Artimise wrote:



Again Artimise, I COMPLETELY AGREE with you on an emotional, a moral and an ethical level. Please do not mis-understand that.

The problem is at a legal level.

Look at you own example. The passenger (the Male who does not control the automobile) can later SUE the driver for the driver NOT taking control of the situation. The Driver (the female who controls the automobile) CANNOT sue the passenger.

The passenger can claim that it was the driver who could have STOPPED the accident from happening, but failed too, thus it was the drivers inaction that caused the damage. Not Visa-versa.

Artimise wrote:



No one said it was a quick fix. But it is a fix, and a fix only afforded to one side. As for Abortion NOT being a form of "Birth Control". Since when? It stops birth from happening, thus controlling child birth from occurring. What part of that is not "Birth Control".

Armitise wrote:



That is just sad. It does NOT elevate the debate at all.

The problem is in the legal system. Sadly, too many judges will take as much money from the male as they can and should the male dare to ask "How am I supposed to live" the judge tells you he doesn't care.

Men that can't even afford to feed their existing family will likely lose that family as well and incur even more child support and it also raises the single parent rate.

How many men have you talked to that have been told by lawyers or judges that it does not matter if they get enough of their own money to survive or not.

How many people are really willing to continue working hard to live in poverty thanks to child support payments?

Also, how many men have watched ex-wives live it up on their child support money? New car, cable TV, cable internet while the person paying for all of this has none of the above. Where is the justice.

Child Support IS a good thing but it has to be fair to all sides or it will destroy the motivation to continue working and then there is NO child support.

Are you suggesting that there is some grand anti-male conspiracy theory against men when it comes to child support? Honestly. "How many men have watched ex-wives 'live it up' on their child support money?" It's disgusting how many people in this thread who are against men having to pay money to support their own children (oh the horror!) believe that the overwhelming majority of women are scheming, conniving bitches who will undoubtedly take the child support money and use it all on themselves. I'm sure there are a few women who do indeed abuse the child support system and spend the money instead on themselves, but to act like this is an epidemic when it clearly is not just reeks of anti-female hostility. Why are so many men on this thread assuming the worst of women who just want the father of their child to help support that child? For christssakes, either way whatever measly money the father is shelling out is nothing compared to what the mothers pay, and yet the fathers still complain that people dare hold them financially accountable for their offspring.

You cite women as using child support money to buy new cars, cable TV and such (yeah right, like the amount of money fathers pay is really enough to afford all that), and it's likely you've only read a handful of stories in which a woman has indeed done that, and instead of putting it into perspective you choose to act like all (or most) women who receive child support money use it on themselves. And by "putting it into perspective" I mean comparing the number of women who abuse the child support system compared to the number who don't. Also, comparing the number of women who actually receive the child support as compared to the number of fathers who don't bother to pay it. Where is your outrage at these fathers, who undoubtedly are far more in number than women who abuse child support? Do you honestly think that the money the child supporters pay to support their own children is in any way comparable to the money the parent with custody pays?

Suzy,

The amount one parent pays versus the other is irrelavent. What matters is who is responsible for the fact that the parents are not living together. Such a standard is anathema to most women, because it would force them to bear the responsibility for their own decisions.

I don't object to child support being collected from the father who abandons his children. It is, however, an injustice to forcibly separate a father from his children, deny him the opportunity and authority to provide for his children in the fashion HE believes is best, and then CHARGE him for the privilege of losing his children.

In your world, it is somehow appropriate to allow one parent to hide behind the children in order to inflict injustice on the other parent.

Tell me, if a husband were abusing his wife, would you tell her to "stick it out for the children?" Somehow, I doubt it. Yet, you think "the children" are adequate justiifcation for to inflict legal, economic, social, and psychological abuse on men.

Suzy,

Many men pay upwards of $500.00 a month and yes that can easily buy a new car, cable TV, etc...

I know, I have been there and I know for sure that I am not the only one.

Isn't it interesting that men never really get a chance to raise their child? Most of the time the courts award the child to the mother by default.

So, it is like taking the mans child away (even if the split up is not his fault ie: She was cheating) and then charging him for it.

It is certainly a complicated issue but do you also have the attitude that you do not care if the father has enough money to survive? I hope not but that is the attitude of our legal system.

