[SIZE=7]I believe that if a woman decides to have a baby without the consent of the male then she should show that she can raise the child on her own. I don't believe women should be able to decide on a man giving up part of his paycheck for eighteen years when he didn't want to be apart of the child's life to begin with. Child support is for the sake of the children but when are women going to have to take some responsiblity for bringing children into the world that they can't support.

Unfortunately for men and many children, women have ALL the rights and none of the responsibilities. Of course many mothers do get strapped with the responsibilities of financially raising children on their own because the State cannot find the father and take his income. Or the father is at times not working so there is nothing to take from him and give to the mother to help her.

Imagine trying to raise a child and having to deal with a huge beauracracy just to get some money and food stamps for your child/children at the same time. It becomes almost a full-time job.

What a lovely decision to bring life into the world under these circumstances.

Apparently, the responsibilities women have over their own bodies is something that is hard to understand for so many people. I've heard it said in here that female birth control is "intrusive" even. So intrusive it's okay if she doesn't use it.

If a woman feels it's intrusive, perhaps she shouldn't be having sex without the use of a condom, and there are condoms for females now too. Try one of those on for size and see how they feel.

Or don't have sex with a man who isn't wearing one.

But that's not what this debate is about. It's about what happens after the birth of a child and how men have absolutely no rights, except to become criminals by default, when they are not willing or ready to become parents. So, if they aren't ready, they have to pay a woman/mother who obviously wasn't ready to become a parent either. And some think if you aren't ready, if you're a man, you simply shouldn't have sex. But it's okay for women who aren't ready to have children to do so....

I think in time this will change. And I do believe it needs to change, and if it doesn't we're going to see a woman's right to choose slowly erode away until we're back in the dark ages before Roe v Wade.

That is NOT what I meant. What I was trying to say is that since these methods are alot more intrusive (IE, side effects that arent always pleasant) than a condom, there are many reasons a woman may not want to use them, especially if they are not in a committed relationship. Therefore it should be up to the man to provide prophylactics if he doesnt want to end up paying for an unwanted baby. I like how its ALWAYS the woman who must be responsible, and never the man. Man doesnt want to wear a condom ("I cant feel anything!")? No problem, the woman should have to take some hormone changing pill or injection. What is that woman doesnt want an STD though? Man doesnt want to be a father? OK, you dont have to be. Man doesnt want to pay for baby? Thats cool, because he can just leave, or not pay. And now some people think even think that that isnt legally justified.

Kimpossible:

You bring up many valid points, and I know what you are saying, but you miss he point.

Yes condoms are reliable, and yes some women find that other forms of birth control cause problems, some major problems. But you seem to think that a man can have sex with a women without her knowing if he is wearing a condom or not. The condom becomes a mutual responsibility.

Have sex with a man without a condom, and it is yoy risking THE pregnancy, not the man. Am I wrong?

But even well after this point it is ONLY the female that continues to have choices, the man has none.

Therefore (and please NO male bashing) isn't it as incorrect to FORCE males into Fatherhood as it would be to force females into Motherhood.

Doomed Planet provided some intersting statistics earlier, but it came to mind that, possibly (and it's only possible), that the reason for these statistics is NOT only that the home is "fatherless", but that an irresponsible "mother" resides in the house? Most likely it is a combination of the two.

Yes, it is the woman who will physically become pregnant.
However, just because the seed is planted in her womb
does not mean that the father should be let off the hook.
That is how we come to the subject of this thread:

Should men be forced to pay for children they do not want?

The answer is a resounding yes! Because he took the risk
by not wearing a condom or taking whatever precautions
necessary. All bets are off when a guy does that.

It's nobody's fault but his own if he finds himself a not-so-proud
father. Unfortunately, even with laws as they are, a man can
still skirt any and all responsibility, if he tries hard enough.



No, because, for the most part, the only way an unwanted pregnancy
will occur is if two people engage in unprotected sexual intercourse.
Let us not forget the underlying purpose of SEX - procreation. Fellas,
do not be surprised if a woman who becomes pregnant ends up
wanting to keep her baby.



Yes, two irresponsible people can create a child together. Yet, according
to many men, only one irresponsible party should bear the burden - mommy.....

I think that the men do not believe that the seed being "planted in her womb" lets them off the hook, the fact is that they express to the women that they are not capable of supporting a child while abortion is still an option is what they feel lets them off the hook.


Then why doesn't this argument apply to abortion? If it did abortion would be illegal as well.

I think the prolife option is the best solution to this argument.
The man gets the extra abortion option closed for women and therefore puts more responsibility on both parties for contraception.
The woman gets child support.
The child gets to live in a single parent home.
Everyone is equally unhappy, and isn't equality what America stands for.

Men have all these things to offer, providing they STAY. A man cannot be considered an equal partner in child rearing when he decides to leave for good, nor when there are mass exodus of males taking leave as a constant. It creates a certain unbalance that asks question of 'what is the most apparent problem?' 'Who takes care of your unwanted babies, society or YOU?' In brutal capitalism, guess what...YOU DO, sperm donar. Not the US taxpayer.
As far as I know a man who stays with woman and child has all the rights of fatherhood. Even as far as courts go these days, a man who provides child support is given visitation rights, usually split by weekends and summers vs. school year. Its not as if men are given no rights and still have to pay, they have rights by law when they pay. Not on EVERY decision of course, it would be impossible to regulate this by court of law. There are many single men raising children these days and they have total control of schooling and the big decisions in their kids lives, and women are paying child support as well.

I know plenty of split parents who have dificult times with child care rights if they are not getting along. The father often has the summer and the woman is forced to provide transport or fly the children to wherever he lives, he then must return them or vice versa. It becomes costly for both, but if they care they do it. The problems happen when father wants no responsibility, it then becomes economic for him, a small price really in the overall.



