many guys who are pro-choice.

I'm a guy and i'm pro choice, would you care to provide figures for your statement? Ahh of course you can't because you just pulled that statement from thin air.



Having said all of that, if a guy doesn't want a child and the women goes ahead anyway then i don't think that man should be financially culpable. He gets no choice but is forced to pay, seems wrong.

if the guy doesn't want a child why is he having sex? Babies are a logical end result of sex. He certainly exercised his choice when he chose to have sex. How do you come up with this forced to pay nomsense? Was your sperm forced into the egg without your consent?

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Having said all of that, if a guy doesn't want a child and the women goes ahead anyway then i don't think that man should be financially culpable. He gets no choice but is forced to pay, seems wrong.

So that means she would have to factor that into her decision.. if he is not financially culpable she may be forced into having an abortion and do as he wishes anyway. Nice and fair that is. aka. "have this baby and you are on your own". I'm sure deadbeat fathers everywhere agree with you.

After the baby is born.. why should he not financially support it? It does not magically become not his just because he didn't want it.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by riley]

That's one side of the argument. The other side of the argument is the women out there who use the child as a weapon to entrap the man financially and then exclude him from the child's life.

Not forcing an unwilling man to support a child he doesn't want would solve so many problems out there today.

Put another way, if women want ALL the choices they should have ALL the responsibilities associated with THEIR choices. You shouldn't be able to suck and blow at the same time as you can today.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by leo123]

Originally posted by riley
So that means she would have to factor that into her decision.. if he is not financially culpable she may be forced into having an abortion and do as he wishes anyway. Nice and fair that is. aka. "have this baby and you are on your own". I'm sure deadbeat fathers everywhere agree with you.

After the baby is born.. why should he not financially support it? It does not magically become not his just because he didn't want it.

Many couples don't have children because they can't afford them, and they even have abortions, is that fair? It's the exact same situation. If you can't afford a child you shouldn't have one, it is the womans choice to have a child therefore she should be financially responsible.

He shouldn't financially support it because he didn't want it, if he took precautions and yet is being forced into paying for something it is wrong. It's like if you buy a car from me but can't make the payments, should i then be required to help you fund it?

No i damn well shoudln't. Oh and i don't have kids so please don't think this is the rant of a soon to be annoyed father lol.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
From the responses in this thread from men it is clear abstaining is far from an option yet men still think after the fact they should have a say.

If a man takes precautions, that being using a condom then should said man still have to pay if a pregnancy comes about and a woman chooses to keep it?

Yes.. there is always a risk of it breaking.. he knows this and he knows full well sex can result in pregnancy. Threatening a woman with poverty so she will have an abortion is sick.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
if the guy doesn't want a child why is he having sex? Babies are a logical end result of sex. He certainly exercised his choice when he chose to have sex. How do you come up with this forced to pay nomsense? Was your sperm forced into the egg without your consent?

Again i use the car anaology. If you purchase a car from me but are unable to make the payments should i then have to help you fund it? No i shouldn't. If a man takes all sensible precuations then it's obvious he doesn't want a child, the woman then has a choice, she can abort the child or she can keep it and force the man to pay. He has no say in whether he has to fund a child, that is completely wrong. Why is it only about the rights of the woman and never the man?

A woman is making a decision for 3 people without the input of the other two. If she wants to keep it then that's fine and dandy, but she should fund it.

I shouldn't bother arguing though, it's something that will not change. But hey i'll never be in that position, vasectomy and condoms ftw.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Of course he shoud pay. Sex with condoms comes with a well known small percentage of failure. Again. One hundred percent contraceptive success can always be achieved through abstinence.

A man who relies on a condom to keep himself from fatherhood is a fool.

There is nothing but deadbeatism in this argument.

I don't understand why the concept of males being responsible for their sexual reproduction is so hard for males to understand.

A condom is the worst thing to use if a man absolutely does not want an 18yr obligation. And it is not the womans fault if your CHOICE of contraception fails, a man has one chance to choose and that is before he has sex. Once sex happens he made his choice and must accept the consequences.

It is amazing how far men in general seem to go on abdicating personal responsibility re: sex and consequences.

Why are men who don't want children having sex with women anyway?