Suzy, try to put yourself in a man shoes:

You have a child and you love your family dearly. However, your wife has decided to cheat on you and ultimately leaves you. So, you talk to the lawyer to see if you can get custody but he tells you that unless you can prove your wife unfit, you have no chance.

Fast Forward a few years. You are paying 33% of your income in child support and have only limited time to spend with your own child. You have made a new life and started a new family. The problem is that the quality of life for your new family is suffering all because your wife didn't like you anymore. Now, she wasn't thinking about the welfare of the child when she decided to cheat on you but the courts don't seem to care. Eventually your new marriage is broken up due to financial strain and it all starts over again.

All you ever did was try to live a happy life but now you are poverty stricken because you just happen to be a male who DARED to have a family! So much for the American Family value.

People complain because men are afraid of marriage and pregnancy, could this be why?

I have never had to pay child support, thank god, but my Dad did- and my Mom, already married to her second husband would thank my Dad for her "next vacation, next car, next piece of Jewelry" - while my Dad lived with his Mom to make ends meet. She moved us around so he could not afford to visit us AND pay child support.

I think the custodial parent should bare all the financial responsibility for support- unless one parent is cheating is the cause of divorce, then they should automatically lose custody- and be forced to pay child support. Mother or Father, I don't care.

My Dad eventually had to file bankruptcy, and my Mom loved it. She didn't quite do it right in front of us, but I overheard her talking to her friends how she "ruined that jerk"- even though he was a pretty good guy.

I have forgiven my mother, but I have never forgiven a system that let her get away with such a thing.

Exactly, it does happen more and more these days.

People DO abuse the system for financial gain AND for revenge. The system has to change, plain and simple.

Um, not when the father groans and moans about having to pay hundreds of dollars a month for his own children its not.



And we all know how irresponsible most women are



I agree, this isn't fair.



Sure Bikerdad, that's exactly what I said. All I did was respond to this whole "oh pity the fathers who have to pay to support their own children" mentality. I mentioned absolutely nothing about "allowing one parent to hide behind the children in order to inflict injustice on the other parent." Why? Because that wasn't what Riker's post was about! His post mentioned nothing about a parent using the child abuse system to punish the other. What he did do, is whine about the ungodly numbers of women who use the child support money to support themselves instead of their children. Apparently, its reached epidemic proportions.



Yes Bikerdad, exactly. I think that children are adequate justification to inflict legal, economic, social, and psychological abuse on men. It's nifty how you got into my head and put words in my mouth that I hadn't even used.

Riker's post had nothing to do with women using child support to punish their husbands. As such, my response had nothing to do with women using child support to punish their husbands. Then you step in, make the topic about women using child support to punish their husbands, and tell me how I feel about the subject. If this is how you're going to respond to my posts, then be forewarned that I will not respond to you anymore.



Riker, I'm not trying to discredit what you've been through. All I'm saying is that the overwhelming majority of women who receive child support are not like that.



I agree, this isn't fair.



All I'm saying is that financially, yes a father does first have obligations to his children than to himself. All parents should, married, divorced, widowed, whatever. The needs of the child should always be met first.



That hypothetical situation is unfortunate and unfair. I agree. The only thing I took issue with was you painting all women who receive child support with the same broad brush.

Is it unfair for men to be forced to financially support children they do not agree to have?
The logical conclusion of intercourse is pregnancy and children. If you are dumb enough to not protect yourself, pay the piper and be quiet about it. That being said I certainly prefer the Canadian system where every non-custodial parent pays a specific percentage of his/her income ( I think its 20%). This removes the subjective rulings by some judges.

Should men be able to waive their rights to fatherhood, and by doing so, have
no financial obligation to the child?
Only where it is mutually agreeed upon by both parents. You cannot simply leave a woman and child helpless by simply washing your hands of the situation.

So just to ask for clarification how does this philosophy apply to women having abortions, I will reiterate my contention on this debate. If the stance people are taking is "Sex leads to pregnancy, suffer the consequences" then how can abortion be allowed in our nation. If women know the consequences of sex, just like a man, then there should be no out for her, just like the man. Now, I will admit I am pro-choice, I am just not as inconsistent to be only prochoice when the woman is concerned.

