IF THE MAN DOESN'T WANT THE RISK OF A WOMAN ABORTING HIS CHILD, HE SHOULDN'T PUT HIS COCK IN IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

LOL... touchy.
That goes both ways, if she does not want to share the responsibility of having a child WITH a man she needs to keep her legs closed.

if more women would swallow, we wouldnt have this problem!

Wow! He D'int....ohmigod he fuckin did!

rk. honey ya know I loves ya loads but really you are soundin pretty fuckin ugly right now.

rkz, that's the point. And I"m not touchy, I'm just having a problem with the fact that you seem to think this is an ideal world where men really do want to take sole responsibility for their children concieved with women they obviously have no respect for. I say obviously because if there is mutual respect between two parties, that means they should be able to come to some mutual consensus between themselves. They shouldn't have to 'go and tell tales' just so they can get their own way.

Of course there are some men who love to take responsibility for their children, and they're usually the ones in stable relationships where issues like this are solved without the need to bring laws into it.

I am still reeling from the fact that a guy can seriously be breathing the air of this particular century and still think he has the right to final veto over 'his' woman's body. Whether or not there are hordes of guys ready and waiting to take full responsibility for unexpected children, frankly, is by the by. Whilst it's in my fucking belly, it's part of me. The only person who gets to make decisions about my body is me.

While I still agree with that point Dana, I do believe that different decisions are made based on the level of importance of the relationship between the man and the woman. Women will give more consideration to the mans wishes if they feel cared for as a person and not simply as an incubator.

Of course they will. I cannot imagine making such a decision without taking his view into account. Taking him into account and agreeing to have an abortion are two very different things. They may, or may not coincide.

Not only that but a very brutal power struggle would result as well since they both feel like they are being controlled by the other.

If the woman wants an abortion and the man doesn't let her, she will be more likely to take the matter in her own hands.

Then, if she does get an illegal abortion, the man will feel insulted by her defying his decision. Then an arms race power struggle will ensue, most likely greatly hurting both their lives.


A power struggle can start, clearly shown here, if a woman initially wants an abortion and is able to get one without the consent of the man but it will be no where as bad since no one is actually physically forcing their control over the other.

the men have the nukes. but i'm pretty sure the women have WMD's. We may have to go into a few foxholes and search for them.

No, they shouldn't, if they don't want to. They can do whatever they want concerning their own personal health care. You don't like it, too bad.

If men feel so strongly about the fate of their sperm, they should maybe go for a vasectomy, or practise abstinence

Thank you for that, clearly shows the attitude I knew was there.

And here.

And pretty much every other woman you ask will say the same.

except wolf

Somehow, I don't see wolf allowing a man to tell her what to do about her own health, unless he happened to be a healthcare professional.

Edit: I don't see her allowing a woman to either though, and I think that's the point. Just because the person carrying the child happens to be a woman doesn't give anyone, including the sperm donor who happens to be a man, a right to tell her what her rights are.

Removing what they "happen to be" from consideration removes the debate from reality, IE the sexes are not reproductively equal.

My point is that no one has a right to tell anyone what to do with their own body. How's that for reality.

Good think I was talking about the fetus, half his.

hey, rk. here's a proposed plan for you. I read that the fetus this and full custody that and none of this after the fact blah blah blah...

So. You find a man that feels this way? That he wants full custody of the child he fathers? No problemo. Get the agreement between the parties, man and woman, **before** the fact. Now, you've a leg to stand on. Now each person is making an informed decision. Informed consent. Discuss, agree, sign, sex, pregnancy, birth, custody.

--aside-- Talk about a mood killer.. yeesh.

But now there will be no surprises, no mistaken assumptions. He and she knew the job was dangerous when they took it.

I agree this is not foolproof. People change their minds. Happens all the time in all kinds of situations, even those as important and emotionally supercharged as this one. And still, people work it out. Build into the contract the "escape clauses" and the penalties for breaking the contract. Then you have a law that can be objectively evaluated. You have a structure that can be anticipated and navigated. Reform and refine as you go.

I daresay a man that protects his interests in this way, while effective, will ever have any interests to actually protect. What woman would sign? And a woman that would sign (and a man that would sign) would likely be bound by the unwritten social contract that is in effect every day.

But trying to enforce something like this **after** it has begun... not gonna happen. No contracts, no agreements of any kind get made when you mix up cooperation and compulsion.

Consent and coercion are mutually exclusive. One cannot be transformed into the other.

Not a bad idea, have the contract, keep it with you, and get it signed before-hand.
At least you would have legal standing after the fact.

Glad you like it.

I bet it would be a highly effective prophylactic. 100% effective.

Serious Question:
 

Would the man, were he to have these "Equal Rights" over the fetus, have the option of FORCING THE WOMAN TO HAVE AN ABORTION?

Shoulda' made it bigger and put it in red.

You mean blood red, for the blood of the innocent victims, slaughtered in the name of equal reproductive rights?

LOL!!!

Well it's a good question. I'm interested to know your thoughts on that one rkz.

