Article: Shouldn't Men have a choice too?

[RaWBLooD]

Originally posted by Wyldfire
Why do you insist on absolving men of being responsible for the outcome of carelessly having unprotected sex?

If a man can't take two seconds and put on a condom then it's his own damn fault if he becomes a father. If you drive drunk and wreck your car you still have to make payments on it, even if you don't want it. If your house burns down you still have to pay your mortgage. If you're wise, you insure yourself to prevent having to pay for something you don't want to pay for in the case of an accident. This should be common sense.

A CONDOM CAN BREAK,
and the man might not KNOW of it, until AFTER the kids are born when he DIDNT WANT THEM FROM THE START.

 

[Wyldfire]

Originally posted by RaWBLooD
no ones placing blame on the woman , men just dont want to support a child when they were told the woman was on the pill, when they offered an abortion, and when they cant afford it, what is a man supposed to do, grab the woman while shes asleep and do the abortion for her? If the woman wants to keep the child and the man doesnt want it, then he shouldn;t have to pay for it, especially in today when you can give away for adoption easily and abortion is even easier.
Are you understanding this, do you see where not having sex isnt the solution? because condoms arent 100% foolproof, and getting a vasectomy isnt an option, when u want to have kids later, either.

And the man can wear a goddamned condom...

If he wants to make sure she doesn't get pregnant he NEEDS to make sure he uses a goddamned condom.

This is NOT Rocket Science, here fellas...it is called taking a LOGICAL step to protect yourself from an unwanted pregnancy. What the heck is so damn difficult to understand about this? You do NOT need to have any choice beyond the one you already have...you simply need to f*cking EXERCISE it.

Use CONDOMS!

They are FREE at any Planned Parenthood office.

 

[Wyldfire]

Originally posted by Jvesti
No i did not mention you. I was responding to someone else and it was damn clear. Anyways, you are repeating the same things over and over. I am ignoring further responses from you and would encourage everyone else to do the same.

If you were responding to the comment:

Walk a mile in the shoes of a single mother trying to support your kid/s before complaining.

you were actually responding to something I said.

If you were responding to this:

I'm not even going to go there...

then you were responding to the other person. Since it's pretty unlikely you'd respond as you did to "I'm not even going to go there...", I figured you were probably responding to what I had said that the other person quoted.

I'm repeating the same thing because that really is all that needs to be said about the issue. If a man uses a condom properly each time he has sex, it's highly unlikely he will find himself being a father when he doesn't want to be.

 

[RaWBLooD]

Originally posted by Wyldfire
No, they aren't different.

Do men know that when they have sex a pregnancy can result?

Yes.

Do men know that abstinence or the use of condoms is the way to prevent pregnancy?

Yes.

Do men know that it is ultimately the woman's decision whether or not to have the baby if she becomes pregnant?

Yes.

Do men know that by law they will be required to pay child support for any child resulting from their choice to have sex with a woman?

Yes.

Again...if a man does NOT want to have to pay child support for a child he did not want he NEEDS to wear a condom or not have sex at all. If he has unprotected sex and a child is born as a result it is HIS OWN FAULT for being CARELESS and IRRESPONSIBLE. It is his future and HIS responsibility to protect HIS interests. It is NOT the woman's responsibility to protect HIS interests. If a man trusts his future and wallet with a woman who claims to be on birth control and isn't, he made a bad choice and will have to pay for it for 18 years.

You ALL KNOW THIS stuff.

So, why, again, is it that men STILL have unprotected sex with women when they don't want kids?

what if the condom breaks, the man doesnt know, AND the woman assured the man shes on the pill before even deciding to have sex, how is it the mans responsiblity then ?

 

[Wyldfire]

Originally posted by RaWBLooD
A CONDOM CAN BREAK,
and the man might not KNOW of it, until AFTER the kids are born when he DIDNT WANT THEM FROM THE START.

Condoms don't usually break when used properly and you don't use old ones that you've carried around in your wallet for a year.

Planned Parenthood gives away FREE condoms. They protect not only against unwanted pregnancies but they are pretty handy at preventing crotch rot, too.

Condoms...a truly wonderful, miraculous invention.

Go get your own supply today!

 

[RaWBLooD]

Originally posted by Wyldfire
The man most certainly DOES has a choice in the matter. He can either NOT take his d*ck out of his pants or wrap the damn thing up. It's really quite simple. He should be wearing a condom to protect himself from STDs anyway...

You insure your car to protect your wallet from the costs of an automobile accident.

You insure your home to protect your wallet from to costs of a fire, flood or natural disaster.