Yes, but the 'irresponsible' mother steps up to the plate. It needs to be remembered that not all women will have abortions, so where comes male 'responsabiity for 'his' actions? Nowhere that I can see by your take.
These are arguments for letting men off with no responsibility for unprotected sex.
You are saying they both play, but she should be the only one to pay for a lifetime.

Not only that, if I dont have to shout out loud, most people are not for mass abortions! We need to approach this debate almost as if abortion were not an option because it is a heavily invasive procedure and harmful to the female in many ways, besides being fought against year after year. SO, Men should NOT ASSUME that abortion is an option when they are engaging in unprotected sex. She may be well inclined to have sex, but 'baby in body' she may not be willing to abort. Take that as gospel. Abortion is a hard choice, if you dont expect women to use it as birth control, dont make that ideologic mistake yourselves and think of it as a way out. Lets just say, its not an option except by extremes, which it is. Do you want this as a birth control method? Then dont rely on it.



Uh, sorry to differ, none of the responsibilities? Women have always taken on the most responsibilities. Its not as if we carry a child to term and drop it in a mans lap after birth and say good-bye/adios!, wouldnt that be FAIR! Think about it that way, hey you got me pregnant because you didnt use a condom, now you raise the child while I go of and live my life as a free individual, I did 9 months, you do 18 years and Ill pay child support..Hey we ARE going for Fair and equal here right? No, women end up with almost all the responsibilities no matter what choices are made.
I can agree that it is a womans body and she must ultimately be discerning and more careful about the choices she makes, both before and after the fact, especially because women are inclined to FEEL that baby and not want to abort, unlike men who want to head for the hills when BABY is mentioned. But many women, just like men, before the knowledge of it- dont know what it is, especially young women.
Besides that..When do you start asking a man to pick up half your BCpills tab at $30-40 a month? His income is free. How about the health bills if you end up with a blood clot or breast cancer from the screwed up hormones you are taking, or a hysterectomy from an IUD? Certainely if hes not man enough to stick by you when you are pregnant hes not going to take responsibility for your ill health either or if you get a breast lopped off. So basically we need to cut them off from sex until they get a concience, an evolutionary process that could take generations, or get a binding legal contract, which has been the norm.

I believe that women have been overtly responsible AND somewhat irresponsible for a long time...so, do we keep demonising women for wanting the babies we create or do we start to make men equally responsible? or do we 'stop subsidizing' these irresponsible women and punish them and their children only? or begin to include men in the equasion and have BOTH start thinking about their actions?, or keep letting men off the hook for everything? Come on! When is it the male who gets to decide his fate? When does HE take control and stop being victimized (by his own penis? Oh, horrors, just imagine, the Big head has to think for once.)

I will agree with one thing xild, especially after reading this thread, I think women should begin withholding sex to a great extent, for a long time until they really know the man they are with, which you never can know. Sex should not be so easy for men. If a man is not willing to do the right thing, or pay for and wear condoms everytime they should not ever have the right to intimacy. I do worry though what effect this will have on domestic violence and rape scenarios. It seems to me things got way too easy in the way of 'free sex' over the years and we should probably go back to the days of no intercourse before a marriage contract, making damn well sure the children are taken care of, and women can decrease their health risks and demonization as users overall.
However, human sexuality being what it is-- close to that of rabbits, year round heat, women by and large being baby makers by genetics and men being continuous seed spreaders-- as a thinking species, but not too far from our animal roots-- unless we want a huge social welfare situation, men will also have to take some responsibility for their actions and stop acting like immature and ignorant irresponsible victims of their own sexuality and its reprocussions. Its a TWO way street and you cant rely on women to do the right thing always (shocking I know, but hey, thats life) AND WE NEED SEX EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS!

Artimise & Doomed:

Let me state again, I agree that Men should, in most cases, pay child support. My questioning is of the legal rational of the "force of Government".

Artimise, you have brought up, time and time again, that Women should start withholding sex. Thats, of course thier right, NO ONE has a problem with that, and, believe it or not, to avoid an unwanted prgnancy, MANY DO! and Men can't force it on them without violating the law!

Now, if they don't, the question is, how does one parties decision in a duel party act (sex) bind the other party to the decision (abort or not abort).

I can't think of any other, non governmental (taxes, etc.), outside of a Marriage, where the action or inaction of the first party binds the second party without a contract (either written or implied), Can You?

So you are advocating abortion as a given, as birth control across the board? Unlimited access to abortion in any given circumnstance? So you are pro-abortion then? Because I thought you were not by past debate but I may be wrong.

Again, I really need to SHOUT IT, not all women are open to abortion when there is a baby in their belly, and society is openly against mass abortions as it should be!

Look abortion used to be a given, but tides have turned. ABORTION cant be all bad, then suddenly be GOOD when men deem it to be worthwhile for them, make up your damn minds! Support Abortion or NOT. Child care or not. Dont play both sides against the middle with no recources for women and no accountability for men, as they say somethings gotta give.

You cant be both anti-abortion and anti-child support, or for abortion when it suits you or you are just a user parasite out for yourself with no real ethics.

When two people engage in intercourse, they should be well aware of that
fact that it could result in a pregnancy. A man may tell his girlfriend that he does
not want kids. She may agree. So, why the heck aren't they using condoms
when engaging? And, furthermore, why is there no discussion, before the fact,
about unwanted pregnancy.

It is often the woman who must provide the safety (i.e. pill, etc.). A common
response from men who have gotten a woman pregnant, "She told me she was on
the pill." Even if she was on the pill, why weren't you being extra-cautious? If
you really didn't want to be a dad, wouldn't you take every step to ensure it didn't
happen? NO. Because that's not your responsibility. It is somehow more
the woman's fault when a pregnancy occurs.