Droop, there is an "out" for her because she has to carry the thing for nine months. This is how mother nature has created females, and with that comes an "out" for her. It's not like both parties put their reproductive cells in a petri dish, and then can decide over the course of 9 months whether they want to claim parenthood. A man gives his seed to the female - this is his "choice." To give him a "choice" to just "opt-out" of parenthood just because women can have abortions is completely flawed. Women have the choice because we as a society have determined that forcing a woman to nurture a child she doesn't want, inside her own body, for nine months is unethical. They have this choice because of their biology. When a mother "opts out" of being a parent, the father "opts out" by default because you can't be a parent to a child that doesn't exist. However, if males were given the opportunity to "opt out" of being a father, the female would be left raising a child, alone, with no support whatsoever for the child. What's really better for the child? In any case, there is no way I would consider the possibility of fathers being able to "opt out" of being a father, because they do it now with disastrous consequences. Honestly, with the rate of fathers who leave the mothers of their children now, what makes you think that legalizing abandonment won't raise that to 99.9%? After all, if a guy gets a girl pregnant, no bother; he can just choose not to be a father to his own child and go around impregnanting as many people as he wants without any consequences whatsoever. That's not a world I want to live in.
Furthermore, a woman going through a surgical procedure to rid herself of an unwanted fetus is a little different from a man just signing a sheet of paper saying "okay, it's been fun. I'm out." A consequence of a woman having sex is becoming pregnant. She can either choose to bring an unwanted child into the world and attempt to raise it herself, put it up for adoption (good luck if it's not a healthy white male), or she can abort it. I believe that having an abortion is one way to take responsibility for the consequences of having sex. At this point, the mother has decided the child would be better off not existing at all and would prefer not to bring a person into the world who's future is less than certain.
It is unethical to force a mother into motherhood, because in doing so you would literally usurp the rights that she has to her own body. There is no such equivalent with regards to fatherhood. "Forcing" a guy to become a father equates to making him take responsibility for the child that was conceived once he willingly put his seed into her body. Forcing a woman to become a mother equates to someone else taking control of that woman's body for nine months to ensure that she delivers a fully-formed, healthy infant. There is a world of difference.

Firstly, I really am not a large abortion proponent, but do believe in the beauty of adoption,etc. I also have no children and am not a biased contributor.

With that being said, Texas has a relatively high child support payment system. It generally ranges between 20 and 25% of the father's income. I DO support child support payment systems, and also understand the woman's right to choose. At the same time, other states take as little as 10-15%. How much is realistic? The woman should be responsible for half of the cost incurred by child rearing.

With that in mind, I have an illustration. I have a friend who earns approximately $55K/year here in Dallas. He pays over $900/month for his 5 year old son. In addition, he has the child every other weekend and on holidays (and when she goes out of town, needs a sitter, etc). He also carries the child on his health insurance. Needless to say, the judge assigned to them is a woman and purely non-empathetic (even though he keeps immaculate records). This being said, that would say that it costs $1800 to rear this small child/month. Is that realistic? Don't forget that Dad is paying for vacations, keeping him part of the month, insurance, etc.

**Also- the father did file for custody, but in Texas, women tend to win these battles**

This child goes to pre-school which runs roughly $400/month. The child is also well fed, clothed, etc. The mother is an RN and has a 2 bedroom townhome where her mortgage runs roughly $700/month. Presumably you could make a case for this as an expense (or a portion of it). Add in clothes, toys, food, etc... how much should he pay? Does it really cost her $1800/month to rear this child? I'd venture to bet that the father is footing the majority of the bill for his son and possibly aiding in making the mother's life a little easier. She does have a new car and takes more than once vacation/year...

(Also, this father puts money away for his son's education, buys the vast majority of Christmas presents, etc. )

There is a flip side. If the father only made $25K, he'd be paying $416/month. This is a LARGE portion of his income, but if the child is small and in day care it's probably not too unrealistic.

I believe that this system should be flexible and on a case by case basis. It's not about the money for most fathers, but about being forced to pay to be kept away from their children.

I'm sure that there are mothers out there not getting a dime, and that's also a tragedy. However, responsible fathers should have to pay based upon some objective information. What if they paid based upon documented expenses from the mothers? There would be no reason not to include things like toys, college savings, etc... but a man paying over $1000/month (after including health insurance) is absurd.

Just because the system didn't protect abandoned mothers for a long time doesn't mean that we should penalize fathers of today.

Well, staying together is not so cheap either though LOL- I currently spend 100% of my income supporting my family LOL- 1300 for day care, 1500 for house payment, 900 for two car payments, man, it adds up! My wife has a day care, makes a little money there, but goes to school full time, which, I also foot the bill for. It would be cheaper, in my case, to dump my family and run, but the thought is unimaginiable to me- my family is my life, my world.