Why can't you protect your wallet from an unwanted pregnancy but putting on a freaking condom?

condoms CAN break AND EVEN IF THE MAN KNOWS, HE HAS LOST ALL CONTROL ONES THAT HAPPENS are u understanding the issue?

 

[RaWBLooD]

Originally posted by Wyldfire
First off...I left my ex husband, not the other way around. But that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

OH IT DOESNT? so u BROUGHT IT UP for the fcuk OF IT ? just so we would know all about your life story

The man is responsible for helping support his child...whether he wanted to have that child or not. That child is STILL his responsibility. He helped make it right along with the woman. He could have avoided it all by wearing a condom.

No, it could have broken.

He has the power to prevent pregnancy when he has sex with a woman...he either doesn't have sex with her or wears a condom.

and if the condom breaks, even if he knows about it, he has no power to stop the eventual birth of a child, so if he tells the woman he doesnt want it, HE DID wear a condom, and she becomes pregnant anyway, why should he pay.

 

[K B]

I 100% support a woman not being allowed to have an abortion if the man wants the child. I do NOT support a man being able to force a woman to have an abortion.

Thank you for clearing that up, Wyldfire. I think that is logical and fair. I don't think any of the real men here are saying that a man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion. I for one, do not! That would let men off the hook entirely and would make us completely irresponsible. The thing is, women get off the hook all the time, they can be completely irresponsible with a man's feelings and his unborn, and completley get away with it.

In a perfect world, it would go something like this:

The man and woman BOTH want a child, and they are BOTH responsible. They make the decision TOGETHER. They make a nice family and live happily ever after.

This is not a perfect world, and we are both not perfect, so you have two more scenarios:

1.) The woman wants the child, and he doesn't; the courts find that they are BOTH responsible.

Conclusions? HE SHOULD HAVE KEPT HIS PANTS ZIPPED.

He chose not to do this, so now the man is *punished* and has to be "responsible" and live with HER decision for the next 18 years. The man is held ACCOUNTABLE.

2.) The man wants the child, but the woman doesn't. The courts find that it is "her body, her choice." HE doesn't have a choice. The man has to live with HER decision.

Conclusions? SHE SHOULD HAVE KEPT HER LEGS CLOSED.

She chose not too, so all she has to do now is go to a doctor and "get rid of her little problem."

The man helped CREATE a baby for God's sake, yet he doesn't get a choice if *his* baby lives or dies. The woman that he cared enough about to want to have a baby with can then proceed to MURDER his unborn, and he is POWERLESS. The woman is NOT held accountable.

Where is her *punishment* for not being "responsible?" She doesn't get any, and men are held accountable for their mistakes, yet the women are not held accountable and can get away with MURDER, literally.

Please don't sit there and tell me this is fair.

 

[Wyldfire]

Originally posted by RaWBLooD
what if the condom breaks, the man doesnt know, AND the woman assured the man shes on the pill before even deciding to have sex, how is it the mans responsiblity then ?

1) Don't EVER trust anyone but yourself when it comes to making sure you are using birth control.

2) Everytime you have sex, you risk the chance of an unwanted pregnancy or contracting an STD.

3) You greatly minimize the likelihood of pregnancy and STDs by using CONDOMS.

4) The pill does NOT protect against crotch rot or any variety. Use CONDOMS even if she is on the pill lest your willie get infected and fall off.

5) Any child born did NOT have a choice in anything. That child is ENTITLED to the financial support of BOTH the individuals responsible for making said child until child turns 18 and is able to support themselves.

6) Did I say USE CONDOMS?

Why on earth a man who doesn't want kids would NOT use condoms is just mind-boggling to me. Complaining after the fact does no good and doesn't get your ass off the hook. You still have to pay child support because by law, your child is your responsibility...whether you want to be responsible or not. You KNOW this everytime you unzip your fly...so WHY on earth would you NOT use condoms? Could someone please explain this? It makes NO sense, goes against all that is rational and logical and is just plain stupid.

Why do men who don't want children put themselves at risk of being fathers? If you wouldn't trust you credit card with someone then don't trust them to be on birth control.

 

[Wyldfire]

Originally posted by RaWBLooD
No, it could have broken.
and if the condom breaks, even if he knows about it, he has no power to stop the eventual birth of a child, so if he tells the woman he doesnt want it, HE DID wear a condom, and she becomes pregnant anyway, why should he pay.

Because that's a risk a man takes every time he has sex. What would you do if abortions weren't legal? They didn't used to be. If you want a 100% guarantee never to be a father then you need to get a vasectomy or refrain from having sex.