Many men are there for ONE reason: to give themselves pleasure
(and if they're any good, which isn't always the case, maybe give the woman
pleasure as well.) It's all for fun. The woman should understand that. Whatever
it takes, the man must not be burdened by HIS sperm that made it's way to
her egg. He didn't sign up for that, therefore he must not be included in
the equation of parenthood, financial responsibility, etc.

Abortion is wrong, and women who have abortions are filthy. Unless, of
course, I'm the father-to-be. Then abortion is okay, but she better find a ride
to the clinic from someone else, cuz I don't wanna be seen condoning such a
horrible procedure....

Women are placed in a no-win situtation.

The only requirement, per the law, that men must abide by, is a financial one.
They have to contribute support for their flesh and blood. They don't have to see
the kid, know the kid, like the kid. They just have to reach into the wallet and
shell out some cash. Any man, with a sense of dignity and integrity, would, at the
very least, do that.

Artemise, I don't know how old you are or where you live, but you need to get a dose of reality.

You act as if women are the responsible partners who, through manipulation and deceit, allow some guy to get them pregnant.

Most weekends, I spend 6 hours a night in smoke-filled bars and clubs playing music. I cover a LOT of the surrounding geographical area (Dayton, Cincinnati, Columbus, etc) and nothing changes. Men are out to get laid and women are out to make that happen. THIS is reality.

I wear my wedding ring and it's rare when some women doesn't ask me to go home with her. Contrary to what you think, some of us aren't "lucky we got laid to begin with". When I laugh off offers and decline, I have to explain myself. I tell them I'm married and plan on staying that way. And 60-75% of the time, the reply will be "So? That's not my problem".

My point is, women want it as much as guys and will do the same things guys will do to get laid. This is the reality you seem to ignore.

In my private life and among my circle of friends, I don't see any of this. But when I'm out among all the bar sluts and events where I'm playing music, I see IN A LOT OF DETAIL what's going on with the younger crowd. I've seen so many boobs in front of me I know what ones are real and what ones are fake. I can tell what tattoos women will have and where they will have them based on the clothes they wear.

Moreover, before I remarried, I did my fair share of time on the internet, chat rooms, etc. That was even WORSE because the sole purpose of many women being there IS sex. Married women looking for affairs so they could have no-strings attached sex. I never got too involved in it, but my feeling is, is that you have a pulse and decent grammar skills, you're getting sex.

Now, you have all these women out there making the same mistakes and equally complicit, but they have an "out". Men don't. And that's our point. Women can make all the mistakes they want and fix it. Men can make these SAME mistakes and have no recourse to fix it. Women get abortions 65% of the time because they can't be bothered with a kid, but men pay child support 100% of the time when a woman demands it.

All this "cry me a river" and "life's not fair" crap is crap. Equal rights do not exist in courts. If the woman decides to have a kid without me and I decide I want to be the one to raise it, I can't unless the mother is a bona-fide lunatic and even in those cases, she has a chance for her meds to take affect and get her kid back. We can jump up and down all we want and protest, but the fact remains, men do NOT have equal parental rights. Never have and based on what I'm reading, never will.

So, a guy has no equal say post-conception and has no equal say post-birth. But you want us to be equally responsible. I thought women, while different, were equal until this last week. Apparently, we're not because you think you deserve a different set of rules to live by then men do.

This is a great topic because we get to find out what some of our posters are really made of. Most demand equality except when it benefits them.

Artemise, I agree in general with what you are saying here, but want to emphasize the point in bold--men do not have ALL the rights of fatherhood. It is getting better, and I think in due time will come about. But it is the fact that they don't yet, in general, have ALL these rights that creates this issue. In fact, note the rights you list--visitation. Not fatherhood--visitation. This is then the assumed role in any child raising decision, where the mother's wishes are going to be assumed by the court to be the default decision. So, no, the man does NOT have ALL the rights of fatherhood, he has been usually been granted limited visitation rights with very little in the way of any parental authority. Consider the following--suppose the woman has some strict guidelines as to people she wants the child to be able to see. She is likely to find that this will be quickly enforced by the courts. Now, suppose the opposite is true, and the man has strong concerns about people the woman is exposing the child to. He will, at the least, have a much higher burden of proof required of him to have the restriction enforced. Both should be equally valid, as both are coming from the parents. Buth they're not. That's because the man doesn't really have the rights of fatherhood.



This is certainly true. To hold such a view would be, what was that word I had, 'hypocritical?'



Ha! An excellent point! I wonder how many of the men actually trying to get out of the support would be in favor of this? Not many, I presume--although, to be fair, adoption would have to be available to them, in which case they might not mind. It would completely solve my issues though--"you want fatherhood, well, here you go!"

Yes indeed. Fathers are usually very concerned about the dates their sons bring home. "Is she easy? I'll get out my 45 and school her! I don't want my son taken advantage of!" Who needs a dose of reality here?

Artimise, Doomed Planet & Hobbes:

Why are you all so desperate to emotionalize this debate?

Parasites?, Dead beats? and on and on.

I though this was a debate on if it's "fair to force men to support a child that they never agreed to"?

But so far we have heard about ethics and morality, while the question that I posed earlier "If it is unfair to force a female to become a Mother, then how is it fair to force a Male to become a Father?" goes unanswered.

Hobbes, if there is hypocricy in this debate, it is by those who run from answering this question as it pertains to the legal aspect of this debate. Parasites? Give me a break!

