magicbastarder wrote: » so, again, it's a zero risk game for the guy, and all the heartache and fallout is borne by the woman.
if you don't want to run the risk of being a father and having to deal with the responsibilities that entails, you've a simple way of avoiding it.
lazygal wrote: » If my mother had aborted me I'd never know about it. I'd be disgusted if she only had me because her only option was to remain pregnant. Being pregnant is crap. You should only have to continue it if you want to, regardless of the circumstances of conception.
Ignorant etc. wrote: » Why? Because I don't agree with you? That makes me scum I suppose. The problem with society today is that people bang on and on and on about their rights but never their responsibilities. Like it or not, there are potential responsibilities when it comes to sex. One is that the woman can get pregnant, the other is you can end up with an STD. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Pro-choice apologists bang on and on and on about pro-life supporters being bigots, but then firmly believe that pro-life supporters have no right to an opinion. You can skew the medical development of a baby any way you like, but for pro-life supporters we consider a baby to have been created at the point of conception. That said, there has to be reason. Whilst the UK is too extreme one way, Ireland is likewise too extreme the other way. Abortion should be absolutely allowed to protect the woman's health and in the case of rape. At other times, the woman, and the man, should be told to grow up and face their responsibilities.
Wibbs wrote: » Are you seriously suggesting that getting a woman pregnant is a "zero risk game" for a man? Yep it seems I was right, deliberately blinkered.
magicbastarder wrote: » the notion of being able to wash your hands of an issue you have helped create
endacl wrote: » And the Boardsie for 'most apt username of the day' goes to... :rolleyes:
kylith wrote: » Men can, and do, walk away from pregnancies they have helped create all the time.
Ignorant etc. wrote: » Hypothetically, would you have liked your mother to have had an abortion? H.Y.P.O.T.H.E.T.I.C.A.L.L.Y. OK so we completely negate the responsibilities of the two adults and we completely disregard the rights of the unborn child? During a pregnancy there is an unborn child who cannot speak for itself. It cannot protect itself. It cannot express its rights. Human instinct should be to protect it, not murder it. That's what pro-choice apologists are advocating, legalised murder. If we're going to go down the route of legalised murder of unborn children, why stop at birth?
magicbastarder wrote: » if you don't want to run the risk of being a father and having to deal with the responsibilities that entails, you've a simple way of avoiding it.
Wibbs wrote: » What's abortion, or adoption? Who has the choice there? Who has the least and the most choices between a man and a woman if an unwanted pregnancy occurs? Simple question.
GarIT wrote: » So answer this for me, your logic says that's it's ok to murder (as you call it) a baby as a solution to rape? I'm not saying it isn't just asking if that is your logic.
GarIT wrote: » Honestly your posts make it seem like you think it is necessary for women to have sex, that a man decides if a woman gets pregnant and that men only ever have sex to hurt women.
magicbastarder wrote: » simple answer, the woman, because she is the person in whom the pregnancy is actually proceeding. she has the choice because she's the one who's pregnant.
Wibbs wrote: » So a woman can "wash her hands of an issue she helped create"?
magicbastarder wrote: » and (some!) men claim they're the ones at a disadvantage.
Dolbert wrote: » There have been arguments for a 'legal abortion', i.e. the idea of the father signing all rights/responsibilities away if he doesn't want the child. He could never be pursued for maintenance etc. but could also never be in the child's life in any way. Actually forcing a pregnant woman to have an abortion against her will would be fúcking barbaric.
Rayanne2010 wrote: » IMHO ... NO to abortion for men.. he wrote his contract to be a father when he didn't use protection and in case of accidents.. no such thing.. you are either careful (in which more precautions can be put in place thereafter i.e. morning after pill etc.), very careful or just not bothered... in latter.. he has to suffer the consequences..
magicbastarder wrote: » again, the proposed solution made by some posters here is that when a couple conceive accidentally, the best solution appears to be allowing the man to walk away with no obligations, leaving the woman to deal with the hard choices. pregnancy is an unequal game, and no amount of foostering around with imaginary laws is going to change that.
Ficheall wrote: » By the same token, you are, presumably against abortion for women too?
shruikan2553 wrote: » Errr no, thats not what people said.
Dolbert wrote: » There have been arguments for a 'legal abortion', i.e. the idea of the father signing all rights/responsibilities away if he doesn't want the child. He could never be pursued for maintenance etc. but could also never be in the child's life in any way.
magicbastarder wrote: » with or regardless of the woman's agreement?
Wibbs wrote: » Regardless TBH. If the man has no say at all before birth(and fair enough), why should women have the right to veto the man's wishes afterwards?
Ignorant etc. wrote: » I really don't get why abortion needs to be an issue anyway, for the man or for the woman. If you want to have sex but don't wnat a child, just shove it up her arse sure.
magicbastarder wrote: » yes, i know someone who waived his rights when the mother of his kid got engaged; he reasoned that the kid would be better off if his mother's partner (who was going to end up with a greater role in the child's life) had legal custody.
The_Valeyard wrote: » what if the male is suicidal as he does not want a child or responsibility of caring for this child?