It is just a crying shame that women are automatically given custody in our society, and this is the root of the problem. There should be some parity in our society.

Can I get an AMEN? My girlfriend can't even open her own jars or keep plants alive! What would she do if she had a child to care for!?!?!?!?!?!
Scary... just plain scary....

Thanks for the reproductive class Oh, these are for you, for the hard work...



I don't think this is the best way to word it, but if you choose to go right ahead. Being that a man "gives" his seed does this mean it belongs to the woman now?? Does this mean that the woman decides what to do with the seed? So I guess her impregnation is all her fault being that she accepted his seed, right?? If it was a man's choice to "give" it, then it was a woman's choice to "take" it.



Maybe you're right, but you wouldn't be the first to call equality flawed. And to me that is what it is all about, making thing equal, making things fair. I'll expand more on this after addressing your next two points.



Somewhat true, but not exactly. Women have had the option of giving up their kids for adoption for many years prior to abortions. But I do agree that society and technology has allowed for women to have abortions.



You could not be more wrong on this. Biologically women can become pregnant and carry a baby to term. They can not, or at least have not learned to abort their fetuses, through biological means. Though I am saying something, I'm sure you already know, it was important to emphasize my point. The reason women can abort their fetus is because of society and technology... only. If social laws can allow for abortion to occur with women social laws can allow men to abort their responsibilities as a father, as well. Men don't have to be able to become pregnant they only need the law to allow them.



Your first point is completely inaccurate. For any one to "opt" out of anything they have to have choice. There is no choice for the man in the current system. If a man wants the child and the women does not and has an abortion a man did not "opt out" directly, indirectly, in actuality, or by default.

Your second point is just as wrong. If a man exercises the choice of not being involved, the woman is not stuck to raise the child. The woman could have an abortion, or she could put the baby up for adoption. So she is only forced to raise a child without support, if she chooses to have and raise a child without support.



If a man says he wants nothing to do with a child, then it is obvious he doesn't care what is best for the child, but I will go into detail later in the post.



Funny this is the exact type world you want to live in when we replace the worn "man" with "woman". You talk as if the man "gets" the woman pregnant. Well, what is the woman doing while the man "gets" her pregnant. I guess she is "getting" herself pregnant...right?? So the world you want to live in is where the woman goes around getting herself pregnant and she doesn't have to worry about the consequences cause she can just have an abortion. Oh, the huge difference in the two worlds is so striking!!



Granted



Wow... I'm dizzy.... from all that spin The consequence of sex can be pregnancy. The consequence of pregnancy is child birth. Now, I am NOT saying abortion is some walk in the park. But it IS a way to AVOID the consequence of pregnancy. Abortion can not be the way to avoid the consequence of pregnancy and the consequence of pregnancy at the same time!

Just like a man a woman knows what can happen if they have sex. My point is the woman is allowed to avoid the consequence of pregnancy through abortion. Granted she is only one who can physically abort. But financially it is a way to give men the same rights that women enjoy. To avoid the burden of a child from making a mistake in the sack. Your point is tough luck, but you only apply this logic to men. You are completely against the logic of tough luck when it comes to woman, and instead of admitting that you go through some convoluted logic of how abortion is taking responsibility. It is not. The consequence and the responsibility of pregnancy is having to raise a child. All these other measures, adoption or abortion, are ways of abdicating that responsibility.

To be continued...

I had to break this in two because the legnth seemed to mess up the quote system


First, are you suggesting that women that have abortions actually see the fetus as a "child." I don't see how someone can see it as a child they are looking out for by aborting it!! That is insane! I reiterate i am pro-choice, myself, but I wouldn't be if I saw the fetus as a child. Let alone a child I care enough about to wipe out of existence cause their "future is less than certain"

Secondly, Are you even going to pretend that a woman is thinking of the baby when she has an abortion. Any time the woman has an abortion it is for her own selfish reasons. I admit some selfish reasons are more legitimate than others, like rape, incest, or possible death or permanent damage. But all the reasons deal with the woman, and why the woman isn't ready to have a child and take on that responsibility, whether it is school, career, or embarrassment.

And this is precisely why I think men should be able to financially abort there children.