Redline, I think you answered your own question. Marriage is a social contract which can be obtained through a civil ceremony, religious rite, or through the act of living together (common law status). Sex is an implied contract, much like a common law marriage in which both parties agree consent to the act and to all consequences which result. The consequences may be none or may be a child. By performing the act of sex, both individuals agree to be bound by that child. There may be an agreement to abort or adopt that child, with the woman holding final say in matters pertaining to her body. Either party may opt to keep the child without the other person's consent, and thus forcing the nonconsenting person, through means of the original, implicit contract to provide financial and/or emotional support. This is how I see the issue. It may be unfair to expect a man to support a child he does not wish to have, but then he should have never entered into the contract if he could not agree to its terms.

Just so we are clear, is that the way that Artimise, Doomed Planet, Hobbes and the others that say that "forcing a man to support a child he did not agree to" see's it?

An implied contractural arrangement? Actually in a Married couple the "implication" of a contract is overtly clear, but does this also relate to sexual intercourse between any consenting male and female combination?

Thanks for addressing the issue.

Red

To me, this entire debate centers around the dysfunction of our system of marriage and liasons and responsiblity in our society. ALL liasons and such should be a matter of contract. I think there should be a kiosk at every singles pick up joint and gas station bathroom, next to the condoms, that gives you a signed, witnessed contract to as what the evening entails. Care free sexual liason with no entanglements and "X" birth control method being used, and "Y" repurcussions if pregnancy or STD has been done. Same with marriage- any romantic entanglement a consenting adult wants should be done in contract- polygamy, gay's, line marriage, whatever, should specify disposistion of children, ending of contact etc- no contract reverts to default settings.

A woman, who willingly jumps into bed with a man, is in control from that moment on, and there is no further input allowed ( pun? double entendre') from the man after the act- so with all the rights, comes all the responsibility- it is up to the woman from there on out- can't handle it financially? Too bad, so sad, you made the decision.

I would reverse that if we were not a pro-choice country BTW- because then she would have equal rights as the man. instead of more rights.

wow!! The debate is still going strong I see. Here are some more thoughts of mine. A woman does not have a natural right to have an abortion, simply because it is her body. If she had such a natural right she would be able to simply expel the fetus at any point of her pregnancy. It is natural function, yes I said it, to give birth. Along comes better and greater technology that now allows for a woman to safely dispense of a fetus without injuring herself in some back alley. As a society by a very small margin we have agreed that a woman should have this technology at her disposal. As I understood it, the reasoning is not "just cause" but so that a woman can have a more eqitable place in society on many levels. I tend to agree with this. So here we are in a world where a woman CAN have an abortion.

So now that I give her all the power in this decision of self determination, you call it wrong and hypocritical to say "be responsible..."?? Like all have been saying this argument I am making for fathers to have a right to financially abort a child would hold no water in a world where abortion was illegal. In that world that baby exists because of the act of sex, which both took equal part in.

However, in this world, that baby exists because themother chose not to abort it. Even if the father didn't want her to destroy the baby she is allowed to. That means she holds "ALL THE CARDS" on this issue. Not some, not half, not most...ALL! The mentality here is sexist as Xild points out. It is like saying she is incapable of deciding whether or not she wants to raise a baby on her own. No one here is suggesting that she should. She HAD the ability to abort. If she chose not to don't all of a sudden make a "me" issue into a "we".




Actually Hobbes it isn't. Ideally someone may believe abortion is wrong but live in a world abortion is legal. That person pointing out inconsistencies and blatant hypocrisy's on the opposing side is not a hypocrit.

Those for female abortion and against men having the ability to have the same right's are the true hypocrits...lol and from what I see they admittedly say "it can't be fair, oh well"

Let me give you a prime example:

During the debate I continue to hear a that people on my side of the argument are trying to figure out a way for father's to duck the consequences of having unprotected sex....

And everyone onthis side of the equation are hitting our heads against a wall saying "what the....hmmmm.... do you think an abortion is???!!!"

I don't see that allowing a person authority over his/her own bodily integrity is hypocritical. Since a woman has the baby, it's the woman's bodily integrity at question here. Both have parental obligations to their offspring.

Everyone who has a daughter has a nightmare scenario in the back of their mind that she might get into trouble and left pregnant someday. If women have all the rights, and men don't...why don't parents rest easy with the knowledge that SHE has all of those wonderful choices? I don't know of any parent who would rather his/her teenaged daughter get pregnant than their teenaged son get someone else's daughter pregnant.

Mrs Pigpen wrote:



Nor do I, yet that is not the point.

Any hypocrisy lies within current statute, and, at least I think that is the reason that the topic was brought forward for debate.

On one side you have a group that says "It is wrong to force a women to become a mother, yet right to force a man to become a Father".

I am not being judgemental, I am just pointing out what seems to be a legal conflict.

On the other side you have a group that says, "If the Women can't be forced to become a Mother, and that right is legal, why is the same Government able to force the womens will on me to become a Father"

Both sides raise valid points and have reasoned arguments.

Again, what makes this issue something in which, an apparent conflict in the law, is allowed to exist, or is there, as someone else implied, "a contract" consummated at the time the "act" occurs.

I know it sounds crass, but we are ruled by law, that law is what creates "force", and that is what this debate is about.

It isn't crass, redliner, but remember that the law is designed to balance out three different sets of rights here. If a woman went into a coma at two weeks gestational pregnancy and woke up five months pregnant, the rights of that growing child would usurp her "right" to abort it. Is that fair? Well, yes, in my mind, because there comes a point at which one person's right to exist (in this case, defined by its complexity) exceeds the other's right over her own person. The woman, too, is 'forced to be a mother', she is simply granted authority over the process for a brief period of time in the beginning. The father has no say whatsoever in the pregnancy process, because he doesn't have authority over another person's body. But, it is his child. That child will be born, and have needs that he and the mother are required to fill as parents. His disinterest in his own offspring does not eliminate his obligation.