I asked that in my first post in this thread...how can you consider giving a man the right to force a woman to take a pregnancy to term and make him a father, but not have the same right to force a woman to abort in order to NOT make him a father?

What does it say about our civilization and society that we kill our children and think nothing of it?

You know what, rk, you're dead right.

The answer here should be obvious to everyone.




The woman gets to cut the kid outta her, and then she can give it to the guy. If he can keep it alive, great, keep the little fucker.
You can not, can not, force the woman to keep it inside her. You have no right to do so.

Because that's what you're advocating, rk, whether you like it or not. You're advocating a man's right to have final, be-all end-all say over what a woman does or does not keep inside her.
I can't look at you and tell you, for any reason in the world, that you must or must not get a vasectomy, a tattoo, a circumcision, a plastic surgery, or any other medical procedure. I shouldn't be able look at a woman and do the same.

Any chance you'll describe how your alternate law would work?

I think this is a clear case of man's law vs. natural law...........compounded with the inherent ridiculous illusions of control and the pursuit thereof. I don't even think I want to wrap my brain around all this ridiculousness anymore.....it's just such an overtly outrageous and dangerous concept that I don't think I want to spend any more time considering the arguements for it. Nonsense. Just complete nonsense.

Rk is starting to sound like Gannet. There I said it......."she needs to sign this vow to have my baby" is what it sounds like.....I like you as a person RK but your trite and benign arguements are just too frustrating to try to speak to anymore. It's "Man's Choice" to also back down when he knows he's way off-base and needs to reconsider all the possible ramifications for such a decision. I hope you make the right one.

Actually, it (abortion, not killing children, that's something else all together) seems like something most of us have put a lot of thought into - doesn't mean we all come to the same conclusions though.
Personally, I find unwanted and neglected children, the adults they become, and the cycles they perpetuate, much more disturbing and harmful to society than aborting fetuses. But thankfully my opinion doesn't mean squat unless I'm the woman actually considering an abortion.

Wolf is a woman?

Tit for tat!
Easy. Make a repressive, anti-choice law and try to make it look like a man-rights law.

*applauds* well said.

Datz wut doze han-gunz iz fo.

Man: "have an abortion and I'll shoot you"

Woman: "If I can't have an abortion, I'll shoot myself. Then you can have whatever you find in my uterus"

Oh really. Tell me, what attitude is that?

Somehow, I sense that you're not referring to my attitude toward personal freedoms.

From here:

It says people think their fleeting pleasures and momentary desires are more important than what they produce from them and the harm it does to the children they produce and those they produce them with. Memememememememe.
All the rest of the ad-homonym bullshit being spewed here is beneath me.
If you know you could get pregnant from vaginal sex you know you must own the child with the person you did it with.
In a perfect world with unselfish, reaonable, responsible people the law should never get involved.

No one gets pregnant on accident.
So many who get pregnant on the pill who say they did not know that anti-biotics or ____ neutralized them, or that condoms are not 100% effective, are so full of shit. If you know it could happen, you own it or don't do it at all.

Reporter: What happened?
Officer: Well, seems he fell off of that building, thirty stories.
Reporter: So they committed suicide?
Officer: Nope. They had not memorized gravitational theory or even the equation even though someone handed them a slip of paper with it on it once a month... so we are calling it an accident. No real reason to think they would expect to fall right?

If you know that gravity exists, then it is impossible to accidentally fall off?

What?

Yea.... like I said. The spin is clever but quite nauseating.

If you know contraceptives are not foolproof it is impossible to accidentally get pregnant.

I guess you could sit in some sperm at a nudist colony...

By that logic no woman should ever seek an abortion. Are you then a pro-lifer rk?

Lol!!!:rotflol:

I know that made me chuckle as well.

If you know you can slip, it is impossible to accidentally fall off a roof?

Well you knew the risks I've no sympathy.

Jeb...not really sure how that helps the discussion...


By rk's logic, any woman who doesn't want to give birth to a baby should live a celibate life. Wow. Just wow. I am staggered that anyone can hold that opinion in this day and age. And a professed liberal at that.

Personally yes, politically no.
I did not say that, there is calculated risk involved... but, with accepting that risk one accepts the responsibility that goes with it.
Choose the risk, choose the outcome if it is not what you want.

Laws are political not personal.

You did not specify the nature of your question.
When did I profess to be liberal?

Sluts!! Sluts all sluts. Buncha whores. Don't you know sex for women is only for procreation?

Rk is turning into Gannet...I know it. I can see the metamorphesis right in front of my eyes.:yelsick:

My mistake, I thought you had professed libertarian leanings.

I wouldn't have thought I'd need to specify the nature of my question, given that you have spent much of this thread advocating a change in law. If you are simply expressing how you would feel if you were the father in question, then that's personal. You are advocating a change in law, that is a political opinion.

Why not politically?

Oh, there's no metamorphosis a-happenin' here. ;)

Hey- where'd you come from? (outta nowhere comes blue)