Men and Abortion - Page 6

knot_e_lady · 07-02-2007, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baloney_detector

Perhaps the states could allow "pre-pregnancy agreements," so to speak, whereby couples could legally negotiate the terms by which the rights of the pregnant woman and the rights of the born child are protected.

I think this approach could certainly eliminate some of the future hardships associated with couples who might not today be able to reach an agreement on their own regarding future children that protects the rights of pregnant women and the rights of born children.

Kind of puts a crimp on that spontaneous thing, though....

pensacola_niceman · 07-02-2007, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knot_e_lady

But it starts out that way, doesn't it?

Who are the parents of a newborn baby? Both man and woman. Both man and woman had a part on that child's creation, not it is the responsibility of both parents to do what is best for that child.

If abortion were illegal you would have to pay in ALL pregnancies.

And like Ali said, if a man doesn't want to have a child with a woman, then he should make damn sure, either by permanent sterilization or abstinence, that he doesn't get her pregnant. Easy. But, believe me, no matter how good the birth control, one sucker can always squeeze by. 4 out of my 5 sons were conceived while on birth control.

Here's the answer: don't have sex.

knot_e_lady · 07-02-2007, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pensacola_niceman

Here's the answer: don't have sex.

Hmmm, not really an option when you're married....

pensacola_niceman · 07-02-2007, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knot_e_lady

Hmmm, not really an option when you're married....

Oh yeah? You don't know much about my marriage then.

knot_e_lady · 07-02-2007, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pensacola_niceman

Oh yeah? You don't know much about my marriage then.

You know, there's a lot of material there, but I don't want another warning.

dabateman · 07-02-2007, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlicornsPrayer

Not when in regards to the parents being married though. When the couple are married, the responsibility is shared equally. And in the event of disagreement of having children, both parties are still held responsible in care of the child. That was the case with my ex and me...We were married, my son was a result of that marriage. Even though I took the precautions of not getting pregnant so early in our marriage, I still got pregnant. He didn't do anything to prohibit pregnancy on his part, even though he didn't want children period, he left that fully up to me.

If what you say is true, that both are equally responsible to prevent pregnancy, then if he truely didn't want a child he could have done things himself to ensure it didn't happen. BUT, since he didn't, and it happened anyways, why should I have the sole responsibility of taking care of OUR child. He knew when we engaged in sex, there was a chance of pregnancy. So why didn't he guarentee a way for himself, so as not to impregnate me? And why should he get away from the responsibility of his own actions for his own inability to take those precautions if being a parent was the last thing he wanted?

Much like the property and property debt collected in a marriage, it's shared equally even if one of the party says they don't want the responsibility...

I've pointed out twice now, that we (as in my hubby and myself) at odds in regards to pregnancy complications. Furthermore, what's at stake is my life...It's not about financial responsibilty/choice, but his position on he doesn't want to raise the children without me there to share in it with him. If my life depends on terminating the pregnancy at any stage is the issue.

So who gets the right in this instance, to determine whether or not I'm allowed to end my life for the chance to give life to my children? Hubby or me?

When you factor in marriage, marriage is a legal contract in which all responsibilities are shared. If a child is produced through the marriage the husband is contractually obligated to provide.

Both parties are equally responsible for preventing pregnancy if that is their wish. If neither party takes takes the responsibility then both are culpable. This is where the decision making process comes in as I lined out in my previous post. The vote system.

Women have the right over their body. I advocated this in my last post. They should not have the right to force financial responsibility for un-married (non-contractual), consensual sex. This is why I maintain the vote system that protects the womans rights to her body.

knot_e_lady · 07-02-2007, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabateman

The vote system.

You want to vote?

Fine.

Man gets 1 vote
Woman gets 2 votes, since she has the added risk to her life.

When man can take the same physical risks as a woman, he gets another vote.

pensacola_niceman · 07-02-2007, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knot_e_lady

You know, there's a lot of material there, but I don't want another warning.

If you get another warning - it won't be from me. I told you I didn't report you in the first place.

AlicornsPrayer · 07-02-2007, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabateman

When you factor in marriage, marriage is a legal contract in which all responsibilities are shared. If a child is produced through the marriage the husband is contractually obligated to provide.

Both parties are equally responsible for preventing pregnancy if that is their wish. If neither party takes takes the responsibility then both are culpable. This is where the decision making process comes in as I lined out in my previous post. The vote system.

Women have the right over their body. I advocated this in my last post. They should not have the right to force financial responsibility for un-married (non-contractual), consensual sex. This is why I maintain the vote system that protects the womans rights to her body.

Thank you. You finally addressed my particular questions. ((((HUGZ))))

The thing is, irregardless of whether the couple are married or not, it's a grey area. There's pros and cons for both sides of the issue, but IF we contend with that the woman has the right to her body and what happens to it...She shouldn't be forced by the man's wishes to terminate or continue with the pregnancy period in my mind.

And if she does decide to carry to term, well...Even though it doesn't sound fair to make the man pay for a baby he doesn't want, he still made the choice to have sex with her. If he didn't want to have a child, then he has choices open to him as well to ensure he doesn't accidentally impregnant a woman he has no wishes to concieve with.

The thing is, as I've stated already...There's really no way for either to win when they disagree on this type of a sitation when they're sleeping together. And for one of the disagreeing parties to win, the other one has to lose. It's rarely a win/win situation unless both parties had already agreed about the what-ifs to begin with.

dabateman · 07-02-2007, 04:17 PM

It isn't fair to make the man pay for a baby carried to term outside of a contractual relationship. It's not that it doesn't sound fair, it flat isn't fair. This is an "if then" statement. If pregnancy, woman holds right to abort. If pregnancy continues inside of contractual relationship, then man is responsible for parental responsibilities. The contract indicates his agreement to the conditions of the contract which he has signed and is legally binding.

If pregnancy outside of contractual relationship, then establish contract. Either the woman and the man get married. The man and woman agree that they should share parental rights and responsibilities outside of marriage, or there is no contract. A contractual obligation is based upon agreeing to the terms.

If we are going to use the argument that the man implied his agreement to the contract through non-contractual consensual sex, we should hold the woman to the same standard. Through consenting to non-contractual sex, the woman understands pregnancy can occur and she is responsible for the consequences. This means that she implied she would have the baby to term as this is the common practice. If the man is held liable to the implied contract, the woman should be as well.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode