'My body, my baby'

metrovelvet

SugarHigh wrote: »

They could just cut the baby in half.:pac:

Then there would be a fight who gets which half. :pac:

snickerpuss

I can see where the men are coming from but having just read the other 'women are less productive on their periods' thread, I'm feeling a bit hard done by.

If, as the poster in that thread suggests, women just need to suck it up that their careers and pay will be worse because, through an accident of biology, they have to have the kids, I can see women being tempted to point out to men that their lack of a say in this scenario is too bad but is also an outcome of that accident of biology. I hope that makes some kind of sense. Probably doesn't, I'm sleep deprived. :P

Just hate all the ragging on women simply because they're stuck having the things. I'd love if my partner could instead, no chance of any horrific tears! (read: rips, not crying)

py2006

snickerpuss wrote: »

Just hate all the ragging on women simply because they're stuck having the things. I'd love if my partner could instead, no chance of any horrific tears! (read: rips, not crying)

Poor women! :rolleyes:

Womens issues are talked about and highlighted in society. Mens issues rarely are and are often laughed at and dismissed.

Not sure why I went off on that one!

py2006

K-9 wrote: »

Not something that I've personal experience in but a married father is an automatic guardian of the child so he'd have to agree to give up those rights, which he'd be doing if he agreed to adoption. If he disagrees I don't know what would happen. Haven't heard of any cases like that. Suppose the mother could walk away and leave him to it, which does happen.

It would be interesting if the woman did decide to just walk away would you be forced to pay financially to support the father raising the child. Doubt it.

JamJamJamJam

snickerpuss wrote: »

[...] Just hate all the ragging on women simply because they're stuck having the things. I'd love if my partner could instead, no chance of any horrific tears! (read: rips, not crying)

:eek: Horrific rips would be pretty much definite! It'd be like pushing a melon through a straw!! *shudders*

py2006 wrote: »

Womens issues are talked about and highlighted in society. Mens issues rarely are and are often laughed at and dismissed.

^This

Stheno

py2006 wrote: »

It would be interesting if the woman did decide to just walk away would you be forced to pay financially to support the father raising the child. Doubt it.

Yep regardless of gender the non custodial parent can be taken to court and ordered to pay maintenance.

snickerpuss

py2006 wrote: »

Poor women! :rolleyes:

Womens issues are talked about and highlighted in society. Mens issues rarely are and are often laughed at and dismissed.

Not sure why I went off on that one!

Well, I did say that I could see where men are coming from on this. If you feel that men's issues aren't talked about then look for ways to start a conversation?
I certainly don't know any women who would laugh about or dismiss such issues, why would they?

Bottle_of_Smoke

snickerpuss wrote: »

I can see where the men are coming from but having just read the other 'women are less productive on their periods' thread, I'm feeling a bit hard done by.

If, as the poster in that thread suggests, women just need to suck it up that their careers and pay will be worse because, through an accident of biology, they have to have the kids, I can see women being tempted to point out to men that their lack of a say in this scenario is too bad but is also an outcome of that accident of biology. I hope that makes some kind of sense. Probably doesn't, I'm sleep deprived. :P

Just hate all the ragging on women simply because they're stuck having the things. I'd love if my partner could instead, no chance of any horrific tears! (read: rips, not crying)

Ah don't feel disheartened I think most posters are looking at it objectively. Don't feel like you have to defend your gender. Everyone should be able to post freely as an individual without prejudice

py2006

snickerpuss wrote: »

I certainly don't know any women who would laugh about or dismiss such issues, why would they?

Actually yes, from experience some do. Not related to this topic though. Its a topic I may start on another thread.

Monty Burnz

snickerpuss wrote: »

I certainly don't know any women who would laugh about or dismiss such issues, why would they?

Double standards? They work both ways.

K-9

py2006 wrote: »

It would be interesting if the woman did decide to just walk away would you be forced to pay financially to support the father raising the child. Doubt it.

Yeah, as Stheno said. The obligation to maintain a child is there legally, it is up to the mother or in that case the father to apply to court to enforce it.

There was a report a year or 2 ago in one of the papers and a thread on After Hours about it suggesting that woman are less likely to pay it.

HellFireClub

py2006 wrote: »

"My body, my baby and NO MAN will have a say in that".

All you can do as a guy, to try to protect yourself from this very prevalent feminist attitude that is now out there in relation to the attitudes of women, is to do your best to establish at the earliest stage possible, if this attitude is in place with regard to a potential partner.

If it is, then in fairness you have nobody to blame but yourself if you end up in a relationship or a pregnancy situation with such a person and get hurt or whatever, especially if this attitude emerges with someone that you find yourself in a long term relationship with.

Feeona

metrovelvet wrote: »

Im looking at the part you have in bold. Her PARTNER's. How much consideration would you give to a fling or someone who doesnt care about you? If you were not in a partnership how much consideration would you give to them?

I would give the same consideration to both. The gravity of the situation begs it. Yeah a fling is supposed to be a bit of harmless fun, nothing too serious. When a child enters the equation though, serious discussions have to take place. Also that fling is no longer a fling-he's the father of the child you're carrying. Whether or not we wanted the situation, it's the reality and it has to be dealt with in an adult manner for the sake of everyone involved.

py2006

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah, as Stheno said. The obligation to maintain a child is there legally, it is up to the mother or in that case the father to apply to court to enforce it.

There was a report a year or 2 ago in one of the papers and a thread on After Hours about it suggesting that woman are less likely to pay it.

I presume you mean less likely to want to? as by law they have to?

metrovelvet

Feeona wrote: »

I would give the same consideration to both. The gravity of the situation begs it. Yeah a fling is supposed to be a bit of harmless fun, nothing too serious. When a child enters the equation though, serious discussions have to take place. Also that fling is no longer a fling-he's the father of the child you're carrying. Whether or not we wanted the situation, it's the reality and it has to be dealt with in an adult manner for the sake of everyone involved.

Hmnn. It would seem so. Yes what you say makes sense. But very often the man in question will make his choice dependant upon his relationship with the mother, whether its a fling, one night stand, long termer, or whether or not he loves her.

Feeona

metrovelvet wrote: »

Hmnn. It would seem so. Yes what you say makes sense. But very often the man in question will make his choice dependant upon his relationship with the mother, whether its a fling, one night stand, long termer, or whether or not he loves her.

Them's the chances one has to take unfortunately . It would be a kick in the teeth to be ignored/dismissed because he just doesn't want to know. And a lot of pressure rearing a child single handedly, not to mention the changes in one's life.

But some people are just dicks and really don't deserve too much thought after the initial rage!

HellFireClub

Feeona wrote: »

Them's the chances one has to take unfortunately .

It's one that I wouldn't take, I couldn't be bothered with the hassle of flings or random encounters for this reason and I've always been this way. Life's just too short to be stuck in a parenting situation for life with a woman who I might not even get on with or have absolutely nothing in common with, who I could be stuck with a parenting relationship with all because of one drunken fling, for the rest of my life. I don't think anything scares the utter bejesus out of me as much as that thought to be honest...

I know one or two folks who are in that kind of a situation and have barely fuctioning if not downright dysfunctional relationships with the mother of their child and I can't imagine anything more depressing for any guy than to be trapped in something like this...

Feeona

HellFireClub wrote: »

I know one or two folks who are in that kind of a situation and have barely fuctioning if not downright dysfunctional relationships with the mother of their child and I can't imagine anything more depressing for any guy than to be trapped in something like this...

Or any woman

donfers

whatever the rights and wrongs about how much weight the decisions of the woman and man should have - anybody who uses the clump of cells/foetus/unborn child/insert your emotive term of choice/ as a kind of political football to enforce their radical gender views upon their partner should try to find more empathetic motives beyond that narrow context

HellFireClub

donfers wrote: »

whatever the rights and wrongs about how much weight the decisions of the woman and man should have - anybody who uses the clump of cells/foetus/unborn child/insert your emotive term of choice/ as a kind of political football to enforce their radical gender views upon their partner should try to find more empathetic motives beyond that narrow context

Such as?