This is a very circular argument. One side is saying "it isn't fair!" But offers no alternative to make it fair. The option to eliminate the father's obligation is not fair to the child (or, in many cases, society). And again, though it has been repeated ad nauseam, pregnancy itself is not a fair process either. A couple of close friends of mine had a child by a surrogate mother recently. They told me they almost named her Porsche, because it was such an expensive process. Women could make a mint selling their bodies for the purpose of giving couples the opportunity to have a child. Why don’t they? Because there is nothing as life-altering as having a child is for a woman. It is far from a cakey deal.

What 3 sets of rights? There is only one. The woman's.

If the child had rights, he/she wouldn't be getting his brains sucked out with a garden hose at 6 months. The child has no rights or my bet would be, instant death would not be an option.

If the father opposes an abortion but the woman wants one, the woman gets an abortion regardless of what the man thinks. If he wants her to have an abortion for the same reason many women choose to have one and she doesn't want one, she doesn't get one and sticks the guy with 18 years of bills.

To say 3 people have rights is absurd. They don't. They all end with the women's decision to do whatever she wants regardless of what anybody else thinks.

As far as post-birth, the rest is subjective. If you are arguing soley on the merits of what's best for the child, there is no way to divine that. Statistically, the child will be better off with a two-parent household that adoption offers thereby invalidating almost all your argument.

Regardless of what you say, there ARE ways to make it fair. You just don't like the choices.

That is where you are mistaken. The govt. is not forcing the father to become a
father. They are enforcing (and not very successfully, at that) a law that
says he must pay a certain amount of money. It's only a monetary obligation
. He doesn't have to change diapers, kiss boo-boos, worry when his child is
ill. He is only required to contribute some money.

I don't hear any men complaining about the tax dollars coming from all of us
taxpaters to compensate single moms. Money that should have come from the
fathers.

Guys who want sex without trust, commitment, understanding, love, (condoms)
will be the unlucky ones who find themselves in this horrible position. Men that
take time to know their partners, establish trust, and use adequate protection
will have nothing to worry about.

DaytonRocker has spent many a night in smoke-filled clubs, with a bunch
of slutty girls making themselves available? Funny how he made no mention of
the guys as being slutty or somehow dirty, as well. It's such a double-standard.

It's only monetary compensation- You say that, I say enforced servitude to someone we had no commitement too, real or implied.

I am all for the goverment cutting out the money to those mom's as well- let her family support her.

I am no conservative, but I do believe in personal responsibility- and right now, the person who has all the rights also has all the reponsibility.

Now, this is difference when there is a contractual agreement (marriage) - that is why I would like to see the reform in that area, with default settings for those that don't do the contract.

For instance- a guy and a gal go to a club- they decide, mutually, to "get it on"- they walk up to a kiosk, put in thier thumbprint, select a couple of boxes that say what kind of birth control will be used, what happens if she gets pregnant or he/she gets STDs, and that sex is consensual and of free will.

If they don't get this contract, then it falls back to the current setting, this will encourage young men to make sure the contract is done, and let the women think twice about who they are going out with LOL

Would also make it very hard for false rape claims, probably making it far easier to get a conviction for rapists.

And same with marriages, it should be a contract, negotiated just like a pre-nup, in fact, the pre-nup should be the marriage certification of the marriage- and the ceremony whatever the principles wish.

Doomed Planet wrote:



Just to clarify. I am not wrong Doomed, look at the court orders and the interogitories (might be misspelled), they will clearly state that the Govenmental body declares that the responsible male is the Father.

He may deny it all he wants. In some cases this fatherhood is not biological, yet He is still "forced to become a father"



And seriously, that should be EVERYBODIES goal, no matter which side of the issue you are on. Well said Doomed!

I really like CR's idea about the pre-coital contract. It would certainly work, but I think it would be a tough seller for a lot of people. I'm beginning to think this thread should be duplicated and sold as part of the curriculum for every middle and highschool student in America. It's pretty sobering.

Mrs. P


Allow me to explain then.
First thing I see is your wording seems to justify a woman's right to an abortion rather than go into why she has an abortion. An abortion is an escape from the consequences of pregnancy. You can make the argument why a woman has the right to have one, but it still is an escape from the consequences. The reason why I say people are being hypocritical has nothing to do with a "person authority over his/her body", it is because at the same time you are denouncing us for wanting to allow a man to avoid the consequences of ill-judgement of unprotected sex, you are promoting the idea that a woman should have the right to avoid the consequences of the EXACT SAME ACT.

Now your reasoning is that since we are not physically the same there is no way to make it fair. Yet we presented two ways to make it fair. Both ways that are presented to make it fair, people on your side of the argument reject.

Option 1:
"If you don't want to have a child... don't have unprotected sex" Option one would make everyone responsible for the lack of judgement. It would take abortion off the table and make women go through with the pregnancy. It would cause both participating adults to become parents, regardless of their desires. NO ONE can LEGALLY avoid the consequences.

Of course this option is unacceptable, because we want the woman to avoid being forced to become a mother.

Option 2:
"I'm not ready to be a father, here's my half of the abortion money" This option allows the man to release his duties and responsibilities of of being a father. This option allows for EVERYONE to LEGALLY avoid consequences.

Yet you reject this argument by stating it would not be fair for the kid. Yet it would not be fair for the kid to be aborted. You would combat this with, "it's not a kid, because it hasn't been born", at which time I will say "then how can you claim that it is unfair to the "unborn fetus" for the father to say I want no part of this fetus??" You'd probably inform me that "in time that the fetus would grow to be a baby" At which time I'd probably congratulate you on becoming pro-life(that's if you weren't, already.

You are mistaken. I made that point clear in another post:
There is no double-standard. Both are equally complicit. One has choices the next day. 2 others (including the baby) don't.