 

[RaWBLooD]

Originally posted by Wyldfire
blah blah blah same old crap.... If he doesn't want a kid then he needs to put on a freaking rubber or keep it in his pants...that's all there is to it.

rubber isnt 100% and if it breaks he has no choice ? how is arguing the ethics of adoption and morality of abortion going to change the fact that even you stated, that it takes 2 to make the baby, so unless you are agreeing women are objects, and birth control is, whatever, and making sure he wears a rubber is also whatever, (if he didnt put it on who cares, im not responsible) then you can clearly see how the man should be able to FUND the abortion if he wants to. (wich is so many times cheaper than a kid through to adolescence)

 

[RaWBLooD]

Originally posted by Wyldfire
No...the law clearly dictates that if a man fathered a child, that child is just as much his responsibility as it is the woman's.

It doesn't matter whether you like it or not...that's the reality and no amount of crying over it is going to change it.

If you don't like the law then don't have sex with women.

we're talking about changing the law, read the first damn page woman.

 

[Wyldfire]

Originally posted by K B
Thank you for clearing that up, Wyldfire. I think that is logical and fair. I don't think any of the real men here are saying that a man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion. I for one, do not! That would let men off the hook entirely and would make us completely irresponsible. The thing is, women get off the hook all the time, they can be completely irresponsible with a man's feelings and his unborn, and completley get away with it.

In a perfect world, it would go something like this:

The man and woman BOTH want a child, and they are BOTH responsible. They make the decision TOGETHER. They make a nice family and live happily ever after.

This is not a perfect world, and we are both not perfect, so you have two more scenarios:

1.) The woman wants the child, and he doesn't; the courts find that they are BOTH responsible.

Conclusions? HE SHOULD HAVE KEPT HIS PANTS ZIPPED.

He chose not to do this, so now the man is *punished* and has to be "responsible" and live with HER decision for the next 18 years. The man is held ACCOUNTABLE.

2.) The man wants the child, but the woman doesn't. The courts find that it is "her body, her choice." HE doesn't have a choice. The man has to live with HER decision.

Conclusions? SHE SHOULD HAVE KEPT HER LEGS CLOSED.

She chose not too, so all she has to do now is go to a doctor and "get rid of her little problem."

The man helped CREATE a baby for God's sake, yet he doesn't get a choice if *his* baby lives or dies. The woman that he cared enough about to want to have a baby with can then proceed to MURDER his unborn, and he is POWERLESS. The woman is NOT held accountable.

Where is her *punishment* for not being "responsible?" She doesn't get any, and men are held accountable for their mistakes, yet the women are not held accountable and can get away with MURDER, literally.

Please don't sit there and tell me this is fair.

Trust me...the women are "punished"...it's just hard for you to see it. If she keeps the child it's not easy. Even IF the guy pays child support the woman is tied down and her life changes forever.

I've known women who have had abortions. It messes them up quite badly. Everytime they see a pregnant woman, baby...hear a baby cry, child laugh...they are reminded of what they did. They spend their entire life wondering about the child they killed.

The issue you seem to have is that men don't have any control over what transpires once there is a pregnancy. IF the man wants the child to be born...I firmly believe he SHOULD have the right to that child being born. I also believe that if the woman wants that child to be born, she has every right to have the baby. If the woman doesn't want the child, but the man does...she should have to carry and give birth to the baby. If she still doesn't want the baby when it's born then give it to the man. The woman should ALSO have to pay child support.

Providing financial support for your child is NOT about punishing anyone...it's about providing for the innocent child who didn't ask to be born but still has needs and rights.

Frankly, I couldn't really care less about the woman's rights or the man's rights. To me, it's the child's rights...and that child's rights trump everyone else's. If a man or a woman aren't prepared to take responsibility for any child they create they need to refrain from having sex.

 

[RaWBLooD]

Originally posted by Wyldfire
italostud...you cannot expect a woman to murder her unborn child just because you don't want to be financially responsible for the child you helped create. That's an awful lot to ask from someone.

and pregnancy and birth isnt "an awful lot" you are saying having an abortion is harder than going through pregnancy and giving birth... (are you sure you are a woman) all i hear about is how hard it is to give birth, you can tell me abortion is harder.

