Male activists want 'say' in unplanned pregnancy

[ObiwanGinobili]

Oh... and the thought of women getting pregnant to trap a man and a wallet is completely LAUGHABLE. Do you realize how much it costs to raise a child, and how little of that child support actually covers!?!?!?

Now I think I get why its the guys with no children ing about this...

agreed.
who in their right mind would think that? Havign a child to care for takes so much tiume and mental energy--- ehy would someone do it JUST to get some $$ form someone else that barely covers the expenses of that child?
ridicules.

a friend of mine is divorced. her ex quit his job and went back to school.. he works part time and (willingly and joyfully) pays $120 in support for thir 4yr old.
yeah. she's rolling in it. she can either - cash the check into $1 bills nad roll around naked in it or pay daycare for 1 week.
wow.

[Spurminator]

Do you realize how much it costs to raise a child, and how little of that child support actually covers!?!?!?

Apparently, $21,782 per month.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/...rtainment=true

I'll give you that fewer women abuse the system than don't, but let's not pretend it doesn't happen. Some people aren't smart enough to think about the future costs.

[MannyIsGod]

Its nto about trapping them to get their money. I'm not talking about gold digging.

What I'm saying, is that what you women in here are wanting is to have their sexual responsibility kick in at a different point. I have no problem with a woman having rule over her body, but I think that right should extend to a man as well.

If a woman can decide she has no responsibility to a baby inside of her, so can a man.

[SpursWoman]

Really?

If a woman wants to keep a pregnancy she can and have the father financialy liable and the father gets no say so.

If she doesn't, she can terminate it and the father who woudl otherwise be financial liable has no say so.

I understand your point, but my problem with it is that he chose to have unprotected sex with this person...and as far as I'm concerned anyway, I don't depend or rely on anyone else but myself for those kinds of things...and unprotected sex has a pretty high probability of ending up in pregnancy. As far as I know that's pretty common knowledge.

So he knowingly inserts his unsheathed penis...unloads, and now wants the legal right to walk away from the results if he doesn't feel like dealing with it?

"Eh ... I don't want it, you can't make me pay for it. Laters."

[MannyIsGod]

I understand your point, but my problem with it is that he chose to have unprotected sex with this person...and as far as I'm concerned anyway, I don't depend or rely on anyone else but myself for those kinds of things...and unprotected sex has a pretty high probability of ending up in pregnancy. As far as I know that's pretty common knowledge.

So he knowingly inserts his unsheathed penis...unloads, and now wants the legal right to walk away from the results if he doesn't feel like dealing with it?

"Eh ... I don't want it, you can't make me pay for it. Laters."

Ok, now go back replace the HE with a SHE and make the issue abortion. Then its legal, right?

[Dre_7]

Medical condition would probably be a more fitting description. But many pregnancies cause major health problems, and almost all of them cause at least minor health problems at some point or another. Have you ever been pregnant?

So if this medical condition causes health problems, then why not prevent it by not having sex?

And no, I have never been pregnant, but I also wouldnt get a girl pregnant unless I was ready to deal with whatever posible results of having sex could cause.

Again, if you dont want a garden, then dont plant a seed.

[pache100]

So if this medical condition causes health problems, then why not prevent it by not having sex?

I'm all for that for those who refuse to use protection. That's all that's really required.

And no, I have never been pregnant, but I also wouldnt get a girl pregnant unless I was ready to deal with whatever posible results of having sex could cause.

That's commendable. But, why is that more commendable than this:

"If I had a child (when I could have had a child) by a man I was not married to, I certainly would not have expected nor wanted him to contribute in any way toward the welfare of that child if he were not willing."

Again, if you dont want a garden, then dont plant a seed.

Again, my point exactly (and apparently, that of a host of other women here).

What exactly is your beef with me?

[SpursWoman]

"If I had a child (when I could have had a child) by a man I was not married to, I certainly would not have expected nor wanted him to contribute in any way toward the welfare of that child if he were not willing."

I wouldn't, either.

[Vashner]

Put some kind of wire in there so it zaps the little sperms... like a bug blaster.. ZZZT.

[timvp]

He contends that the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that -- because of a physical condition -- she could not get pregnant.

Sucker.

[Trainwreck2100]

So because a woman is born a woman she has complete control over how the man's life is affected, didn't we get rid of gender discrimination years ago. Roe v. Wade set that women could do what they want to with their own bodies, it shouldn't be a man's problem about a decision that she makes about her own body..

[SpursWoman]

Ok, now go back replace the HE with a SHE and make the issue abortion. Then its legal, right?

The roles are totally different for each person involved, as are the consequences. There is no possible way you can devise an equal law when it's not an *equal* issue to begin with...without being "unfair" to either the man or the woman.

Giving men that easy of an out when their consequences aren't nearly as great as a woman's to begin with only makes a bad situation worse, IMO.