Option 1: Not unacceptable because the woman doesn't want to be a mother, but because the costs to benefits are prohibitive. Black market undergrounds for illegal abortions would flourish, as they did in the past, but likely more so now than ever before. Birth abnormalities and neonatal problems would increase from botched abortion attempts early on, and apathy towards prenatal care in general. Costs of law enforcement in the persuit and prosecution of perpetrators for the 'crime' would be high. On the most basic, pragmatic level, there isn't a lot to be gained by bringing that many unwanted and uncared for children into the world. As the fetus gains complexity, it should receive more legal consideration (and it does). This doesn't really cost society a thing, except on moral principle for those who oppose it. Of course, this isn't an abortion thread, so I won't go into detail. It is simply apparent to me that abortion option is the best measure because the alternative would be so much worse. By contrast, male 'termination' would be the polar opposite at high cost to little benefit. Of course, those who disagree with abortion to begin with would probably disagree with my conclusions here.

Option 2:
But, unfortunately, saying "I'm not ready to be a father" doesn't change the fact that he WILL BE A FATHER, whether he wants it or not. A woman who terminates her pregnancy is not a parent. A man who "terminates" is.

The scenario you are describing is one where alcohol plays a major factor in the
sexuality that runs rampant. People drink to lose their inhibitions. Catch up with
the same girls, when they are sober, and I doubt that you'd score so easily. If
you think every woman, or even the majority of women, are that easy, you're
wrong. You may not have intended it, but your post has painted women as slutty,
home-wrecking bimbos. Go to bars? Maybe that's what you'll find - I wouldn't
know.


Each consenting partner has a choice.. The man's choice came before he (I will
avoid the use of a double-entendre) engaged in intercourse. When he decided to
be intimate, without knowing the girl well enough, or using protection,
or whatever the case may be, he potentially put his fate into the hands
of another individual.

There are a lot of men who actually understand this concept, and they do the right
thing by wearing protection, and NOT leading promsicuous lifestyles. For those
men who want to hit the bar every weekend, find someone new to "love", they can
do so without repercussions, IF they take the necessary precautions; not
an hour later, not a day later, not nine months later.

I just don't see why so much energy is put on what rights a man should have
after the fact, when the simplest of precautions could prevent such unfavorable
circumstances, to begin with.

It looks like men are looking for a way to have sex however they want to
have it, with no strings attached. This attitude will only foster even greater
promiscuity.

But DP- aren't you exercising the same double standard here by putting it all back in the man's lap? (so to speak )- doesn't the woman bare some resposibility for being irresponsible as well?

They are forcing him to become a father by taking away his option to not become one by letting all choices reside with the women who can choose parenthood at will. Also most men are not bad fathers and they do more than they have to as required by law. As far as the enforcement issue, that depends on your state. Some men have it taken out of their check before they even get the check.



You are insinuating that the men who just want to have sex will get an unwanted child. Many men who do try to have a real relationship have ended up getting the wrong woman pregnant. Condoms do break so just becuase it is put on that dont mean it will stay on

I guess it is a double-standard in that the woman is equally responsible
for providing protection, and if she also provides none, then she is
equally to blame for the pregnancy.

Biologically, a woman's instinct is to procreate. And the same goes for
a man. So, if an unplanned pregnancy occurs, even if the two were
casual partners, it should come as no surprise that the woman may opt to
keep the child, even under unfavorable circumstances.

Villainizing women who get pregnant, then decide to have the
child, is pretty unfair. We are on the planet to survive. How do we survive
if we don't procreate?

concerro


But, he knows that a woman holds the cards, when it comes to the ultimate
decision to keep a child. He is knowingly taking that risk.

A lot of men are excellent fathers, that is true. But, there are a lot of irresponsible
men roaming around, as well.

Women should wise up, and avoid unplanned pregnancies at all costs.
Too often, women learn the hard way. They saddle themselves with huge
responsibilities (babies) they are ill-equiped to handle. But, allowing fathers
to negate their part in the act of procreation is not the answer.

On the subject of pregnancy: I have been pregnant twice, and I can say
that the instinct is to keep child. Abortion, while it is a necessary alternative, is
not a natural solution, by any means, and it should not be viewed as such.

Yes, she does bear (interesting freudian slip with "bare")responsibility for her irresponsibility. She will pay for the irresponsibility in one of 3 ways:

1) have an abortion -- expensive, painful, dangerous, possibly leading to health problems and future birth defects, with a possibility (depending on belief system) of lifetime of guilt.

2) Have and keep the child -- expensive, painful, (not quite as) dangerous (as abortion) , possibly leading to health problems, 18+ years of reduced freedom and finances even if the man pays child support, 18+ years of stress for being responsible for the development of another human being, having society's scorn for not having the child in wedlock, having the scorn of "maledom" for making the man pay support, etc.

3) Have the child and give up for adoption -- possibly expensive, painful, (not quite as) dangerous (as abortion), possibly leading to health problems, society's scorn for the 9 months of pregnancy not being married, the emotionally and physically painful separation from your child that you spent 9 months getting to know and physically bond with, a lifetime of worrying if your child is being treated well, the possibility of guilt -- especially when/if the child comes looking for the her and asking "why didn't you want me?" , the guilt of knowing your child may have self-esteem issues for not being "wanted".

The woman will pay a price, in most cases for a lifetime, for her irresponsibility.

Having the child is no free ride for the woman to get a man to support her. Unless the man is very wealthy, she will still be poorer, she will still have more stress, and she will be doing it on her own.

Mrs. P

I tend to agree with you on what you say would happen on option 1. But, again it would the woman making such reckless decisions. In fact, she would be compounding her reckless decisions. First she would have had unprotected sex or sex before she was ready to be a mother, then she would go out and commit illegal acts in order to get rid of the consequences of her previous mistakes. Why would she go through this?? Just to prove the point that it is her body?? I don't think so and I doubt you do. For what ever reason the baby would not be born due to the fact she is not ready to be a mother. Can't you see that just like there are women that are not ready to be mothers, there are men not ready to become fathers? And if your answer to those men is "you should have thought about that before you had sex", it is the essence of the word "fair" to say the same thing to women.