K-9

py2006 wrote: »

I presume you mean less likely to want to? as by law they have to?

But unless the parent with the main care actually goes to court looking for the order, it doesn't really apply. The main carer has to actually seek it practically, hence loads of single Dads and indeed mothers who don't pay any.

Social Welfare are trying to tighten up on this and this is where the issue lies.

HellFireClub

K-9 wrote: »

But unless the parent with the main care actually goes to court looking for the order, it doesn't really apply. The main carer has to actually seek it practically, hence loads of single Dads and indeed mothers who don't pay any.

Social Welfare are trying to tighten up on this and this is where the issue lies.

I think the real tragedy is the fact that people in 2011 still can't take responsibility for their own actions, can't even use or agree on the use of contraception, people getting into the sack together and being too drunk to know whether they are even using contraception or not.

I'm no prude and I'm well capable of drinking my ass off as much as any person but there is a line there that I wouldn't cross and I don't know how people take such risks with their health and they future, if they end up with an STD or in a parenting situation in 9 months time with some person who they hardly know and then find out that they cannot get on with.

I know from talking to some guys who became fathers at a very young age, that guys often believe when a girl gets pregnant, that she intended to get pregnant because one of her friends has a baby and the green eyed monster has come out, I don't know how frequent this is but the thoughts of getting caught out like this would make me shudder...

metrovelvet

^ I hate to say it but you are dead right.

Moral of the story: don't have sex with someone you dont want to have kids with. There are no guarantees in life.

HellFireClub

metrovelvet wrote: »

^ I hate to say it but you are dead right.

Moral of the story: don't have sex with someone you dont want to have kids with. There are no guarantees in life.

I know it sounds prudish or old fashioned or downright odd coming from a guy, but it's just not a risk I'd be prepared to take these days. I've seen too many folks I know who got caught out, and both ways I might add, women who are left holding a baby where the guy doesn't want to know, and guys who got a girl pregnant and are now extremely reluctant fathers.

Sparky_Larks

This is an interesting dilemma.

I first thought that , if a man chooses to have sex without protection( Or even with protection that may fail) then he is responsible for the consequences.

But then if a woman has sex without protection then must she not too be responsible for the consequences.

I think the fairest solution is to allow men to sign up to a plan where they either commit to take care of any children they have, or sign up that they will not.

then tatoo whatever they have signed up for , and allow women choose who to sleep with.

Similarly women could have a tatoo, telling men if they expect support if a child is a result of sex. It could possibly on the small of the womans back

LeeHoffmann

compulsory tattoos...that's a novel solution! :pac:

py2006

Sparky_Larks wrote: »

I think the fairest solution is to allow men to sign up to a plan where they either commit to take care of any children they have, or sign up that they will not.

then tatoo whatever they have signed up for , and allow women choose who to sleep with.

Similarly women could have a tatoo, telling men if they expect support if a child is a result of sex. It could possibly on the small of the womans back

Ah here! On what planet would that work?

HellFireClub

py2006 wrote: »

Ah here! On what planet would that work?

On planet Auschwitz... I think the way to keep this kind of shíte out of your life is to be careful who you lie down with and even if you are careful enough in that regard, be even more careful when it comes to contraception, etc.

Bloody Nipples

Sparky_Larks wrote: »

Similarly women could have a tatoo, telling men if they expect support if a child is a result of sex. It could possibly on the small of the womans back

I don't think women can get pregnant from that position :pac:

Napper Hawkins

Feeona wrote: »

Or any woman

So women who choose to have a baby can still consider themselves trapped once they've had it?

That's like volunteering to be imprisoned for 18 years and then giving out about it once you're locked up.