Women have abortions not because of the interests of the fetus, they do so for their own selfish reasons. No a man has those same selfish reasons. You ask a man to put the life of a child before his own, but you don't believe that a woman should do the same. If a man tells his woman I don't want this child at the time she can have an abortion, then she can choose not to have the baby. If she chooses to continue with the pregnancy then that was her choice. She wasn't left hanging.

Let make an analogy. Me and you are in a club, but I drove us there. I come and tell you I don't want to stay any longer, i'm ready to go. You tell me that you are going to stay. I didn't leave you stranded!! If you end up walking home, it isn't my fault. You had the option to ride home, but you chose not to.

Same with the male abortion. He says "I'm not ready. I want no part of it" If she goes forward that is her decision to go at it alone. She wasn't left alone, she chooses to do it alone.



And to your last bit of spin.... this was an all day event

If I went to a doctor and said...."Doc cut off my arm" The doctor asks, "why" and my reply was "hey, it's my body and I have a right to have any medical procedure I want done to it" What would you think?? Do I have that right?? Just like the man, no one forced the woman to spread her legs "willingly" take all the "seed". So no one would be forcing the woman to be pregnant, they would be forcing her to take responsibility, just like you say society is currently doing to men. If abortion were not legal a woman would not be forced to have be pregnant, she would just be forced to not have options outside of giving birth, but you don't seem to have a problem with a man having these limited options. If abortion were not available, then her options stop at the time she chooses to open her legs, but isn't this the exact time you want the man options to end??

[QUOTE][quote]A man gives his seed to the female - this is his "choice." [/quote]

I don't think this is the best way to word it, but if you choose to go right ahead. Being that a man "gives" his seed does this mean it belongs to the woman now?? Does this mean that the woman decides what to do with the seed? So I guess her impregnation is all her fault being that she accepted his seed, right?? If it was a man's choice to "give" it, then it was a woman's choice to "take" it. [/QUOTE]

Actually, droop, yes, it does give her a choice on what to do with his semen. If kids are playing across the street, and and ball goes over my fence and into my yard, it becomes my ball to do whatever I please with it. And no, you'd be guessing wrong, because "it takes two to tango." Sure, that's exactly what I was indicating - that impregnation is all the woman's fault. She can't get pregnant without a man, Droop.


[QUOTE][quote]They have this choice because of their biology.[/quote]

You could not be more wrong on this. Biologically women can become pregnant and carry a baby to term. They can not, or at least have not learned to abort their fetuses, through biological means. Though I am saying something, I'm sure you already know, it was important to emphasize my point. The reason women can abort their fetus is because of society and technology... only. If social laws can allow for abortion to occur with women social laws can allow men to abort their responsibilities as a father, as well. Men don't have to be able to become pregnant they only need the law to allow them.[/QUOTE]

We haven't learned to abort our fetuses through biological means?!

Miscarriage

Quote: "It is estimated that up to 50% of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among known pregnancies, the rate of spontaneous abortion is approximately 10% and usually occurs between the 7th and 12th weeks of pregnancy."

[QUOTE][quote]When a mother "opts out" of being a parent, the father "opts out" by default because you can't be a parent to a child that doesn't exist.  However, if males were given the opportunity to "opt out" of being a father, the female would be left raising a child, alone, with no support whatsoever for the child. [/quote]

Your first point is completely inaccurate. For any one to "opt" out of anything they have to have choice. There is no choice for the man in the current system. If a man wants the child and the women does not and has an abortion a man did not "opt out" directly, indirectly, in actuality, or by default.[/QUOTE]

There is no choice for the man because he already made his choice - to ejaculate into the female. That is the choice he has because no one has any right to make a female abort or carry a pregnancy to term. Women get choices during the first three months of pregnancy because they have to carry the fetus, and our society considers it unethical to put the rights of a forming human being over the one already in existance.


[QUOTE][quote]What's really better for the child?[/quote]

If a man says he wants nothing to do with a child, then it is obvious he doesn't care what is best for the child, but I will go into detail later in the post.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't matter if the man wants nothing to do with his own children. He still has a legal obligation to financially support them.