[Triumph]

Fathers should simply have more rights with regard to keeping the child when the mother is in favor of aborting. This case is just the opposite side of the coin.

[SpursWoman]

So because a woman is born a woman she has complete control over how the man's life is affected, didn't we get rid of gender discrimination years ago. Roe v. Wade set that women could do what they want to with their own bodies, it shouldn't be a man's problem about a decision that she makes about her own body..

A man can either not sleep with her or make sure he protects himself. He has plenty of control over how his own life is affected. "An ounce of prevention...blahblahblah."

[SpursWoman]

Fathers should simply have more rights with regard to keeping the child when the mother is in favor of aborting. This case is just the opposite side of the coin.

I would support that.

[SpursWoman]

Sucker.

No .


If you weren't there to actually witness the hysterectomy ... wrap it.

[easjer]

So then if we do what Manny suggests and make this a law . . . then we are at the point where the guy can just walk away without any problem. Then the woman has to decide whether or not to have the baby or abort it, right? So we'll initially see a lot more abortions (which nearly all politicians agree, regardless of their stance on aborition's legality) would be a shame. BTW, why does the woman have to pay for the entire cost of the abortion if the man is equally unwilling to have the child? They aren't cheap medical procedures - not talking a $20 copay.

Or she can have it and give it up for adoption. Which is a health risk and trauma, and emotionally tramautic.

Or she can keep it. Now, either she would be able to afford to maintain a child or she wouldn't. In the first case, no big deal. In the second, that means that the state has to step back in to clean up a mess that the guy made with the girl. The girl has to deal with the fiscal hardships of the child, and so do you and I, the taxpayers. In fact, the only one not dealing with this problem is the other party that created the problem, the father, unless he's a tax paying citizen.

Still, if the argument is that if the guy doesn't want the child, he shouldn't have to pay, then does that mean that since I don't want any of these 'welfare' children, I don't have to pay the portion of the taxes that goes towards their assistance? I should think so, since I never had unprotected sex to create the unwanted child that I am now paying for. After all, if the dad doesn't have to pay, why do I? I didn't even get the orgasm out of it.

[Spurminator]

So we'll initially see a lot more abortions (which nearly all politicians agree, regardless of their stance on aborition's legality) would be a shame.

A dark secret is that many people don't necessarily think that would be a bad thing.

[SpursWoman]

After all, if the dad doesn't have to pay, why do I? I didn't even get the orgasm out of it.

That's the only thing that's really unfair.

[easjer]

A dark secret is that many people don't necessarily think that would be a bad thing.

Then I am truly saddened, because any moral stance aside, abortion is a medical procedure that can cause damage to the woman's reproductive organs and affect her future fertility. There is little worse than losing the ability to conceive a child when you are emotionally, physically, and financially ready to provide a good loving home.

[jcrod]

I find it interesting that the men who have piped up the loudest on this issue have no kids. I am not saying that is good or bad- not even sure what it means. Just an observation.

As for controlling wallets, that is after the fact. And it's not about control, its about responsibility. Men and women will NEVER have equality when it comes to reproduction, and that is something that men have to live with. Just like women have to face choices about career vs. babies and so forth that are unfair, men have their burdens as well. But this law seeks to make a bad situation worse.

Because of reproduction alone, men and women will never be equal, period. If they are not equal,and face different challenges in pregnancy, you can not expect equal rights as well.

I have kids and I say its bull . Men have no choices, women have every choice.

[Dre_7]

What exactly is your beef with me?

No beef.

Sorry if I gave that impression.

[SpursWoman]

Men have no choices

Your wife, past girlfriends...whomever, have consistantly pointed a gun at your head and made you come inside them?


Damn.

[Spurminator]

Then I am truly saddened, because any moral stance aside, abortion is a medical procedure that can cause damage to the woman's reproductive organs and affect her future fertility.

Any worse than giving birth?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

[jcrod]

Oh... and the thought of women getting pregnant to trap a man and a wallet is completely LAUGHABLE. Do you realize how much it costs to raise a child, and how little of that child support actually covers!?!?!?

Now I think I get why its the guys with no children ing about this...

In most cases about 20-25% of his pay is taken. That is a lot of money to dish out when your child is not living with you, or you don't want anything to do with the kid. If I ever (god forbid) get a divorce I would hate living without my kids and then having to give a 1/4 of my money, when you know all of that won't go to the kid. If you want to keep the kid(s) then you pay for you housing, food, etc. It's not going to cost you 1/4 of my pay to feed that child every month. You're not going to be buying that much worth of clothes.

a friend of mine is divorced. her ex quit his job and went back to school.. he works part time and (willingly and joyfully) pays $120 in support for thir 4yr old.
yeah. she's rolling in it. she can either - cash the check into $1 bills nad roll around naked in it or pay daycare for 1 week.
wow.

If that guy is only working partime and is going to school 120 dollars is a lot of money to give every month. That takes a big chunk of his pay I bet.