Originally posted by riley
Yes.. there is always a risk of it breaking.. he knows this and he knows full well sex can result in pregnancy. Threatening a woman with poverty so she will have an abortion is sick.

You understand, once again that there are couples out there who choose abortion because they can't fund a child yes? Why are you not out there defending them? Financial decisions are a part of this world. How about the man, he will also be in poverty funding the child. In fact there are men out there who pay child support, live in horrible little flats while the woman they had sex with is living rather well. So why should the man be forced to live in poverty?

What about men who have a vasectomy but it reverses itself and they then have a child, they took severe, surgical precautions and you still want them to pay? What about the men who gladly pay and aren't allowed to see their children.

It's seems very one sided as a system.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Hang on personal responsibility? Again i state if a man takes precuations he is taking responsibilty. Why are you not talking about the womans responsibility? If she decides to keep a child then why should she not be the one responsible for funding it? What if a man has a vasectomy and a child still resutls, are you honestly saying he hasn't taken precuations? there is no more serious precaution for a man.

I love how you call the men deadbeats but the woman taking money from a guy when he never wanted the child, is not a deadbeat, how strange.

You're right women shouldn't have to pay for the decision they alone make.


EDIT

I am now just repeating myself so unless you come up with something new i won't continue to spam the thread with the same thing. Agree to disagree i guess

[edit on 15-4-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply to post by andy1033


One thing to mention: a woman produces ONE EGG a month. A man MILLIONS of sperm in an ejaculation, (and a man can ejaculate LOTS of times...so we're talking BILLIONS and BILLIONS of sperm here......and in MY experience, some men ejaculate a LOT....mostly with NO contact with an egg, by the way.....get my drift here?)
A man does not have to PHYSICALLY suffer/feel, ( how ever you want to view it,) the effects of a pregnancy......(he gets to suffer, in a way, if he STAYS with the woman and gets to SEE/hear her experiences with the pregnancy).
SO...in MY mind, (and yes, I am a woman and YES, I am pro-choice) I feel it SHOULD be a woman's choice...period. NOW....if a man wants to marry a woman and they, as a married couple, get pregnant...then if the man REALLY wants the kid, knows his wife doesn't....then I guess he could SUE her for that child...with a LEGAL understanding that HE has to pay for the child ALONE...(this is where I get peeved about family law....that a man has to pay for a child he never wanted...when a woman could just have an abortion or give the child up for adoption...I HAVE seen greed in some women who have children out of wedlock to get money....). It's ALL about the money in this conversation, in MY opinion.....
IDEALLY? IMHO? this is in a NON-PLANNED, UNMARRIED COUPLE type situation.....a man wants a baby and his girlfriend gets preggers...he should be able to sue and I guess...."make" the woman have a child...(though I am not too sure about that...but if a chic is too lazy to use BC...well.......), BUT...the woman should NOT have to pay a DIME in support and the man should be MADE to pay ALL COSTS involved in the birth of said child....and vice versa....a woman wants a child, then why sue the guy who DOESN'T want a child? Man, this isn't going to be a popular response....but it is what it is....

reply to post by Cornczech


If you are a woman then thank you for this reply, however i have a feeling many will say you are not a woman because a woman could not possibly believe a man shouldn't be financially responsible for a child he didn't want and took precautions against having

However i must disagree with you on one point. A man should not be able to sue a woman to make her have a child. A woman has to carry that child to term and that involves real physical dangers, along with psychological problems post birth.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
A man should not be able to sue a woman to make her have a child. A woman has to carry that child to term and that involves real physical dangers, along with psychological problems post birth.

Good point, we have enough whacked out women out there today, we certainly don't need any more.

reply to post by Monts


Monts, Heavy topic.

There is a third person with a right to be born. We in the West generally understand that each life is unique and we come this way only once.

The preamble of our Constitution uses the words life liberty for us and our posterity. Our posterity are mentioned because the idea is we set up a government that would continue over many generations.

This certainly must mean we intend to provide for the wellbeing of the vulnerable soon to be born.

As a man I was subject to the military draft. Certainly an inconvenience that included discomfort and the possibility of death in combat or even training with weapons. It was well understood that the country needed this arrangement to fulfill the statement of purpose set forth in the Constitution.