In option 2, it seems you are doing just as I predicted. At the time the man could make the decision, he is not a father. After making the decision he could not be a parent, because he gives up his parental rights. Just as a woman does in today's society. After a woman signs adoption papers is she a parent? No because we as a society have made laws that allows for a biological mother/father to sign off of their parental rights. We know there is no way that a man can physically abort a child he does not carry, but we can compensate with legal laws to make things fair. All we are doing is saying a woman can terminate physically, a man can terminate financially. They can happen concurrently or independently of one another. If it takes two to make a baby let's give the ability to decide if they are ready to both, not just one.

Why would a man sleep with a woman before knowing what her stance
is on parenthood, abortion, etc.? It is completely irresponsible, on his
part, to not find out what her thoughts and plans would be, if a
pregnancy were to occur....

Responsible adults are the only people who should be engaging in
sex. If a guy is not responsible enough to choose his partner wisely,
he may face unfavorable consequences ....

And. when you flip the coin it is just as easy to say:

Why would a woman sleep with a man before knowing what his stance is on parenthood, abortion, etc? It is completely irresponsible, on her part, not to find out what his thoughts and plans would be, if a pregnancy were to occur......

But, add to this, that it is she that CONTROLS the situation, not him, therefor, she becomes even MORE irresponsible, bordering on negligent, in this situation.

Sexual relations are pleasurale, hopefully, for both the male and female: the goal now is to make it a safe experience. Right now, even a safe healthy experience with two sane individuals participating doesn't guarantee the man is going to be safe because right now we offer him no choices.

He will be forced to give his DNA to prove a child is his and then forced to provide the money a daddy might normally provide, no matter if he is ready, in love with the mother yet, or able to afford bringing a life into this world.

We can talk all day about the questions at hand the fact is that right now men have no rights, only responsibilities, while women have all the rights when it comes to pregnancy the decisions involved in bringing a life into the world.

No matter how safe the sex was. Even if the man wore three condoms.

I like the contract idea and any all sexually active men in the country today should consult a lawyer and draft up a form that will help prevent them from unwanted fatherhood and unwanted accusations of date rape. Now there's an idea. Oh, but until there is legislation passed that will make consent forms legal...

Maybe that is what we should be discussing in sex-ed classes and in schools. Hey, the kids could even work out the wording themselves and come up with a standard form that each will sign before engaging in any type of sexual behavior.

Indeed. Women and men who engage in intimate relations, when
trust and feelings of love are not present, are like dogs in heat.
I do not mean to be so crude, but that is what it is. I have no
sympathy for either sex, if that is all they are looking for from each
other. Sex should not be such a casual thing. At least, that's how
I see it.



While I will agree that her behavior is equally as negligent, the man is still
responsible for what he does with his male anatomy. And, if men do not
want to be "put" in situations in which they have no control they just need
to be more cautious. They want to have their cake, and eat it too. But, they
don't want anything baking in the oven.

DP- you forget about the reality of the sexual situation in a non-commital relationship-

It all boils down this way- if a man wants to pick up a woman at a bar, he needs to brings some cash, know how to dance, make sure he looks his best, has some witty repitiore' etc- a woman just has to show up. See who is making the decisions here?

If he throws some condoms into the mix, too, he might be a happier
man the following day...

((According to DaytonRocker, a man has a better chance catching a lady,
if he wears a wedding ring ))

But, seriously, both sexes are making the decisions. And, the decision
to pick someone up in a bar aint a very good one, IMHO.... That is like
asking for trouble.

If there were no way for a man to prevent unwanted pregnancies
then men could make a case on the subject of "opting out of fatherhood."
But, they do have control, they just do not exercise that control appropriately,
in many instances.

Maybe men who want casual sex should go to prostitutes?

Do you really support prostitution(which is another ongoing debate) or are you just saying that?

Prostitutes are women to and they may also get pregnant, though it may be difficult for them to pinpoint who the father is.

Most of the time when a man makes a woman pregnant it is his gf or wife, not just some woman he met for the first time.

doomed_planet, please stop mis-characterizing my posts.

Earlier, Artemise seemed to indicate that most of us guys should be lucky to be getting laid to begin with. In addition, many here seemed to think that men are sexual predators that should be punished with 18 years of child support should the woman choose to inflict this penalty (one, she doesn't have to occur if she doesn't want).

So, I responded with a lot of stuff, particulary this:


You stated earlier (in a previous post) I was "scoring" because women are drunk. However - as shown in the post you were referring to - I was very clear in stating how I decline that activity. I don't go home with women I meet at gigs. I have a wife and I can only handle one case of PMS a month as it is.

Now, you are stating women are coming on to me because of my wedding band. What my post stated, very clearly, is that women come on to me despite my wedding band.

I've showed my ancedotal evidence - that happens routinely and with no regard for geographical location - that women are out trying to get laid as much as the guys are. Both are equally complicit.

Please read my posts before characterizing them.

Uhhh.....yaaaa.



Actually, I understood that you are not accepting the offers. This is what
I said, specifically:



I was using the term you as in any guy trying to hook up, I didn't
mean you, personally.



That is very understandable.



Okay. But, you are in a band, right? That probably has something to do with
your appeal to women in bars? No?




Correct me if I'm wrong, but your anectotal study is based on your experiences,
as a band member, in various bars, with alcohol being a huge factor in the
aggressive behavior of women.

This debate isn't about who wants it more. When two people have consentual
sex they are both responsible for the outcome, regardless of who pursued
who....