[QUOTE][quote]After all, if a guy gets a girl pregnant, no bother; he can just choose not to be a father to his own child and go around impregnanting as many people as he wants without any consequences whatsoever.  That's not a world I want to live in.[/quote]

Funny this is the exact type world you want to live in when we replace the worn "man" with "woman". You talk as if the man "gets" the woman pregnant. Well, what is the woman doing while the man "gets" her pregnant. I guess she is "getting" herself pregnant...right?? So the world you want to live in is where the woman goes around getting herself pregnant and she doesn't have to worry about the consequences cause she can just have an abortion. Oh, the huge difference in the two worlds is so striking!! [/QUOTE]

No, the world I live in is where women have control over their bodies and what goes into them, and what comes out. And your use of sarcasm is nothing but unnecessary rudeness. In the interest of keeping myself from becoming emotionally involved, if you further respond in this manner I will not reply to you.


[QUOTE][quote]A consequence of a woman having sex is becoming pregnant.  She can either choose to bring an unwanted child into the world and attempt to raise it herself, put it up for adoption (good luck if it's not a healthy white male), or she can abort it.  I believe that having an abortion is one way to take responsibility for the consequences of having sex.[/quote]

Wow... I'm dizzy.... from all that spin The consequence of sex can be pregnancy. The consequence of pregnancy is child birth. Now, I am NOT saying abortion is some walk in the park. But it IS a way to AVOID the consequence of pregnancy. Abortion can not be the way to avoid the consequence of pregnancy and the consequence of pregnancy at the same time! [/QUOTE]

Abortion is a way of accepting responsibility for one's mistakes. When a woman has an abortion, she is saying that she is not able or willing to provide a comfortable life for a child, and so instead of bringing an unwanted child into the world, she chooses to abort.

[QUOTE]Just like a man a woman knows what can happen if they have sex. My point is the woman is allowed to avoid the consequence of pregnancy through abortion. Granted she is only one who can physically abort. But financially it is a way to give men the same rights that women enjoy. To avoid the burden of a child from making a mistake in the sack. Your point is tough luck, but you only apply this logic to men. You are completely against the logic of tough luck when it comes to woman, and instead of admitting that you go through some convoluted logic of how abortion is taking responsibility. It is not. The consequence and the responsibility of pregnancy is having to raise a child. All these other measures, adoption or abortion, are ways of abdicating that responsibility.[/QUOTE]

Whatever. We'll just have to agree to disagree about whether a woman who makes the decision to not bring an unwanted child into existance is being responsible or not.

[QUOTE][QUOTE]QUOTE(SuzySteamboat @ Nov 1 2004, 09:29 AM)
At this point, the mother has decided the child would be better off not existing at all and would prefer not to bring a person into the world who's future is less than certain.
It is unethical to force a mother into motherhood, because in doing so you would literally usurp the rights that she has to her own body.[/QUOTE]


First, are you suggesting that women that have abortions actually see the fetus as a "child." I don't see how someone can see it as a child they are looking out for by aborting it!! That is insane! I reiterate i am pro-choice, myself, but I wouldn't be if I saw the fetus as a child. Let alone a child I care enough about to wipe out of existence cause their "future is less than certain" [/QUOTE]

Who cares what she decides to call it? Is that in any way relevant to the discussion?

[QUOTE]Secondly, Are you even going to pretend that a woman is thinking of the baby when she has an abortion. Any time the woman has an abortion it is for her own selfish reasons. I admit some selfish reasons are more legitimate than others, like rape, incest, or possible death or permanent damage. But all the reasons deal with the woman, and why the woman isn't ready to have a child and take on that responsibility, whether it is school, career, or embarrassment. [/QUOTE]

Honestly, what would be the point in bringing a child into the world when no one wants it?!

[QUOTE]And this is precisely why I think men should be able to financially abort there children.

Women have abortions not because of the interests of the fetus, they do so for their own selfish reasons. No a man has those same selfish reasons. You ask a man to put the life of a child before his own, but you don't believe that a woman should do the same. If a man tells his woman I don't want this child at the time she can have an abortion, then she can choose not to have the baby. If she chooses to continue with the pregnancy then that was her choice. She wasn't left hanging.[/QUOTE]

Yeah... anyone who discovers in the 8th month of pregnancy that her child has severe birth defects and probably would not live outside a few days chooses to abort because of purely selfish reasons. Females are selfish idiots, when we get pregnant we couldn't care less about the kind of future our children would have. Whenever we get abortions, it's so that babies don't ruin our good figures.