Carrying a soon to be born person to full term and live birth seems to have the same degree of benefit to our society while being disruptive to one individual for a while.

It saddens me to see that in this day and age there are people willing to strip women of their personal right to autonomy because that is what this issue essentially boils down to -- the right to control the body and will of another against their wishes.

The truth of the matter is whenever a couple engages in sex there will always be the risk of pregnancy regardless of any precautions (short of a woman having undergone a hysterectomy) that may have been taken. Added to this is the fact that it is a risk that is not shared equally as it is the woman who cares the burden of pregnancy, not the man. However, it is a risk that is equally assumed by both partners when engaging in sex.

As another member pointed out the issue of equality seems to be one of contention. Many people feel that men should have an equal input in what is ultimately a woman's choice to exercise control to what happens to her physical being. In effect, this would strip away a woman's right to autonomy because she is no longer afforded full control of the decision making process regarding her body. In short a woman is reduced to nothing more than a possible incubator.

However, there can never be true equality when it comes to the issue of reproductive choice because there is an unequal risk assumed by women regarding unplanned pregnancies. It is impossible to have any kind of equal balance.

There are also people who feel that if a woman should choose to continue with an unplanned pregnancy against the father's wishes, he should be free from any type of financial obligation towards that child. In other words, men should feel free to engage in sex without any risk whatsoever, as that risk is placed squarely upon the shoulders of the woman. Talk about equality.

What we are left with are unsavory scenarios where a woman would be forced to carry a baby to term against her wishes at the behest of the man who impregnated her. Or, a woman who is forced to abort a child by that same man. Or, a man who agrees that the woman may continue with a pregnancy if she chooses to, as long as the man can walk free of any financial obligation towards the child he sired. What utter lunacy.

The day we start stripping people of their intrinsic right to autonomy is the day we open the door to having our other rights chipped away from us as well.

reply to post by maria_stardust


I am sure plenty of females do not take your approach to equality seriously.

You have your view, and us men who think there should be equal rights will have ours, but you cannot talk about having equal rights if the father is ignored.

Originally posted by andy1033
You have your view, and us men who think there should be equal rights will have ours, but you cannot talk about having equal rights if the father is ignored.

How can there possible be equal rights to a situation where there is unequal risk. As I stated earlier, this is an issue where balance is impossible to achieve.

As unpopular as this may seem to you, men do have reproductive rights. They have the right to engage in sex and assume the inherent risks that come along with it. What they don't have is the right to walk away without any financial obligation to a child they have sired because they don't want to be a father. That is the risk they took when engaging in sex to begin with.

Originally posted by maria_stardust

There are also people who feel that if a woman should choose to continue with an unplanned pregnancy against the father's wishes, he should be free from any type of financial obligation towards that child. In other words, men should feel free to engage in sex without any risk whatsoever, as that risk is placed squarely upon the shoulders of the woman. Talk about equality.

The other side of that argument is that the way matters stand today, women get all the choices but are able to offload part the consequences and responsibilities associated with THEIR choices.

I would hardly call that equality.

But if they have a financial obligation if the child is born, then the court is saying something opposite than your position. They are saying the man has as much responsibility than the female, and so why should he not have that right in abortions?

They would chase a man all over a country to get him to pay child support but he does not have the right to say what he thinks in regards to abortions. If abortion is legal, than females should let the father have equal rights too.

Hypocrites.....

Originally posted by leo123
The other side of that argument is that the way matters stand today, women get all the choices but are able to offload part the consequences and responsibilities associated with THEIR choices.

I would hardly call that equality.

See my above post.

Men have a choice in whether or not they choose to engage in sex. There is always a risk of an unplanned pregnancy when engaging in sex. If men want to engage in sex then they had better be willing to accept the risk that goes along with it.

Originally posted by maria_stardust
See my above post.

Men have a choice in whether or not they choose to engage in sex. There is always a risk of an unplanned pregnancy when engaging in sex. If men want to engage in sex then they had better be willing to accept the risk that goes along with it.

But that argument can apply to the women, she knows if she has sex, that she may get impregnated. So what right does she have to an abortion, with your logic?