Yes, sir.

What outcome? A pregnancy? Perhaps, but then only one of the parties (and it isn't the male) who is responsible for the decision to deliver "an outcome" or not.

Pre Roe V. Wade, your argument made all the sense in the world, since Roe V. Wade it makes nearly none.

As it relates to this thread, yes, a pregnancy. However, it could also include
STD's. If a girl sleeps with a guy who has an STD, and she didn't know he had
that STD (or even if she did know), she is ultimately responsible. Of course, he's
a low-life for not telling her, but it is her responsibility to ensure her own bodily
integrity.

The same goes for an unplanned pregnancy. It is a universal given that if a
pregnancy is going to occur, it will do so inside the woman's body......Hence,
she will have the final say. It is actually not very fair that the woman alone
must face such a life-altering dilemma.

All is fair in love and war? When men deliver babies, that's
when life will be much more fair.

The implied contract, I was referring to, is a common law marriage. This is when two people live together for a period of time such that the state equates their status as being married even though no official steps were taken. I understand an actual marriage is overt. In terms of what others may think, I am guessing you were asking them, not me.

What I find interesting, and at the same time frustrating about this debate topic is that, on the abortion issue and the Gay Marriage issue, those opposed to either were told that morals and ethics should be left out of the debate, and that Law was what was important.

However, in this debate, it would appear that Morals and Ethics are the KEY point raised by the "Pro-Force" side, and legal principles mean little.

Somehow Morals and Ethics supersede standing legal principles in this matter, which, for many in the debate is complete turn around.

I am not being judgemental, it is simply an observation.

Red

If a person knowingly puts themselves at risk by putting their fate in anothers hands they are at least partially responsible for their fate and the outcome. Its not personal responsibility if you blame the other party when you were in neglect as well. Its a 50-50 deal.

If I were to ride with a drunk driver for example and get maimed, I may have all the right in the world since the other party was wrong to be driving drunk, but Im still going to suffer the consequences and it was partially my fault for my own carelessness and I will have to live with that for life. I put my fate in anothers hands and they were wrong, was I 'right'?
If another party has a dog and a no tresspassing sign on their property and I choose to go onto their property and get bitten, I am responsible for my neglectful doings. They can put the dog down or not, pay my expenses, but it doesnt change the fact that something irrevocable has been done and I will suffer from my own stupidity and they usually suffer as well, from my neglect, yet by law who is responsible? Fair? Both pay.
If someone gives me a drug and I willingly take it and suffer an overdose and coma, who is responsible for my part? Who pays? I do for my own stupidity, no matter who pays the bills.
Two party conditions are rife with 'fair and unfair', so you take it upon yourself to watch out for YOURSELF because both will resume a burden for being neglectful and dumb. Much more-so where a child is concerned. Its the law of consequences is that in two party circumnstances both suffer and pay one way or another.

Roe vs Wade did not give men a (new) free ride to irresponsible sexual behavior no matter who likes it or not because Roe vs.Wade does not apply to every woman nor every circumnstance. Abortion is NOT a birth control measure, is usually not seen as such by most women and should not be seen as such by men, it adds insult to injury since abortion is contested each year, is a harsh and extreme measure, has not been thoroughly approved across the board by law in every state and the Fed gov't always has it up for grabs. It is expensive and dangerous, sometimes difficult to aquire... an extreme option in extreme circumnstances, not a 1-2-3 quik fix as presented here.

I dont get it about men here arguing lack of using a condom to protect themselves with all the 'personal responsibility' advocates. Seems like excuses to me. Personal responsibility starts with YOU, thats why its personal. In this case its 50-50, NOT as some would like to say 100% the womans domain.

Are you guys saying youre relying on Roe VS Wade as an easy out? Women arent even relying on it, they are just hoping with every unprotected situation that it 'didnt happen this time' as pregnancy tends to suprise everyone.
( We are only fertile about a week each month and tend to get complacent about it.) People are just stupid like that, especially the young and uneducated, both genders. (Blame a good part on Republicans for an archaiic lack of sex ed in schools) Alchohol and/or drugs in the mix, who can negotiate what was Fair? Why are there date rape drugs? What is 'fair' about that sickness in young men? Does it suggest girls are open and easy or need to be artificially coherced? Who is responsible? Older males who pat their sons on the back for 'getting some'?Parents in general?
Holding men responsible is fair (at this time) because it changes the male thought pattern about uncontrolled sexual behavior and its about time some part of that is thrown their way, yet now there seem to be new excuses and heavy resistance to partial pay to play laws, ( based on abortion laws to beat all, over decades of males making this the hardest thing to aquire). Its absurd.

Since in this case the male must pay money and the female must do the work, both are adequately charged for their neglect. Happy are all if one did it with a woman who will choose an abortion, a big 'whew', "wont let that happen again!" Right? Doesn't seem so by this discussion.

Utimately the fate as men and their wallet is mostly in their own hands. Why put your fate in the hands of another? based on abortion laws? Thats just an opt out, pleasure driven and rationalizing selfish, reckless behavior, by using abortion laws to suit onesselves to the detriment of girls and all society, might I add, all of a sudden, having seen the hidden benefit to it while lobbying against it all the while?
These girls might ultimately be the women you could one day settle down with and WANT to have children with, how many abortions and scarring would you like them to have when it comes to children you actually want? Is this a right vs wrong scenario because people make mistakes? The gender war is a losing proposition for all of us.
Men/boys can use the opportunity to take care of something greater than their own penis in the short term and protect themselves and others for long term benefit, step up to the plate and be men, not victims, wear condoms, or a novel concept, know who youre sleeping with. Much of this debate focuses on female responsibility, well, when will men stop being led about by their noses? or little heads? Take action.