Even if I were raped and got pregnant I would NEVER have an abortion. It's murder...a murder that most men view as no big deal. It's no big deal to men because they are not the one having the moral battle with themselves over whether or not to end the life of a baby...their baby.

this thread wasnt about the morality of abortion in the first place, theres adoption too, and u cant tell me adoption is that damn hard, EITHER take the abortion (wich is way easier on the body) or give away for adoption (wich according to you is not murder so therefore must be easier) or have the damn child but dont expect pay, as you can see theres quite some option for the woman.

Women get to make that choice by themselves because if they end the life of their child it is that woman who has to live with the knowledge that they killed their own child for the rest of their life. All men are thinking about is their damn wallet and they couldn't care less about the impact an abortion has on a woman for the rest of her life.

Neither women or men should have unprotected sex unless they both want a child. The woman does get a second opportunity to avoid an unwanted pregnancy...because it is HER body that hosts the unborn child. There is a price for that second opportunity, though...because utilizing it basically makes you a murderer. The man has ONE opportunity and he is 100% aware of that fact. He can wear a condom or refrain from having intercourse with the woman to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.


You analogy doesn't work because a broken windshield is an inanimate object, not a living, breathing human being.

But the man is a living breathing human being. Did you realize men are human beings too ?

 

[Wyldfire]

Originally posted by RaWBLooD
we're talking about changing the law, read the first damn page woman.

And the law will never change. You can't force a woman to have an abortion and the child's rights will ALWAYS come before both the man's and the woman's rights. Children cannot support themselves and it takes two people to make a child. The law will ALWAYS protect the interests of the most vulnerable...which are children.

 

[RaWBLooD]

Originally posted by Wyldfire
I 100% support a woman not being allowed to have an abortion if the man wants the child. I do NOT support a man being able to force a woman to have an abortion.

If a child is born BOTH parents need to share in the financial support of that child.

altho to force a woman to go through pregnancy and give birth is even worse than an abortion, itsabout 9 months when a woman has to think for two depending on if she should smoke or drink or not, and another 6 months when shes is physically restricted as to what she can do, this would be more immoral to me, not the abortion. AND YET the woman still has a choice.

wich will ruin the woman's life more (especially at a young age)
If you want the best for the woman, the man should have some choice in the matter.

 

[RaWBLooD]

Originally posted by Wyldfire
Every child born is entitled to the financial support of BOTH parents.

Even tho most women will live off their family, and the man's paycheck. Think of the womans family.

 

[RaWBLooD]

Originally posted by Wyldfire
I'm simply saying that when a child is born it is irrelevent whether or not either of the parents want to financially support that child or not. That child is the financial RESPONSIBILITY of BOTH parents. The child is entirely innocent and has needs. I don't care if the guy didn't want to be a father or not. If he's dumb enough to have unprotected sex when he KNOWS a pregnancy could result then he's just going to have to suck it up and be a damn man and take responsibility for his choices, just like the woman is. If he doesn't like it...TOO BAD...it's not the kid's fault and that kid still needs to be taken care of. It took TWO people to make the kid and it takes TWO people to provide for the child. That is all.

so when the woman marries some other guy, and that guy is the father, then the real father not only has to pay, but if he wanted the child, and the woman doesnt wanna be with him, he is DEPRIVED of being a father, wheres the fairness in that.

 

[RaWBLooD]

Originally posted by Wyldfire
And the man can wear a goddamned condom...

If he wants to make sure she doesn't get pregnant he NEEDS to make sure he uses a goddamned condom.

This is NOT Rocket Science, here fellas...it is called taking a LOGICAL step to protect yourself from an unwanted pregnancy. What the heck is so damn difficult to understand about this? You do NOT need to have any choice beyond the one you already have...you simply need to f*cking EXERCISE it.

Use CONDOMS!

They are FREE at any Planned Parenthood office.

guess what, if the condom breaks, the man just took every possible precaution he could other than not having sex to preven the conception of the child, and now he has NO CHOICE wether the child shall be carried through pregnancy and born, OR NOT.
do you see the problem in this?

 

[Wyldfire]

Originally posted by RaWBLooD
altho to force a woman to go through pregnancy and give birth is even worse than an abortion, itsabout 9 months when a woman has to think for two depending on if she should smoke or drink or not, and another 6 months when shes is physically restricted as to what she can do, this would be more immoral to me, not the abortion. AND YET the woman still has a choice.

wich will ruin the woman's life more (especially at a young age)
If you want the best for the woman, the man should have some choice in the matter.

So...she didn't have to open her legs just like the man didn't need to stick his d*ck inside her. If one of them wants the child then the child should be born...even if it means making the woman go through a pregnancy they don't want to go through. Too bad...I will always side with the one who isn't gung ho to murder a baby.