The sexism in this thread is revolting. Are your opinions of females really that low?! Do you really think we're all selfish whores who'll do anything to cheat a hard-working man out of his last dollar? Because between you and Bikerdad, I sense that that's exactly what you believe. You don't think there's a single woman out there who has had an abortion for the best interests of the child. Bikerdad and Riker don't think there's any woman out there receiving child support who doesn't spend it all on lavish gifts for herself. I can't believe this.

[QUOTE]QUOTE
"Forcing" a guy to become a father equates to making him take responsibility for the child that was conceived once he willingly put his seed into her body. Forcing a woman to become a mother equates to someone else taking control of that woman's body for nine months to ensure that she delivers a fully-formed, healthy infant. There is a world of difference.


And to your last bit of spin.... this was an all day event

If I went to a doctor and said...."Doc cut off my arm" The doctor asks, "why" and my reply was "hey, it's my body and I have a right to have any medical procedure I want done to it" What would you think?? Do I have that right?? Just like the man, no one forced the woman to spread her legs "willingly" take all the "seed". So no one would be forcing the woman to be pregnant, they would be forcing her to take responsibility, just like you say society is currently doing to men. If abortion were not legal a woman would not be forced to have be pregnant, she would just be forced to not have options outside of giving birth, but you don't seem to have a problem with a man having these limited options. If abortion were not available, then her options stop at the time she chooses to open her legs, but isn't this the exact time you want the man options to end??[/QUOTE]

Droop, I've already explained this. You didn't accept my explanation; there's nothing further I can do. And because of your sarcasm, which I find highly unnecessary, I will not be responding to you any further. When you want to debate like mature adults, I'll be here.

This was a bad analogy the first time you used it and it still is. If kids kick a ball into your yard it is still their ball, legally and ethically. Sperm is not property. It is always the man's sperm because it comes from him. The egg always belongs to the woman it comes from. His sperm and her egg come together to make their .....whatever child, embryo, fetus. Also take note of your own sarcasm, i'll bring it up again...

Are you kidding me? You don't choose to have a miscarriage, a miscarriage happens. You aren't aborting a child. Are you telling me that their are women who can have miscarriages on cue... If so, then why are we even having this debate?? Since I said something so incredulous, that you go off talking about the woman's ability to abort through miscarriage, why do we need doctors?? Can't women teach each other this special biological technique?? If not, why bring up miscarriage to refute my claim that a woman can't abort her child?

This is my point. It is just as fair for society to stop a woman's choice at the time she ALLOWS a man to ejaculate in her. I understand the current system and how things are viewed... but as I am sure you would point out(on a different subject)... the fact that something is occurring does not justify it occurring.

Again you seem to be arguing the way legal system is now to justify the rightness of your point of view. If we are being fair then the fact that the woman does not want to have a child can be just as meaningless to society.

No the world you want to live in is where you control what goes in your body, what comes out, and what comes out the man's pockets to support your decisions. As to you claims of sarcasm... take a minute to reread your posts. What is really ironic is my sarcasm retort came from this comment you made which was:

Is this not sarcasm So... you make a sarcastic remark... then get offended at sarcasm directed at you. Let me guess it is only rude when we men do it. I'm starting to see a pattern here...

I don't know, but it seems to make sense to make a man pay for a child he does not want....



First, you're argument seems desperate. What percentage of abortions are late term abortions because the "child has severe birth defects and probably would not live outside a few days"?? Would you say less than ten percent?? No... lower Read this Now this is 1.4 percent of combined problems of mother and child.

So to refute my argument that women have abortions for selfish reasons, you come back with a scenario that happens maybe 1 percent of the time. Well I can concede that 1 % of women don't have abortions for selfish reasons.

And please stop with the over dramatization, it's bringing tears to my eye. I do not think women are "selfish whores". I have a mama, a daughter, and a wife. I don't think they are whores, I just think YOU are wrong on this issue, that is why I debate you. I do not intend to demean you, and I don't feel sorrow if you feel that way. Because I agree the "sexism in this thread is revolting". You've sat here and accused men of saying things they have not said, complained about sarcasm, even though you constantly dish it out. And at the end of the day you recognize the woman is holding all the cards and you are arguing to keep it that way. Time after time, I point out how things could be fair. But sexism is all about women. How they should control the sperm, the egg, the life, the death, the responsibility of themselves and the responsibility of the man. Hell, earlier in the debate a couple people readily admitted it was unfair followed by an... "Oh well!!" Yeah we definitely agree on the sexism remark.